what do you think about the french attitude toward US foreigner policies?

sovtek

Originally posted by Geromino


What trade, donkey? It is called rebuilding.

My what a success that is proving to be . Besides not making any significant gains in providing Iraqi's with basic services, which they at least had under Saddam...we are killing an average of 5-15 of them daily whilst we are loosing an average of 1 or more of our fellow citizens per day.

And yet you criticize the US commerical interest as going into Iraq. Which is it, status quo with a dictator or a different solution. By the way, most Iraqi exiled groups did not want any French commerial contracts guaranteed since they viewed them as keeping Saddam in power. So, would you ciriticize the US for honoring the local population for wanting to make their own decisions on who goes and who stays in Iraq.

Iraqi exiles also told Rumsfeld, and in turn most Americans, they would be met as liberators as well the cheif one that was being listened to by the Pentagon was convicted for fraud.
America helped Saddam to power and supported it for the better part of the last 35 years. American business were doing business with him as well, including MR. Cheney.
It's quite obvious to anyone paying attention that Iraq was attacked, not for the good of the Iraqi people (or much less the world or even American security).
The fact that state owned resources and services of Iraq are already being proposed to be sold off to foreign companies by the CPA is proof that the Bush regime has no intent to wait for an elected Iraqi government to decide how THEIR economic structure will be handled.

I gather you are in favor of French commercial interest and not the US commercial interest.

It's pretty obvious no one wanted America to invade Iraq to force their commercial interests on the country and people of Iraq.

As for having the French help, what help?

Ummm the help they promised if UN inspectors were given time to determine if Iraq had or hadn't really gotten rid of proscribed weapons as well as supporting action determined by a Security Council resolution.
Because you might not be able to comprehend someone's political position is no reason to call it obtuse, unless you want to look in the mirror a little while.

Or are you "suggesting" a bribe to Chirac and the French government to keep the contracts and other incentive, lucrative deals already in Place under Saddem.

Much like the bribes, or threats depending upon respective countries response to bribes, given to various countries so as to voice support of unilateral action against Iraq by the US.

Are you also suggesting that once Iraq is liberated, they will still be confined under the old lucrative contracts in which Saddem and his loyalists had control and not to control to whichever government deemed necessary by the Iraqi people.

Or rather passing out of lucrative contracts to American and specifically friends and allies of the Bush regime before any Iraqi had one thing to say about it.

I know you are not suggesting this, are you donkey?

Purposely misspelling someone's nick doesn't make you look any less obtuse.

bonkey

Originally posted by Geromino
So from your post, I gather you are in favor of French commercial interest and not the US commercial interest.

No - I am opposed to one nation criticising another for letting economic decisions sway their policy, whilst at the same time, letting economic decisions sway their own policy.

My point is that it is hypocritical in the extreme for taking French commercialism as a point of criticism, while at the same time trying to defend US commercialism under a veneer of respectability.

As for having the French help, what help?

Well, gee, I coulda just sworn that the US went looking for a UN resolution to allow them into IRaq, and then went on to blame the French for their lack of co-operation. Are you saying now that the French weren't even being asked to co-operate?

Or are you "suggesting" a bribe to Chirac and the French government to keep the contracts and other incentive,

Did you see the footage where Ari Fleischer told the press corps that the notion the US was bribing less developed nations for their support was just not accurate or acceptable, and then they all laughed at him and he stormed out?

If the US was willing to buy the other nations, whats wrong with suggesting that they could just as easily have done the same with a more developed one? The only difference would appear to be the cost to the US.

Are you also suggesting that once Iraq is liberated, they will still be confined under the old lucrative contracts in which Saddem and his loyalists had control and not to control to whichever government deemed necessary by the Iraqi people. I know you are not suggesting this, are you donkey?

No, I'm not suggesting that for a second. I'm pretty convinced that what will happen (unless the US get so screwed that they have to make major concessions to the UN to get help) that the US will corner the vast majority of contracts which have suddenly come free, and that the new contracts will be about as justly, openly and fairly created as the old ones....and that it is (once again) hypocritical to criticise the French for doing exactly what the US are also seeking to do - especially for Americans.

And my name isn't donkey. Let me guess - slip of the keyboard multiple times in the same post?

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by Geromino
What trade, donkey? It is called rebuilding.

Actually, rebuilding costs are supposed to be paid by the victor, not the victim. Maybe you don't recall, but there was an awful lot of press before and during the war about just that, when Bush came out several times and informed the world that the US was willing to pay this cost in order to free the world of terrorism.

