Payback - French, Germans and Russians barred from Iraq contracts

[Dry]

Originally posted by Ned


Davout, the coalition that took on Iraq was nearly 40 nations, larger than NATO.

The only major distinguishing factor between the two is France's agreement with the intervention in Kosovo but not in Iraq.

Underline the words '40 nations' and the words 'France's agreement'.

Either Ned thinks France is composed of 40 nations, or he has very strange (and insulting for others) filtering glasses to see only France among 40 other nations.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Dry


the strength of the french diplomacy.

I refrain from mentionning diplomacy when discussing with Americans; I am not sure they know what it is.

j/k

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ned
Boris, I think Bush said the opposite.

You're right, my mistake.

However, he has criticized opponents of the war in the past as "risking lives." So it wasn't that far off.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Ned


Davout, the coalition that took on Iraq was nearly 40 nations, larger than NATO.

The only major distinguishing factor between the two is France's agreement with the intervention in Kosovo but not in Iraq.

1. That is not a matter of numbers only; the 19 in Nato outweigh by far the 40, and Nato results from an international treaty.

2. The decision to wage war was made first and the coalition later. BTW anyone knows the written common commitments made when the coalition was created?

[Bereta_Eder]

Just for history's sake, the EU states that appear on that list:

Denmark
Holland
Italy
Portugal
Spain
UK

[Bereta_Eder]

And thanks to Q for the list

[Ned]

Originally posted by Dry


Underline the words '40 nations' and the words 'France's agreement'.

Either Ned thinks France is composed of 40 nations, or he has very strange (and insulting for others) filtering glasses to see only France among 40 other nations.

Dry, I have no idea why you are trying to miss the point.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
Kosovo was a Nato affair; you cannot find more multilateral.

Davout: I believe he was talking about how the French government had no problem with starting a war in Kosovo (and Bosnia) even though no UN resolution was ever written. Ergo, at some level UN authorization is not needed and Chirac's claim that wars without UN authorization are illegal is false.

[Ned]

Originally posted by DAVOUT


1. That is not a matter of numbers only; the 19 in Nato outweigh by far the 40, and Nato results from an international treaty.

2. The decision to wage war was made first and the coalition later. BTW anyone knows the written common commitments made when the coalition was created?

Davout, these are distinctions, indeed. But, it is not true that the decision preceeded the coalition.

But the salient point here is that Kosovo and Iraq were BOTH interventions by international coalitions. They were BOTH lead by the United States. The ONLY distinguishing factor of importance was the position of France.

France agreed with one and not the other.

So, the French point of view reduces to the following:

It is legal only if France agrees with it.

[Bereta_Eder]

Now, You had that coming France



Although I admit that the fact that there was no UN resolution for Serbia bombing was largely due to Russia's and then other countries opposition like Greece etc.But isn't it a fact?


The without UN resolution to bomb Serbia is a bad precedent that comes back to haunt.

[MrFun]

At least France did one thing right -- they did not put armpit hair on the Statue of Liberty.

[Imran Siddiqui]

This need not have been done so publicly - we could easily have allowed all nations to bid, and quietly steered biz away from the non-contributors - a public slap only distracts from more important issues. Also by making it public it makes it HARDER for the French and Germans to back down - thats the advantage to quiet diplomacy.

Apparently, it was supposed to be quiet (I've been hearing). Wolfy wasn't supposed to release it.

[Bereta_Eder]

They wont back down anyway.
They have their own ways to go to iraq and do business

[our_man]

Could someone please explain to me why the hell Ireland is not being allowed to bid for contracts in Iraq.

Let's see, our government provided the use of landing facilities at Shannon for almost all US planes on transit across the Atlantic; despite widespread unrest from the population over this the government stuck to their guns.

And this is worth what!? Nothing. De nada. Not a cent. Well Mr. Bush, you sure do know how to repay your friends.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by our_man
Could someone please explain to me why the hell Ireland is not being allowed to bid for contracts in Iraq.

Beats me. Sounds like whoever came up with that list needs to be fired.