The W
Views: 97706184
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
26.7.07 1218
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Can We Go After France Next? Register and log in to post!
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 Next(1716 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (83 total)
spf
Scrapple
Level: 132

Posts: 1758/5401
EXP: 26884738
For next: 247266

Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 15 days
Last activity: 2 days
AIM:  
#1 Posted on 25.3.03 1641.13
Reposted on: 25.3.10 1641.58
I have stated many times in this forum that I disagree with this war. My reasons have been numerous and stated elsewhere. However it is happening and our troops and resources are being put forward to do so. So with this in mind let me just say that this disgusts me France Seeks Big Role In Post-War Iraq (story.news.yahoo.com)

When I see a story like this the more I wonder if the people who say the entire French resistance to this was based on jealousy and a recognition of their own faded glory weren't onto something. I don't much like Bush right now, but if he lets France get their hands on the rebuilding of this country after the war ends I will be unable to speak his name without swearing heavily. Iraq must be built so the beneficiaries are the Iraqis. If someone has to help with that effort though, it best be the people who went in in the first place.
Promote this thread!
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong
Level: 81

Posts: 1114/1759
EXP: 4880620
For next: 112250

Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1226 days
Last activity: 26 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#2 Posted on 25.3.03 1700.05
Reposted on: 25.3.10 1706.59
Totally agree. Bush needs to tell France to back the fuck off.

I get the impression that France will be totally shut down here. I think Bush is going to go back to the UN and offer them involvement in the rebuilding- but on OUR terms. France has already said that it will veto any resolution putting the United States in any kind of prominant role in the rebuilding of Iraq- that, to EVERYONE (for and against the war in this country) would be completely unacceptable. Our soldiers died for this... why should FRANCE be in charge?

Bush will just walk away (maybe for good) if the UN does not keep France in line. We can all hope. But I think our government will be too "puffed" up with the pride of a strong military victory to allow the Surrender Monkeys to push us around....
Eddie Famous
Andouille
Level: 90

Posts: 524/2182
EXP: 6920092
For next: 268544

Since: 11.12.01
From: Catlin IL

Since last post: 245 days
Last activity: 239 days
#3 Posted on 25.3.03 1821.30
Reposted on: 25.3.10 1825.09
But, the French have a great record in helping set up new governments....just look at their former colonies! Vietnam, Haiti, three-quarters of Africa....
Nate The Snake
Liverwurst
Level: 67

Posts: 341/1136
EXP: 2591403
For next: 1483

Since: 9.1.02
From: Wichita, Ks

Since last post: 3659 days
Last activity: 3129 days
AIM:  
#4 Posted on 25.3.03 1939.10
Reposted on: 25.3.10 1941.54

    Originally posted by spf2119
    When I see a story like this the more I wonder if the people who say the entire French resistance to this was based on jealousy and a recognition of their own faded glory weren't onto something. I don't much like Bush right now, but if he lets France get their hands on the rebuilding of this country after the war ends I will be unable to speak his name without swearing heavily. Iraq must be built so the beneficiaries are the Iraqis. If someone has to help with that effort though, it best be the people who went in in the first place.


That's the thing, though. If we rebuild Iraq ourselves... the beneficiaries won't be the Iraqis. It'll be a lot of the current administration's cronies. Halliburton, just as an example, made a shitload of money off of the last Gulf War and they stand to make just as much, if not more, this time around. Then there's all of Dubya's oil company buddies.

I'd rather have a country, or an organization, who wasn't interested in this ridiculous war working to rebuild. I simply don't trust us to do it right.
rockdotcom_2.0
Frankfurter
Level: 57

Posts: 390/763
EXP: 1426519
For next: 59418

Since: 9.1.02
From: Virginia Beach Va

Since last post: 492 days
Last activity: 108 days
AIM:  
#5 Posted on 25.3.03 1946.56
Reposted on: 25.3.10 1953.34
I think this is just the French trying to back track. If the US and British find those chemical weapons ( which is looking more likely) the french are going to look dumb. Also I think he sees how the Brits are getting behind Tony Blair. AND it looks some French companies may have been selling Iraqis some weapon systems, so they have to cover their asses. I dont think Bush will shut the France totally out of the post war Iraq. It would be nice to have their troops there, but IM sure that Bush, Rumsfield, and Powell are going to make the French eat a little shit.
PalpatineW
Lap cheong
Level: 77