Strangely, I didn't realise that "willing to pay" meant "willing to spend the Iraqi money on our own businesses to pay for the damage we inflicted on them in the first place".

jc

lili

well, i will not make a long speech for the reason you guess:)
people here answered very well to geronimo.
i have just to say that in my humble opinion, french interests would have been more defended if france were in the US side.
each country of this world is looking at oil.
USA deal with a country (saudi arabia) to not name it, who unfortunately financed the sept 11 terror attack. i can understand that is nomore tolerable for them, to keep this country as a business partner.
to be honest (but don't forget we are aware of just 5% of what's cooked in the high spheres) i think france didn't support this little sentence :
"you are either with us, or against us"
for a gaulliste like chirac, it's simply not acceptable.

bloggs

quote:

---

As for having the French help, what help?

---

The French and the Germans proposed (before the War) to set up a international military force that would provide the weapons inspectors any access they required, if they believed that Saddam was impeeding their progress. I supported this role, as it would have had less of an effect on the Iraqi people, than US cruise missiles.

Why did the US block this? Surely bombing the country to pices wasn't the only way to find WMDs?

bonkey

Originally posted by lili
i think france didn't support this little sentence :
"you are either with us, or against us"
for a gaulliste like chirac, it's simply not acceptable.

Very astute, although I wouldn't limit the attitude to Gauls.

The "with us or against us" so-called logic is what gives rise to claims that opposing the US was supporting Saddam. It attempts to reduce the discussion to a binary argument - as reinfocred with the "so you'd prefer we did nothing" type of argument that we all too often see.

Most people who opposed the US invasion did so with the stance of "this is the wrong way to deal with the problem". Perhaps there is no right way, but many felt there were better ways.

Ireland chose to go one path - taking a stance that many felt was in conflict with our alleged neutrality, which was often supported on the grounds that we could not financially afford to anger the Americans in any way.

France chose another - to risk suffering the potential financial impact by defying the US rather than kowtowing to actions that they disagreed with (for whatever reasons).

What I would say is this, however: The French government's decision was in accordance with what all polls at the time showed to be the vast majority of the French populace. The question of how influential the French people are/were on the government on this issue has been debated to death here, and there is no definite answer, although it is almost undeniable that they exerted at least some pressure.

It cannot be denied, therefore, that there were - at the very least - other reasons than the French commercial interests in Iraq at stake.

At the end of the day, though, I still stand by my belief in the "not this way" argument, which seems to stand at the root of all the opposing views.

jc

Victor

As for having the French help, what help?

Perhaps the French aircraft carrier moved to the Gulf, on the premise it would only be used in the event that WMd were found?

Originally posted by bonkey
Actually, rebuilding costs are supposed to be paid by the victor, not the victim.

While strictly true, the victor also gets to tax the inhabitants. However, it someone want to take the Americans and British to court for having an illegal war then this doesn't arise.

lili

the french veto in france made a big debat.
some french thought it would be a big error to not help USA, that after all, our both countries are in the same side, the democratic side. other judged innaceptable to let US piss on the rest of the world and break international rights.

bloggs

Originally posted by Victor
Perhaps the French aircraft carrier moved to the Gulf, on the premise it would only be used in the event that WMd were found? While strictly true, the victor also gets to tax the inhabitants. However, it someone want to take the Americans and British to court for having an illegal war then this doesn't arise.

Hmm, weren't people either put into slavery or made pay taxes to the Emperor when Rome concurred a new land, looks a bit similar with Augustus Bush

Geromino

Originally posted by bloggs
That's a load of BS! Where have the Iraqi council (not even an elected body) said that they wish American companies to carry out the 'reconstruction' (i prefer rape, but i will stick to the words used). The people on the Iraqi council are US friendly, otherwise they wouldn't be there. They currently don't have any power (it's Bremmer who is incharage), and even when they do have power, it will be Washington who will decide who will be carrying out the 'reconstruction'.

France and Germany wanted to have free elections within this year. Washington said it would be perhaps 2 years away, anyone else smell something fishy there?

Donkey,
Who do you think were making these decisions before any conflict was contemplated? In case you are wondering, Iraqi exiled groups located primarily in the US were asking as a condition of their support, not to guarantee any contracts currently with the Saddem regime. They wanted a fresh start with all long term contracts. You cannot have long term contracts of that sort unless the country is in a stabile environment and not what is happening now. What you have here are contracts primarily building for rebuilding Iraq and are not considered long term even if the rebuilding process may take years. As for the current Iraqi ccouncil,

Secnod, I suppose you do want to have Saddem Loyalists and Al Queda operatives on the council for a smoother ride? Or would you have the Iraqi council be loyal to a group of countries that only want to rep the benefits without taking on the lumps. That shows real loyalty there, now does it?

