Will the French and/or Russians veto?

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Agathon
They've already won a major diplomatic victory. They have put the United States in a much weaker position when it inevitably comes to the SC to beg for help in the reconstruction of Iraq.

What can the US do to the French anyway? Nothing of substance.

this is true. it is my one fear that we will have to swallow our pride and ask the UN for help in rebuilding Iraq...

[Agathon]

And I'd guess you'll get jack **** or be compelled to make a really bad deal.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Kramerman
It is my one fear that we will have to swallow our pride and ask the UN for help in rebuilding Iraq...

If you think about the future of the Iraqi people and about the stability of the region, I wouldn't fear that, but I would be eager for that.
When it comes to rebuilding, the UN and the US have very different aims : the US wants a token regime who'll follow what Washington asks (preferably with democratic institutions and human rights), while the UN actively promotes the development of Democracy as such.
Your terrible administration has shown how greatly it deals with disagreement , and disagreements between different communities will be the most harsh difficulties the reconstruction will encounter.
Also, the UN has much more experience in rebuilding than the military, whose original purpose is to destroy. The UN is associated with many infrastructure programs around the world, has been involved in all democratization processes for years, and have organized the whole thing in East Timor.
This experience is not the one of the US army, which is normal.

Also, remember the reconstruction will cost huge amounts of money, while the war will already be terrible enough for the US treasury. The reconstruction can get worldwide support with very little hardships, and can spare you loads of money, so you shouldn't hesitate going to the UN to ask for help after the slaughter.

Except for reasons of misplaced pride, I don't see how you could fear going back to the UN.

[PLATO]

The News here tonight is running a story that the US is proposing to turn over operational control of Iraqi oil fields to UN when occupation starts. Anyone heard any details on this?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by PLATO1003
UR I am proud of you. You finally got it! Not to prevent bloodshed or in a belief that Saddam will disarm, but simply over their business interests.

I knew that on Day 1.

The US is fighting for:

1. Oil - more specifically, control over oil
2. Water
3. Influence in that region

It's not about CBN weapons. It's not about Saddam Hussein being a nasty evil bastard. CBN weapons is just a pretext. I have been saying that all along.

I also agree that France, Russia, and the PRC are worried about the stability of the least stable region in the world. Particularly when the US/UK side doesn't even have any comprehensive post-war plan.

[Urban Ranger]

Both France and Russia have declared that they will veto the UK/US resolution if they try to push it pass UNSC.

[PLATO]

UR: Agathon posted an interesting article about the war for oil theory earlier in the thread. I don't think that oil is the reason. Reason # 3 is probably the closest to correct.

The feeling I get from most everyone is that we are just sick of dealing with him and his quest to get weapons of mass destructions.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


I knew that on Day 1.

The US is fighting for:

1. Oil - more specifically, control over oil
2. Water
3. Influence in that region

It's not about CBN weapons. It's not about Saddam Hussein being a nasty evil bastard. CBN weapons is just a pretext. I have been saying that all along.

Dont be norrow minded. It is for all those reasons. Some to a greater or lessor extent then others, but none the less, it is over all those reasons (1,2,3, and CBN, and saddam being a bastard), and more too.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by PLATO1003
UR: Agathon posted an interesting article about the war for oil theory earlier in the thread. I don't think that oil is the reason. Reason # 3 is probably the closest to correct.

This is up in the air. Right now, commodity traders who hoarded oil made a killing. My view is, even if oil is not all of it, it has to be part of it.

Originally posted by PLATO1003
The feeling I get from most everyone is that we are just sick of dealing with him and his quest to get weapons of mass destructions.

You don't have to deal with him. Certainly GWB doesn't have to if he feels so inclined.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Kramerman
Dont be norrow minded. It is for all those reasons. Some to a greater or lessor extent then others, but none the less, it is over all those reasons (1,2,3, and CBN, and saddam being a bastard), and more too.

I am quite cynical with regards to the CBN weapons and bastard bit. Surely, Hussein has always been that way, it's just that, before Gulf War I, he was the US's bastard.

[Serb]

Sure we will.
It will be cool if it will be something like this- "We will bury you."

[Lancer]

I'm happy to have taken part in burying the Soviet Union.

Truly an 'evil empire'.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


I am quite cynical with regards to the CBN weapons and bastard bit. Surely, Hussein has always been that way, it's just that, before Gulf War I, he was the US's bastard.

Indeed. He was once an 'ally'... we afforded him more leeway then. Then he became our enemy, adn we conquered him. He agreed to our demands, but has not followed on his agreence. he remains an ass to his people, but since the gulf war he has been an ass to us, complet5ely uncooperative and even hostile.

[Dis]

Isn't france now pulling out of the war on terror?

I guess they think terrorism is OK now.

Now I really want to boycott france.