Posts: 578/1528
EXP: 4045621
For next: 145527

Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2741 days
Last activity: 2584 days
AIM:  
#6 Posted on 25.3.03 2006.54
Reposted on: 25.3.10 2007.57

    Originally posted by Nate The Snake

      Originally posted by spf2119
      When I see a story like this the more I wonder if the people who say the entire French resistance to this was based on jealousy and a recognition of their own faded glory weren't onto something. I don't much like Bush right now, but if he lets France get their hands on the rebuilding of this country after the war ends I will be unable to speak his name without swearing heavily. Iraq must be built so the beneficiaries are the Iraqis. If someone has to help with that effort though, it best be the people who went in in the first place.


    That's the thing, though. If we rebuild Iraq ourselves... the beneficiaries won't be the Iraqis. It'll be a lot of the current administration's cronies. Halliburton, just as an example, made a shitload of money off of the last Gulf War and they stand to make just as much, if not more, this time around. Then there's all of Dubya's oil company buddies.

    I'd rather have a country, or an organization, who wasn't interested in this ridiculous war working to rebuild. I simply don't trust us to do it right.



But you trust the French? Everyone seems pretty ready to claim the Bush is only doing this for the oil, but what do you think the French want with Iraq? Their lucrative oil contracts with Hussein are a matter of public record. Whatever the US may have done to prop up Hussein's regime, the French have done worse, and for far longer.
Nate The Snake
Liverwurst
Level: 67

Posts: 342/1136
EXP: 2591403
For next: 1483

Since: 9.1.02
From: Wichita, Ks

Since last post: 3659 days
Last activity: 3129 days
AIM:  
#7 Posted on 25.3.03 2037.20
Reposted on: 25.3.10 2045.00

    Originally posted by PalpatineW
    But you trust the French? Everyone seems pretty ready to claim the Bush is only doing this for the oil, but what do you think the French want with Iraq? Their lucrative oil contracts with Hussein are a matter of public record. Whatever the US may have done to prop up Hussein's regime, the French have done worse, and for far longer.


That's debatable. We've given him shitloads of assistance, including the very chemical/biological weapons we're justifying this little scrap with. I'd trust the French just as much as I'd trust us, which is why I said I'd rather have someone who wasn't interested in the war do the rebuilding.

As far as Bush "only doing this for the oil", well, I think that's a bit shortsighted. Sure, there's oil. But there's also glory, revenge, good publicity because nobody doesn't like an easy win... and, of course, piles and piles of money for certain companies that're connected with the winners.
Eddie Famous
Andouille
Level: 90

Posts: 526/2182
EXP: 6920092
For next: 268544

Since: 11.12.01
From: Catlin IL

Since last post: 245 days
Last activity: 239 days
#8 Posted on 25.3.03 2113.43
Reposted on: 25.3.10 2115.11
What I find really funny about the whole "should-should'nt" debate is how many people who were pro-Serbian intercedence are against doing the same in Iraq.

The biggest difference to them is, the Serbians were European and white, and therefore deserve better. The Iraqis are interchangeable ragamuffin non-whites, therefore they must be used to being treated like animals.

A sad bit of racism disguised as a peace movement.
fuelinjected
Banger
Level: 97

Posts: 912/2679
EXP: 9098536
For next: 218822

Since: 12.10.02
From: Canada

Since last post: 3173 days
Last activity: 3173 days
#9 Posted on 25.3.03 2117.29
Reposted on: 25.3.10 2129.01
It doesn't make one bit of difference where they got the weapons because they had to disarm. Just because a past President arguably made the mistake of siding with Iraq some 15-20 years ago, doesn't mean that the current President should have to pay for that mistake.