Third, do you really believe free elections, even if WMD's were found immediately (this is rhetorical), that elections would be held within a year. You have not had that type of turnaround in the history of the world. Take a look at Germany after WWII. Free elections, and I am using your definition, did not occur until 1948. Japan, which already had a parliment type of government, had elections. However, the Emperor, whom the Japanese revered to him as a god at that time, told the Japanese people to respect and "obey" the occupation forces. That is how the J apanese were able to adapt quickly. You do not have that in Iraq, even with the mullahs as powerful allies or adversaries.

Geromino

Originally posted by bloggs
quote:

---

As for having the French help, what help?

---

The French and the Germans proposed (before the War) to set up a international military force that would provide the weapons inspectors any access they required, if they believed that Saddam was impeeding their progress. I supported this role, as it would have had less of an effect on the Iraqi people, than US cruise missiles.

Why did the US block this? Surely bombing the country to pices wasn't the only way to find WMDs?

Simething that Iraq already said it would not comply with. Now, for the bright eyes in the group, how can you get a multinational force in Iraq, who were already impeding the weapon inspections (current and past), were going to accept a multinational force to compel Iraq to unfettered access? I will give you a hint, you can't unless you have a regime change of some sort or Saddem going on television and confessing to the world that he admits his past and current crimes. It ain't gonna happen folks. It was a dead issue when it was proposed without the US making a single statement.

bloggs

Originally posted by Geromino
Donkey,
Who do you think were making these decisions before any conflict was contemplated? In case you are wondering, Iraqi exiled groups located primarily in the US were asking as a condition of their support, not to guarantee any contracts currently with the Saddem regime. They wanted a fresh start with all long term contracts. You cannot have long term contracts of that sort unless the country is in a stabile environment and not what is happening now. What you have here are contracts primarily building for rebuilding Iraq and are not considered long term even if the rebuilding process may take years. As for the current Iraqi ccouncil,

Oh, so the exiles were working on contracts with US (only) companies during the Saddam rule?

QUOTE]Originally posted by Geromino

Secnod, I suppose you do want to have Saddem Loyalists and Al Queda operatives on the council for a smoother ride? Or would you have the Iraqi council be loyal to a group of countries that only want to rep the benefits without taking on the lumps. That shows real loyalty there, now does it?

[/B][/QUOTE]

Not everyone who isn't falling behind the US president is necessarily a Saddam or Al Queda loyalist.

QUOTE]Originally posted by Geromino

Third, do you really believe free elections, even if WMD's were found immediately (this is rhetorical), that elections would be held within a year. You have not had that type of turnaround in the history of the world. Take a look at Germany after WWII. Free elections, and I am using your definition, did not occur until 1948. Japan, which already had a parliment type of government, had elections. However, the Emperor, whom the Japanese revered to him as a god at that time, told the Japanese people to respect and "obey" the occupation forces. That is how the J apanese were able to adapt quickly. You do not have that in Iraq, even with the mullahs as powerful allies or adversaries. [/B][/QUOTE]

I don't accept this Germany/Japan comparision, as both countries were bombed to sh** before they were rebuilt. The US army and the Bush regime kept telling us that Iraq wouldn't be polverized in an attempt to get Saddam. Most of the problems with 'reconstruction' is due to lack of security (blame Rumsfield for lack of soliders).


BTW, excuse my ignorance, but who is Donkey?

Geromino

Originally posted by lili
well, i will not make a long speech for the reason you guess:)
people here answered very well to geronimo.
i have just to say that in my humble opinion, french interests would have been more defended if france were in the US side.
each country of this world is looking at oil.
USA deal with a country (saudi arabia) to not name it, who unfortunately financed the sept 11 terror attack. i can understand that is nomore tolerable for them, to keep this country as a business partner.
to be honest (but don't forget we are aware of just 5% of what's cooked in the high spheres) i think france didn't support this little sentence :
"you are either with us, or against us"
for a gaulliste like chirac, it's simply not acceptable.

There is not direct link to the Saudi government of financing 9/11. However, there is evidence of specific Saudi lower princes supporting the terrorists. Now, most of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. Three of them were in an Indian jail until 2000 when a hijacked plane from Indian Airways landed in Afganistan and the price was the release of certain prisoners captured in Kashmir. Three of those released prisoners were part of the hijackers on 9/11. I suppose wth your logic, we should also blame India for 9/11? Or should we blame Saudi Arabia simply because the hijackers were from that particular country. That is a real bright logic, NOT!

lili

fault to the new american admistrator of iraq (can't remember his name).
what the first thing he has done when he went there?
send the iraqi soldiers at home and now, he is surprised that milician factions are opering there:rolleyes:

Geromino

Originally posted by bloggs
Hmm, weren't people either put into slavery or made pay taxes to the Emperor when Rome concurred a new land, looks a bit similar with Augustus Bush

