thank you france, germany, russia, china, etc

[Spiffor]

Sandman :
Don't forget the British companies. They are obviously evil and inexperienced in matters of oil

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Sandman
Yeah, probably. I've yet to hear a convincing argument for awarding the contracts to American firms only, the only one I've heard are that French, German and Russian companies are somehow an 'evil' presence that Iraq should be protected from.

Easy question, easy answer:

Did those three nations lift a finger to remove Saddam?

Nope.

No effort, no contracts.

So simple, isn't it?

[Arrian]

I don't have an issue with using companies from the countries that sent troops and/or are going to foot the bill (US, UK, Australia, Poland... hmm, I'm sure there were more. What was it again, Micronesia?).

The part that worries me is that it doesn't seem like there is proper competition for the contracts. But as for excluding French, German, etc. businesses, I don't really care.

-Arrian

[Chris 62]

The Bushies were too quick to try and pull out Arrian, they haven't given proper consideration on how to rebuild Iraq, they are too worried about Image.

[Arrian]

...they haven't given proper consideration on how to rebuild Iraq...

Yep, which was always my #1 worry. Blah.

-Arrian

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Oerdin :

Like many Americans, you have a deep misconception over Chiracs tactics during the diplomatic crisis. Chirac didn't stir the French anti-Americanism, but rather the pacifism. Sure, the opposition to the Iraqi war would have been much less wide if there wasn't a small-scale antiamericanism already present in the French society. But Chirac's popularity was coming from the fact that he seemed on the highest moral groud (defending the peace threatened by greedy Bush was quite a moral high ground in the eye of the public opinion).

Of course Chirac was after political gain, and most of his barking came from the attempt to create the first new pole of the multipolar world. But he didn't use antiamericanism to achieve it, even though antiamericanism was an asset in having the population more eager to follow him.
As a matter of fact, the Anti-Frenchism in the US has raised much, much more than antiamericanism in France. The raise of Antiamericanism here was about unsignificant.

Don't get me wrong. I don't think Chirac was doing anything in the issue for moral reasons. The idea of Chirac taking risks to "save the peace" is about as stupid and naive as the idea of Bush taking risks to "save the Iraqi people". Both leaders acted out of political interests.

Spiffor, you raise some questions for me here.

1.) Did the French people view this as a "crisis" ?
2.) Was Chirac's position Pacifism? I thought that he said he would support military action at "the correct time" ?
3.) If Anti-Americanism was small scale before the war, then what was the general feeling toward the US then?
4.) How do the French people think Chirac's policy of multi-polarism worked?
5.) Is the new consensus on the UNSC seen as a defeat of Chirac by the French people?

[Ned]

The UNSC put the US and the UK in control of Iraq? Then I assume that Poland reports into the US/UK joint command. They have South-Central Iraq for their area of control. It appears that this actually will be a NATO operation lead by Poland.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/05/21/sprj.nitop.nato.reut/index.html

Also, note that NATO is taking over in Afghanistan in August.

This all represents a dramatic expansion of NATO's role outside Europe. It also demonstrates that Poland's star is really beginning to shine.

If this deserves its own thread, feel free to start one.

[Defiant]

Ned,
I thought I read in the WSJ that Poland has Northern Iraq, US central Iraq and the Brits have southern Iraq. The article went on to say that Germany was p***ed off because Poland asked Germany if they wanted to assist Poland in the Administrative role in Northern Iraq, Gemany thought it was beneath them to assist Poland, too bad.

[Whaleboy]

Is it good that NATO is taking over in Afghanistan? I dont know much about NATO in this context so educate me people!!

"1.) Did the French people view this as a "crisis" ?"

I presume so, we certainly did in Britain, especially when most of us were against the war. Now our numbers have suffered from collective pragmatism, and have been reduced to hardcore believers in peace , and intellectual opponents of war, rather than popular opponents. We viewed it as a crisis because there was an impending war, that the British government *said* that they didnt want. They obviously did though.


2.) Was Chirac's position Pacifism? I thought that he said he would support military action at "the correct time" ?

Probably a mix of pacifism and political convenience, if I were to be realistic. As a pacifist, I would support military action at the correct time, which would be if a nation was directly coming under attack, like Gulf War I.

3.) If Anti-Americanism was small scale before the war, then what was the general feeling toward the US then?

In Britain, US was and is viewed (certainly where I live) as a bit of a joke. Even those I talk to who support the war use America as the butt of their jokes. Critisisms of patriotism, the economy, the corruption, the attitudes, and especially the south are not exactly rare here. I dont like it, I try to stick to reason not xenophobia, but I understand why.


4.) How do the French people think Chirac's policy of multi-polarism worked?

This is what you get for answering other peoples questions Hope Spiffor doesnt mind!

5.) Is the new consensus on the UNSC seen as a defeat of Chirac by the French people?

Its not seen as a defeat by those I have spoken to today (most of whom were pro-war). They separate the issues of the war with the issues of reconstruction. I personally think it is a mistake to lift the sanctions now, because the US is now free to sell Saddams glut of stockpiled oil to lower global oil prices and negotiate contracts at that cheaper price, without the eyes of the UN watching them (and reporting them), but that is my view.

Sorry for answering Spiffors questions, thought it would be interesting comparing different european nations view on this.

[Ned]

The CNN article clear states that Poland will secure a central region north of Basra. (I don't know how they are going to do it, though, with only 7000 troops.)

As to Germany, I had heard that it was the US and the UK that had vetoed the idea of German participation in Iraq even as part of a NATO force.

For some reason, I also do not believe French troops will be asked to participate.

[PLATO]

No problem elijah. Obviously the British point of view on the answers is of interest as well.

Spiffor, still awake over there???

[chequita guevara]

Despite what some may think, the Bush Adminstration needed this resolution. To fail to get a stamp of "legality" from the UN for the occupation of Iraq would have left US corporations vulnerable to lawsuits and fines.

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by Arrian
I don't have an issue with using companies from the countries that sent troops and/or are going to foot the bill (US, UK, Australia, Poland... hmm, I'm sure there were more. What was it again, Micronesia?).

The part that worries me is that it doesn't seem like there is proper competition for the contracts. But as for excluding French, German, etc. businesses, I don't really care.

-Arrian

UK POV - we're a bit pi**ed off about the constitutional reasons why no UK contracts - but on the other hand it saves us paying for them too.

It keeps things simple - we don't have to worry about attacks on UK companies that are rebuilding Iraq. So it's not a big issue.

On the other hand, there is are a lot of people who want to see more humanitarian and infrastructure aid. The UN vote closes a lot of the uncertainty for the aid agencies, so in general this vote is seen as a crucial first step.

As for Bush asking European states to be as generous as the US - he's whistling in the wind (nothing new there).

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Agathon


Like Nicaraguans, Guatemalans, Salvadorians, Indonesians, East Timorese, etc.

And don't give me the World War II crap. You turned up late, when it suited you, and after the Germans had begun to take the worst of it. Then you helped out the Europeans and Japanese to suit your own purposes.

Hardly a record of selfless charity is it?

We turned up late because we were still under the Monroe doctrine, which stated that under no circumstances would we interfere with the internal affairs of Europe. In fact, we wouldn't have joined in the war on Germany if it hadn't declared war on us. That had been US foreign policy for almost our entire existence.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Agathon.

I apparently understand far, far more about realpolitic, international relations, and human nature then you do. You still can't understand why your vaunted communist theory violates human nature and your views of international relations are based up blind rage and bigotry.

My "vaunted communist theory"?

I don't remember "vaunting" this anywhere.