I'd like to see where there's ever been any proof that the US supplied chemical weapons to Iraq in the 80's.
MoeGates
Andouille
Level: 88

Posts: 1171/2093
EXP: 6482758
For next: 167932

Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 17 hours
#10 Posted on 25.3.03 2303.07
Reposted on: 25.3.10 2304.35
The biggest difference to them is, the Serbians were European and white, and therefore deserve better. The Iraqis are interchangeable ragamuffin non-whites, therefore they must be used to being treated like animals.

A sad bit of racism disguised as a peace movement.


When I see the average Iraqi on TV (or in my neighborhood for that matter), he or she tends to be about the same skin color as your average Serb, give or take a tanning session or two. While I understand the double standard, I don't see what being "white" or not has to do with it.

Chico Santana
Boudin rouge
Level: 47

Posts: 156/509
EXP: 762297
For next: 3912

Since: 2.7.02
From: Jaaaaamacia Mon, No Problem.

Since last post: 3965 days
Last activity: 3963 days
#11 Posted on 25.3.03 2327.38
Reposted on: 25.3.10 2327.51
I think Turkey should be a part of it because they got fucked by the last Gulf War with all the Kurdish people that came to Turkey from Iraq. So much that they couldn't aid them with enough food,water, and medication(I think 15,000 died?). The UN fucked the people of Iraq over and screwed over Turkey as well.

And all the people who harp on Reagan and Bush, need to remember that Carter was the one who started dealings with Iraq. I hate how people care about right-wing or left-wing, more than right and wrong.
Nate The Snake
Liverwurst
Level: 67

Posts: 343/1136
EXP: 2591403
For next: 1483

Since: 9.1.02
From: Wichita, Ks

Since last post: 3659 days
Last activity: 3129 days
AIM:  
#12 Posted on 26.3.03 0209.38
Reposted on: 26.3.10 0210.03
    Originally posted by fuelinjected
    It doesn't make one bit of difference where they got the weapons because they had to disarm. Just because a past President arguably made the mistake of siding with Iraq some 15-20 years ago, doesn't mean that the current President should have to pay for that mistake.

    I'd like to see where there's ever been any proof that the US supplied chemical weapons to Iraq in the 80's.



Do declassified government documents count as proof?

And here's an article from the New York Times detailing some of the material that we authorized them that'd be lovely for atomic weapons...

And here's another article about the various interesting things we sold them, almost all in the mid-to late eighties and early nineties...

More interesting reading here...

Here...

And here.

We were selling chem/bio shit to these guys right up until Bush started the first Gulf War, even after the Kurds were gassed in '88. Donald Rumsfeld was the envoy to that region right when we were providing aid to them in their war against Iran. I'm sure you've seen the now-infamous picture of him smiling and shaking Saddam's hand.

Oh, and speaking of the Carter administration... they labeled Iraq as a terrorist state in '79. Guess who reversed that and made buddy-buddy with them afterward?

Of course, we're the country that helped train Osama Bin Laden. I'm sure our soldiers are honored to be cleaning up the government's shit with their blood.

(edited by Nate The Snake on 26.3.03 0210)

(edited by Nate The Snake on 26.3.03 0214)
Crip
Mettwurst
Level: 29

Posts: 32/172
EXP: 145580
For next: 2306

Since: 1.3.03

Since last post: 3805 days
Last activity: 2580 days
#13 Posted on 26.3.03 0352.03
Reposted on: 26.3.10 0352.52
Just my opinion, but I feel the administration of Iraq post war should be conducted via the UN, with UN representative administering Iraq.

For me it is important that it is done through the UN to ensure the EU and various other financial institutions can be persuaded to give the varios forms of aid to rebuild Iraq. I'm totally against seeing the US, French or any other nation taking the lead role. From what I've seen it appears though the US has decided IT will lead the reconstruction by already handing out billion dollor contracts to US companies only. I would be willing to bet a high proportion, if not all of these companies have ties to the current US administration. That has to be of some concern.

A British company, P&O bidded for one of the contracts and was completely overlooked. At the moment it appears to be a US only project.
Scott Summets
Sujuk
Level: 64

Posts: 682/1008
EXP: 2125786
For next: 88323

Since: 27.6.02

Since last post: 3816 days
Last activity: 3785 days
#14 Posted on 26.3.03 0533.09
Reposted on: 26.3.10 0535.16

    Originally posted by Crip
    Just my opinion, but I feel the administration of Iraq post war should be conducted via the UN, with UN representative administering Iraq.

