France, Germany Criticize Iraq Resolution

[GePap]

Originally posted by Defiant


Gepap, I still don't believe 90-120 billion as an incremental cost increase(those aircraft carriers would still be swimming), if we didn't go to war, what would have the true savings been and don't forget that the economy got a 3% boost from the war activity from defense spending.

That 3% boost will not remain, since most of the upcoming costs will sink in Iraq.

I have heard figures that to keep the forces in Iraq as they are costs about 2 billion A WEEK, or 8 billion a month approximately. that does not included things like airforce planes and Navy forces which are returning home (if they have not already done so). So, about 2 billion a week, 8 billion a month, 12*8 or 96 billion a year.. (which falls in line with the 90-120 billion a year estimate).

All of it coming straight out of the Treasury. Note as well that when the CBO estimated the nudget deficit to have hit 480 billion this year, it did not include ANY of the costs of the Iraq war.

[CorpusScorpius]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph

The acceptance has sunken to an all time low. I think it's time to pack. Send them to your new friends, the Poles. They will be honored. It will take a few decades till they become sick of them too.

Are The German Politicians pushing the exit of US Troops too? If so whats taking so long?

[chequita guevara]

Kick the US out of NATO!

[Harovan]

Nah. Dissolve the NATO at all.

CorpusScorpius: Those who are in power now, don't push.

[Chemical Ollie]

Technically speaking, I think UN troops would handle the occupation better than the Americans. The Yankie soldiers are trained to kick ass, and as long as they had to deal with regular troops in the battlefield, that worked fine. But the war is supposed to be over. Kicking ass is not a smart way to win the hearts of civilians.

On the other hand, the the arrogant Bush admin created this mess against the will of the World Community. Now they have to suit themselves and clean the crap up. That will be a good lesson for the next time.

[Verto]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie

On the other hand, the the arrogant Bush admin created this mess against the will of the World Community. Now they have to suit themselves and clean the crap up. That will be a good lesson for the next time.

Yes, instead of just going in alone so US troops can take the brunt of the attack and pay for most of the operation, we need to get the UN involved, so US troops can take the brunt of the attack, and pay for most of the operation.

This is just another case of "America is too powerful/strong/arrogant/fat, we'll show em this time! This demand for a UN resolution, and strong UN control is just a stalling tactic to give them more time to whine.

[Ecthy]

@ complete American misconception of Poland's role in Europe and especially the world

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ecthelion
@ complete American misconception of Poland's role in Europe and especially the world

We like them better at the moment. Hence they are more important.

[Ecthy]

yeah, but someone called them the future European leader... that's hilarious

all they ever do is steal cars and bikes and search our waste bins for stuff they can sell at the ukrainian border

[Joseph]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Only timed cease-fire's autmoatically expire. Since the cease-fire was with the UN, it was fully within the UN's pervue to decide whether or not to restart hostilities.

BTW, there's no such thing as a a war with a twevle year cease fire. This was two seperate wars.

Try Korea. A 50 year cease fire w/no peace treaty

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Ecthelion
yeah, but someone called them the future European leader... that's hilarious

Well its true. They are the future New European leader.

[Ecthy]

New European, of course, and if it means we redefine New Europe as Poland and... umm... Slovak Republic

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Verto

This is just another case of "America is too powerful/strong/arrogant/fat, we'll show em this time! This demand for a UN resolution, and strong UN control is just a stalling tactic to give them more time to whine.

Isn´t the US proposing a new UN resolution right now

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
We like them better at the moment. Hence they are more important.

I always thought you are a realist....

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
BUt the fact is that 1441, even if calling for seriius consequences, does not spell them out, and NO, a phrase saying "serious consequence" does not equal war.

In general it does not mean war, but in the discussion leading up to the passage of 1441 it was understood that it meant war. Powell said this in the UNSC. Did any diplomat from any of the countries that voted for 1441 contradict him on this? If so, please give a citation.