Chirac will not allow the United States and Britain to administer post-war Iraq

[Lincoln]

Just one question: What exactly is he going to do about it? I have nothing against France but this guy is really out of touch with reality. What is he going to do, threaten a veto again?

-----------------------------------------------

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2873701.stm

[DRoseDARs]

Man, Chirac is just making his country look more irrelevant and foolish by the minute...

[Verto]

Won't allow us? Let our soldiers do the dirty work, then push us aside and let them take care of things?

[DRoseDARs]

The moment the Iraqis rise up against the French intermediaries...

*Swerves to avoid obvious joke...*

[Dominikos]

Interesting, this might allow us to implement the lessons we learned from administering post-war Germany and Japan.

In Afghanistan we didn't have to administer anything, however, Iraq is no Afghanistan.

------------------
~Dominik - Lord of the Putumayo~

[faded glory]

[Drake Tungsten]

I can't say I'm surprised...

[Spiffor]

1. Don't be fooled by the title. France's official objective is to have the UN rebuilding, and not the only US and UK. It is a very different thing than rejecting all help that would come from the US and the UK.

2. the aim of this diplomatic argument (it is a mere argument right now - it can become ugly later, or become soothed) is to push the UN at the frontstage of Iraqi reconstruction, hence giving to France part of the responsibility in the reconstruction, and also part of the loot.

3. The US and UK might turn to the UN for reconstruction, because a UN funded reconstruction will spare them tons of money. Only in 2 situations would US and UK not ask the UN to take care of the reconstruction :
- if they have nearly no interest in it, and won't give a **** about what becomes Iraq once their objectives are reached. It is unlikely, because the US knows very much the mayhem that would emerge of an Iraq void of authority.
- if they have an incredibly strong interest in it, and are ready to put tons of money in a long and ungrateful task, in order to avoid any chaos originating from Iraq. US/UK want to install a beacon of democracy for the ME in Iraq, but I doubt the spend-cuts prone Bush admin will give enough money for this aim in the long run.

The US/UK could also try to occupy by themselves Iraq just to lower the position of the UN and to give an utter diplomatic defeat to Chirac, but that would be an irresponsible move.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs
Man, Chirac is just making his country look more irrelevant and foolish by the minute...

This statement is true for the past 7 years. Do you imagine how low we'd lay of the US had been obsessed with France for that long ?

[monkspider]

Spiff is spot-on.

[HolyWarrior]

Originally posted by Spiffor


The US/UK could also try to occupy by themselves Iraq just to lower the position of the UN and to give an utter diplomatic defeat to Chirac, but that would be an irresponsible move.

Just like the fable of the little red hen. The UN doesn't do jack, but they want to run Iraq after US and UK do the dirty work?

Ain't gonna happen!

[DRoseDARs]

For the French out there in 'Polyland, don't get me wrong, I don't hate or even dislike France. hey've been a good ally forever it seems. It really isn't countries that start making themselves look irrelevant and foolish, it's their leaders and their subsequent actions.



Well, exception made for the American public...but that's another beast all together, what with its obsession with SUVs, "Reality TV" and Quarter-pounders with cheese...

[Drake Tungsten]

Chirac missed a great opportunity to keep quiet...

[Verto]

Leave my SUV out of this!

[Gatekeeper]

Insofar as I am concerned, Chirac isn't helping the United Nations one iota with his most recent commentary. He keeps it up, and the U.N. will not only be shown to be toothless when it comes to its vaunted resolutions, but toothless as well when it comes to taking a good part in the reconstruction of Iraq (or any other nation, for that matter).

Perhaps this is case where the permanent Security Council members should just keep their traps *shut* and let the day-to-day U.N. workers — many of whom I genuinely believe have the best of intentions — do their work? Y'know, it's kind of like when your boss says something incredibly stupid in front of a client and, you, as a mere employee have to keep your mouth shut, despite screaming inside that, "Hey! Don't listen to him/her! S/he's just being a blowhard!"

Gatekeeper