[fransje26]

> What Europe didn’t understand or didn’t want to understand was the US agenda differs from Europe agenda , always has.

France would disagree with the "didn't understand" part. They have been continuously ridiculed for holding that view, until very, very recently.

[tored]

Agree, France is somewhat of an exception.

I remember during the Chirac presidency how viciously France was attacked by the other European countries, especially my own Sweden, for doing nuclear weapons testing in the South Pacific.

Jump forward today and France is seen as a protector of Europe, especially in Sweden, because of its nuclear arsenal.

[fransje26]

> doing nuclear weapons testing in the South Pacific.

That was not the most glorious moment of Chirac's presidency, no..

However, as someone involved in numerical simulations, the argument that it was needed to calibrate their numerical models does hold (some..) water..

But Chirac did partly redeem himself by refusing to invade Iraq on bogus US claims of WMDs..

[elproxy]

In fairness, he did so in part because this was going to go against Total's interests (see Oil, Power and War for that part of the story), but yeah, it was still the right stance to have and history proved him right.

[fransje26]

As opposed to invading in order to support the interests of Halliburton? Tough choice..

Let's also not forget the absolutely absurd intervention of Colin Powell at the UN Security Council, holding up a vial containing the ultimate "proof" of WMD.

Good thing he didn't drop it.. /s