    For me it is important that it is done through the UN to ensure the EU and various other financial institutions can be persuaded to give the varios forms of aid to rebuild Iraq. I'm totally against seeing the US, French or any other nation taking the lead role. From what I've seen it appears though the US has decided IT will lead the reconstruction by already handing out billion dollor contracts to US companies only. I would be willing to bet a high proportion, if not all of these companies have ties to the current US administration. That has to be of some concern.

    A British company, P&O bidded for one of the contracts and was completely overlooked. At the moment it appears to be a US only project.



We're the ones putting our men and money on the line, after the war its a double edged sword, because I'd say its our responsbility/benefit to rebuild Iraq.
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 1152/4700
EXP: 21368879
For next: 467783

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1180 days
Last activity: 977 days
#15 Posted on 26.3.03 0605.37
Reposted on: 26.3.10 0606.31

    Originally posted by Crip
    Just my opinion, but I feel the administration of Iraq post war should be conducted via the UN, with UN representative administering Iraq.

The same UN that rolled over and punted on enforcing its own resolution? No thanks?


    Originally posted by Crip
    For me it is important that it is done through the UN to ensure the EU and various other financial institutions can be persuaded to give the varios forms of aid to rebuild Iraq.

France can go fuck themselves. We would be better served by making agreements with individual European nations that actually give a damn about the situation.


    Originally posted by Crip
    From what I've seen it appears though the US has decided IT will lead the reconstruction by already handing out billion dollor contracts to US companies only. I would be willing to bet a high proportion, if not all of these companies have ties to the current US administration.

Not unlinke any other administration, Republican or Democrat. The Carlisle Group, Bechtel, and Halliburton etc. always get these type of contracts because 1) they always have the resources to bid on enormous contracts and 2) they have connections on both sides of the aisle to make sure it happens.


    Originally posted by MoeGates
    While I understand the double standard, I don't see what being "white" or not has to do with it.

The UN chose to involve themselvs in Bosnia(relatively white, European), but not Serbia(muslim Albanians: The red-headed stepchild of the Balkans), Iraq(Arab Muslims and Kurds), Rwanada(tribal genocide), Zimbabwe(black government killing white landowners), Uganda, Cambodia(the Khmer Rouge), etc.
Crip
Mettwurst
Level: 29

Posts: 33/172
EXP: 145580
For next: 2306

Since: 1.3.03

Since last post: 3805 days
Last activity: 2580 days
#16 Posted on 26.3.03 0714.34
Reposted on: 26.3.10 0715.16


    We're the ones putting our men and money on the line, after the war its a double edged sword, because I'd say its our responsibility/benefit to rebuild Iraq.


I see the validity of your point and it is difficult to argue based on that, though my preference is to see the UN heavily involved or at least the appearance. But note, while the UK is also putting its men and money on the line as well, no contract has been awarded to even any British companies thus far, despite the fact that there have been bids in this respect. We have to also bear in mind, the US has benefited from Iraq in the past when Hussein served its interests.



    The same UN that rolled over and punted on enforcing its own resolution? No thanks?


UN is made up of member states, if the member states are not interested in dealing, then nothing happens. It is not the organisation at fault at the heart of the matter. The US has rendered the UN useless in terms of the Israel issue, below a list of resolution vetoed by the US when a majority existed in the UN;

http://www.crikey.com.au/whistleblower/2003/03/03/20030303unresolutions.html

http://www.minfo.gov.ps/cause/un/vet-list.htm




    France can go fuck themselves. We would be better served by making agreements with individual European nations that actually give a damn about the situation.


As I said before, going in via the UN and getting its approval helps convince EU and other financial institutions to provide money. Individual countries will not be able to generate the aid required. France can go fuck themselves because they opposed the US position? While I think their position was unreasonable, it is no different from positions the US has taken in the past when it suited their needs to see Hussein in charge.



