France, Germany Criticize Iraq Resolution

[lord of the mark]

Gerhard also seems to be getting kinda snarky himself about the issue of German troops for Iraq - seems he said something about the Greens acting as if they were in the opposition.

[DanS]

now why shouldn´t USA and GB carry all the risks and disadvantages alone?
if you want the help of others, pay for it, offer a serious compromise. that´s how it works.

Germany and France likely will not help with troops or money in any event.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ming
The next personal insult in this thread will earn somebody a restriction.

uh oh, im sorry i called Schroeder "snarky"

[oedo]

France and Germany are once again doing the same thing they always do; whinning about the problem they have no intention of fixing or helping to fix...

Germany and France likely will not help with troops or money in any event.

oh yeah. Afghanistan and Macedonia are other brilliant examples for this.
maybe you will find even more....

Do France, Russia and Germany claim that Iraq prior to the invasion was "undamaged"

hmm, I better should have said "crashed" instead of "damaged"
anyway, this is how the situation looks for me (in a very trivial description) : the USA and GB want to keep the full commmand and the full profit in Iraq (see Halliburton or Bechtel).
but when it comes to taking the risks they´re not willing to carry it all alone. that´s why they´re now looking for countries who are stupid enough to wipe their asses clean. may other soldiers die in future, may other nations pay the bills, it doesn´t matter as long as we keep the profit.
it´s legitimate to go to the UN and offer this for negotiation. but if you really expect any support, make clear that you´re also willing to give and not only to take.

feel free to correct me, if I´m wrong.

[Sava]

1441 did not specify war... that's why the Bush junta wanted another resolution before the invasion. I've read it, and that's why I understand it.

[Menlas]

Originally posted by oedo
anyway, this is how the situation looks for me (in a very trivial description) : the USA and GB want to keep the full commmand and the full profit in Iraq (see Halliburton or Bechtel).
but when it comes to taking the risks they´re not willing to carry it all alone. that´s why they´re now looking for countries who are stupid enough to wipe their asses clean. may other soldiers die in future, may other nations pay the bills, it doesn´t matter as long as we keep the profit.
it´s legitimate to go to the UN and offer this for negotiation. but if you really expect any support, make clear that you´re also willing to give and not only to take.

[Sava]

I agree with oedo's interpretation as well.

[chequita guevara]

I dno't see why the rest of the world should bail us out because we didn't know what the **** we were doing. They lied to the American people and the rest of the world, they refused to ackowledge that the majority of people in the US and abroad didn't want a war, but they did it anyway. They thought Iraq would roll over and sit up and beg and play dead on command. They thought that all they had to do was decapitate the government, and everything else would stay in place. They were wrong. And they didn't even have a plan in case they were wrong, even though both the intelligence community and the Pentagon told them they were wrong. The would rather listen to a bunch of biased exiles than what their experts were telling them. And they didn't even have an exit plan, despite mister "I would never send US troops in someplace without an exit plan" Bush.

This is our mess. We should acceppt some of that personal responsibility for our actions that conservatives are always talking about. Bush just wants to get American troops out and let others do the dying so he can try and get elected next year.

[Sava]

This is our mess. We should acceppt some of that personal responsibility for our actions that conservatives are always talking about. Bush just wants to get American troops out and let others do the dying so he can try and get elected next year.

I agree... but I don't want to see the Iraqi people suffer just to spite Bush...

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
IThe would rather listen to a bunch of biased exiles than what their experts were telling them.

Actually we didnt listen to the exiles. The exiles wanted to go in with their own forces quickly when the occupation began, and to use their own knowledge of Iraq to quickly vett and stand up police and militia forces. that was vetoed, apparently cause State and CIA didnt trust the exiles.

The admin may well have made serious mistakes, but going with the exiles was not one of them.

[chequita guevara]

The Iraqi people will suffer with or without us, and probably much worse without us. If we leave now, Iraq will be the new Afganistan and more people will hate of for destroying Iraq and slinking away.

I have to break with the anti-war movement on this issue. It's better for almost everyone in the long run if the US remains, or at least the UN. But I see no reason for the UN to get involved if they don't have any athority.

If Bush wants out, he should suck it up, grow smoe bals, and admit he was wrong and that we can't handle it and turn it over to the UN. Not this half-assed bull**** about the UN contributing money and troops but not having a say. We would never do such a thing, why should anyone else.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by MikeH
I've read it. Of course this is another war, harping back to previous resolutions is just cheap spin because they didn't have any evidence to create a new resolution.

Mike: I'd have to disagree with you on this one. The original cease fire did call for Iraq to dis arm and that it allow this disarming to be watched by the UN further only the UN gets to say when it is satisfied. Iraq didn't complete it's side of the deal so why should the cease fire still be in effect? Further it was the US, on behalf of the UN, which signed the cease fire but only if Iraq agreed to follow the stipulations. Effectively it really was a continuation of an authorized UN opporation.

[Defiant]

Ming,
I am going to insult someone but its RUSSIA, GERMANY AND FRANCE.
I don't want help from those pieces of sh!t. If we need more troops send the 75000 from Germany, or send the 75000 troops home and send 75000 troops to Iraq that may be better suited, I don't know if the troops in Germany are the kind we need in Iraq. Lets also get that Iraqi military and police going. Put them between our soldiers and the terrorists/baath loyalists.
Then lets take a certian percentage off the top of their oil to help pay for the cost of the war. There will be no immediate returns, but within a year I see some monetary support coming back. We still need patience.

[Sava]

All things being equal, I'd rather have more UN involvement, even if it is in the form of troops under our control. This would allow for less American deaths, and less American faces to blame for things in Iraq.

Ideally, I'd like to see a UN force and authority come in and take control of all of Iraq's rebuilding duties, with the US simply remaining on the offensive in search of Saddam and terrorists.

[lord of the mark]

cmon guys - this is horsetrading

why will they help us

1. cause an Iraq in chaos is more dangerous to them than a US success in the mideast
2. Cause by getting the US to give up some control, they reduce the odds of a big US success, thus change the tradeoff in 1
3. Cause they want to get cut in on contracts (see Haliburton Bechtel Fina Lukeoil Siemens etc)

The US wants them in cause while we can handle the current situation, and hope in the long run to get Iraqis to take care of their own situation, we have a gap running from this winter for another year or so where the Iraqis arent ready yet and we need to rotate troops out. (BTW dont expect too many of the new troops to die - reports are that US commanders want them for demining, and peacekeeping in quiet areas - US troops will continue to do the offensive operations)

To get that we will have to give up some control - the devil is in the details - how much control can we give up, and still keep to our strategic goals, and how much will the others need to support the res.


Interestingly Russia and China are making more positive noises than France and Germany. Let the horsetrading begin.