France, now wants to control the post saddam iraq.

Sxotty

Legend
What a joke man. If you miss the bus just deal with it and move on.
Of course he just wants to save face, but I don't see why UK, US, Spain, Denmark, and others need the UN to legitimize them anyway, the UN legitimizing something is like having a bunch of criminals tell you that you are doing a good job, what percentage of countries actually have a free and open society not lead by horrible people. I might dislike bush but he isn't killing americans directly at least like a lot of places in the world still do to their citizens.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2873701.stm
Mr Blair and President Chirac had earlier spent an hour, with the 13 other EU leaders, wrangling over the wording of a joint declaration on Iraq.

At the summit, France, Germany and Belgium criticised the US-led war, but Britain and five other nations - Spain, Italy, Portugal, Denmark and the Netherlands - supported it.

The UK agreed a French move to drop a paragraph from the new EU declaration expressing regret that Iraq had not used UN resolution 1441's opportunity to disarm, "and that a peaceful resolution of the Iraqi crisis was not achieved".

But Mr Blair refused when Mr Chirac tried to remove a paragraph reaffirming that the EU's objective remained Iraq's "full and effective" disarmament.

Backed by Spain and Austria, Mr Blair insisted the words stay in - although they were moved further down the text.

It called on the EU "to explore means by which the EU might help the Iraqi people to achieve the objectives of living in freedom, dignity and prosperity under a representative government".

So chirac no longer wants a full or effective disarmament even? LOL great work.
 
I'm not going to sweat over Chirac. He wove his own political noose. Hell, he even kicked the stool out from under his own feet. I think once this is a success, the countries that did nothing will be looking up at the ceiling and whistling while we read over the list of weapons they sold Iraq.
 
What irks me.....

After the conflict itself is over, we (the U.S., Britain, and coalition), WILL go to the UN and "welcome" France and Germany et. al to participate in the reconstruction.

While I don't believe we should do that, the fact that we will isn't what really irks me.

What really irks me is that the France's and Germanys EXPECT to be included, will be OFFENDED and OUTRAGED if they are not included, and then once included, will be FURTHER OUTRAGED at the idea that they are not running the show.

Chirac has said that letting the US and UK lead the reconstruction would "legitimize" the war, and thus they won't support it.

Wrong.

ANY FRANCE PARTICIPATION in reconstruction would legitimize the war. If any country thinks the war is illigitimate....fine. Just stay the hell out of the way.
 
best i can tell; they see a problem and they don't want to turn their backs and let it fester. i feel the same way.


besides, the article said nothing about France wanting to control the post Saddam Iraq, only for Europe to take part in the reconstruction of the country.
 
kyleb said:
best i can tell; they see a problem and they don't want to turn their backs and let it fester. i feel the same way.

Who sees a problem, and which problem?


besides, the article said nothing about France wanting to control the post Saddam Iraq, only for Europe to take part in the reconstruction of the country.

Last time I checked, the UK, Spain, etc. were a part of Europe....
 
Personally I'd be all in favour of disallowing any nations who had a hand in 'circumventing' UN sanctions, France & Germany in particular, any hand in rebuilding Iraq. Hang me if you want, but that's the way I feel.
 
I don't get this ... is there a problem with France etc. joining in rebuilding the country after the war? Do one have to destroy first to be allowed to help rebuilding the country?

If this is about "bringing freedom to the Iraqi people" and so on that we have been told, then it makes perfectly sense that everyone who wants to help rebuilding the country post-war should be welcomed with open arms. I don't see any hipocracy in France joining to help. If this however is about oil, or securing business deals with Iraq, then I can understand the view that only those who participated in the war should be allowed to have a piece of the cake post-war. But we've been told this isn't the case. If France etc will be blocked from efforts to rebuild Iraq, then that would be hipocratic, cause then it wasn't about "Iraqi freedom".
 
Humus said:
I don't get this ... is there a problem with France etc. joining in rebuilding the country after the war? Do one have to destroy first to be allowed to help rebuilding the country?

No.

But there is a problem when France, etc. refuses to risk its resources (money and human lives) in the removal of what everyone agrees is a problem, and then has problems allowing the countrys that DID take all the risks, be the primary architects of the reconstruction.

If this is about "bringing freedom to the Iraqi people" and so on that we have been told, then it makes perfectly sense that everyone who wants to help rebuilding the country post-war should be welcomed with open arms.

As I said. France seems to have a specific issue with "who's in charge." Less so than anyone has issues with them wanting "to help." And I dare say that the U.S. and the UK will both be flitting the bill for the majority of reconstruction.
 
kyleb said:
what is this topic about Joe?

I don't ask questions for my health, Kyle.

please answer it. Your statement was completely unclear.

right, but i wasn't talking about "part".

Yes, and last time I checked, certain "parts" are investing more money, resources, and lives to liberating Iraq than others. It's only natural that those parts should have a larger say or leadership role for its efforts.
 
i am sorry Joe, but if you ca not understand the article then i doubt you will understand my explantion of it.
 
Humus said:
I don't get this ... is there a problem with France etc. joining in rebuilding the country after the war? Do one have to destroy first to be allowed to help rebuilding the country?

then that would be hipocratic, cause then it wasn't about "Iraqi freedom".


HUMUS that was so funny, hipocratic, like the hipocratic oath, in this context is just humorous. But your point I understand, I think it is fine for France to help, and anyone, but I think that whoever helps should allow the UK, US, spain, denmark, poland, and australia run the show b/c they were the countries that took a risk, just sitting on the sidelines is not a risk. I think France wants to save face by trying to push the direction things go and show it is still a power. Asserting power, and posturing is what most of it is about and it is kind of ridiculous at this point, we don't even know what will happen yet, it could still go horribly awry.
 
Damnit kyle, I'm asking a simple question....

WHO sees a problem? France? The US?

What is the problem? Iraq WMD? Reconstruction?

Geeze....
 
From what I have seen on this Iraq matter there will be no French authority in Iraq. At best they will send food and humanitairian aid. The UK and the US would never alow for them to have any sort of direction on ... anything.
 
Sabastian
the road to hell is paved with good intentions and that might just be where the US is leading itself, but I hope not. We shall she
 
yes Joe, France and reconstruction. i really don't understand how there could be any confusion on this considering that is the topic of this thread.
 
I dont think you guys understand the statements and positions France is taking have legal and precedents in mind. The issue is France doesnt want to justify a technically illegal war in a UN resolution or if its tacked on to a resolution offering humanitarian aid to Iraq. Such a resolution isnt necessary btw. Humanitarian aid can flow in without UN approval.

France is just trying to save international law as it existed in the post ww2 world. The reason for that is that 3/4 of the world including France believes firmly that the post ww2 world was the best one for peace...
 
No offence, but who here on this board knows for sure and HAS a RELIABLE source that states this war is illegal and has the FACTS of why its illegal. I BELIEVE that under 1441 we can ARGUE that "serious consequenses" COULD mean war.

Back on topic, I think France wants a piece of the rebuilding pie. There will be money to be made, both from the Iraqi oil fields and the money the US and the coalition of the willing will be putting in. I HOPE that france gets left behind on this one. Unless they want to help translating all the french shipping documents that will prove who helped saddam aquire wmds. :)

later,
 
John Reynolds said:
Personally, I think we should step aside and let the UN handle post-Saddam Iraq.

I agree, though I believe the issue at hand is France is floating around a resolution that would prevent the coalition participants from being involved in the decision making in the UN.
 
Back
Top