    Not unlinke any other administration, Republican or Democrat. The Carlisle Group, Bechtel, and Halliburton etc. always get these type of contracts because 1) they always have the resources to bid on enormous contracts and 2) they have connections on both sides of the aisle to make sure it happens.


Probably true enough, I'm not well versed (if at all) in the domestic politics of the US.
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 1154/4700
EXP: 21368879
For next: 467783

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1180 days
Last activity: 977 days
#17 Posted on 26.3.03 0830.36
Reposted on: 26.3.10 0832.08

    Originally posted by Crip
    UN is made up of member states, if the member states are not interested in dealing, then nothing happens. It is not the organisation at fault at the heart of the matter.

So what makes you think that the member states should be interested after all of the heavy lifting has been done?


    Originally posted by Crip
    The US has rendered the UN useless in terms of the Israel issue, below a list of resolution vetoed by the US when a majority existed in the UN;


So, do you not support the right of Israel to exist?


    Originally posted by Crip
    As I said before, going in via the UN and getting its approval helps convince EU and other financial institutions to provide money. Individual countries will not be able to generate the aid required.

And still won't with or without UN approval. Financial institutions will line up because they know that Iraq's new infrastructure will be built with Iraqi oil money.

redsoxnation
Scrapple
Level: 152

Posts: 2141/7534
EXP: 43303941
For next: 997821

Since: 24.7.02

Since last post: 390 days
Last activity: 390 days
#18 Posted on 26.3.03 0834.20
Reposted on: 26.3.10 0839.31
First off, we already know one material the French have provided some Iraqi troops: White Flags. No military is better equipt with surrender flags than the French.
Now, onto the post-war effort. Of course the French are going to try weaseling in on it. Look at World War II. They lay down for the Germans, cooperate for 4 years until the Allies land in Europe, then get to have the same victor rights as the people who did not collaborate. If the Soviets/Americans/British after World War II had done the sensible thing and treated the French as a minor power, then they wouldn't have had a role in Germany and they would not have their seat as a permanent member of the UN Security Council. Also, it could be argued, Vietnam could have been avoided, as French hubris over their 'victory' in World War II would not have encouraged them to try to squelch independence in their colonies.
Crip
Mettwurst
Level: 29

Posts: 34/172
EXP: 145580
For next: 2306

Since: 1.3.03

Since last post: 3805 days
Last activity: 2580 days
#19 Posted on 26.3.03 1044.42
Reposted on: 26.3.10 1056.28


    So what makes you think that the member states should be interested after all of the heavy lifting has been done?


And what makes you think that they won't be interested? Everyone wants a piece of the pie, welcome to Capitalism.



    So, do you not support the right of Israel to exist?


Would you care to elaborate on that statement and HOW it even ties in with my previous post?



    And still won't with or without UN approval. Financial institutions will line up because they know that Iraq's new infrastructure will be built with Iraqi oil money.


Iraqi oil money will not be enough, sure it gives the country something to work with in the long term but it offers next to nothing in the short term in dealing with the fallout from the war.
MoeGates
Andouille
Level: 88

Posts: 1173/2093
EXP: 6482758
For next: 167932

Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 17 hours
#20 Posted on 26.3.03 1053.09
Reposted on: 26.3.10 1059.03
The UN chose to involve themselvs in Bosnia(relatively white, European), but not Serbia(muslim Albanians: The red-headed stepchild of the Balkans), Iraq(Arab Muslims and Kurds), Rwanada(tribal genocide), Zimbabwe(black government killing white landowners), Uganda, Cambodia(the Khmer Rouge), etc.


This is my point. Albanians are no less "white" than Serbs. They're Muslims, sure, but that has nothing to do with whether they're "white" or not. And why didn't the UN involve itself in, say, the hostilities between Azarbajian and Armenia, both "white" countries? Why was it involved in Somalia, not a "white" country?

Whether or not the UN get involved places has to do with geopolitics and other complicated stuff. It bugs me when people reduce this stuff to a simplistic view, no matter what it's based on.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 NextThread ahead: Village Voice of reason
Next thread: The end of war arguments?
Previous thread: RIP Edwin Starr, Author of "War (What is it good far?)")
(1716 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Can We Go After France Next?Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.194 seconds.