And I now suppose if I were to read Irish history books, Ireland won WWII and the Cold War, not that it matters anyway. Thank the Stars God invented whiskey so that the Irish would not rule the world. We would be in a world of bat dung!

lili

Originally posted by Geromino
There is not direct link to the Saudi government of financing 9/11. However, there is evidence of specific Saudi lower princes supporting the terrorists. Now, most of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. Three of them were in an Indian jail until 2000 when a hijacked plane from Indian Airways landed in Afganistan and the price was the release of certain prisoners captured in Kashmir. Three of those released prisoners were part of the hijackers on 9/11. I suppose wth your logic, we should also blame India for 9/11? Or should we blame Saudi Arabia simply because the hijackers were from that particular country. That is a real bright logic, NOT!

but in which world are you living?!
pakistan is your allie but where do you think the terrorists could be hidden?
you have to understand something.
americans are tolerated in the middle east, for many reasons but they are just tolerated.

bloggs

Originally posted by Geromino
And I now suppose if I were to read Irish history books, Ireland won WWII and the Cold War, not that it matters anyway. Thank the Stars God invented whiskey so that the Irish would not rule the world. We would be in a world of bat dung!

What are you talking about?

lili

Originally posted by Geromino
And I now suppose if I were to read Irish history books, Ireland won WWII and the Cold War, not that it matters anyway. Thank the Stars God invented whiskey so that the Irish would not rule the world. We would be in a world of bat dung!

i would like say something about american arrogance (and i'm french, i now a little about arrogance;) )
tell me when USA success in unateral action? or without send atomic bombs?!
not in vietnam, not in somalia and for iraq i'm still waiting the result.

bloggs

Originally posted by Geromino
There is not direct link to the Saudi government of financing 9/11. However, there is evidence of specific Saudi lower princes supporting the terrorists. Now, most of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. Three of them were in an Indian jail until 2000 when a hijacked plane from Indian Airways landed in Afganistan and the price was the release of certain prisoners captured in Kashmir. Three of those released prisoners were part of the hijackers on 9/11. I suppose wth your logic, we should also blame India for 9/11? Or should we blame Saudi Arabia simply because the hijackers were from that particular country. That is a real bright logic, NOT!

But they said that there was a direct link with Iraq, and that is why they attacked. But after the war they said there wasn't a link.

Oh wait, no the war wasn't about the 'war on terrorism' it was about WMDs, no wait it was about freeing the Iraqi people, no wait it was about removing Saddam.

Damn im confused. Can some please tell me what this war as all about???

Geromino

Originally posted by bloggs
Oh, so the exiles were working on contracts with US (only) companies during the Saddam rule?

QUOTE]Originally posted by Geromino

Secnod, I suppose you do want to have Saddem Loyalists and Al Queda operatives on the council for a smoother ride? Or would you have the Iraqi council be loyal to a group of countries that only want to rep the benefits without taking on the lumps. That shows real loyalty there, now does it?

Not everyone who isn't falling behind the US president is necessarily a Saddam or Al Queda loyalist.

QUOTE]Originally posted by Geromino

Third, do you really believe free elections, even if WMD's were found immediately (this is rhetorical), that elections would be held within a year. You have not had that type of turnaround in the history of the world. Take a look at Germany after WWII. Free elections, and I am using your definition, did not occur until 1948. Japan, which already had a parliment type of government, had elections. However, the Emperor, whom the Japanese revered to him as a god at that time, told the Japanese people to respect and "obey" the occupation forces. That is how the J apanese were able to adapt quickly. You do not have that in Iraq, even with the mullahs as powerful allies or adversaries. [/B][/QUOTE]

I don't accept this Germany/Japan comparision, as both countries were bombed to sh** before they were rebuilt. The US army and the Bush regime kept telling us that Iraq wouldn't be polverized in an attempt to get Saddam. Most of the problems with 'reconstruction' is due to lack of security (blame Rumsfield for lack of soliders).


BTW, excuse my ignorance, but who is Donkey? [/B][/QUOTE]

You may not accept it, but it is an accurate comparison. As for the destruction, what do you call 12 years of sanctions and sabatoge by the Saddem regime on certain facilities, and the first Gulf War. Most of Iraqi infrastructure was destroyed in 1991 and no opportunity to rebuild. THis was contingent on Saddem cooperation with UN weapon inspection. He has not have any cooperation since 1991;hence, no money for reconstruction. Then you had the oil for food program which Saddem pocketed most of the money and used the other proceeds to buy nonbanned and some banned military weapons.

Second, you have to get out of your mind that not supporting President Bush is supporting Saddem. That attitude came from The Guardian and certain US persons, but not from the government.

Third,

Geromino

Originally posted by lili
but in which world are you living?!
pakistan is your allie but where do you think the terrorists could be hidden?
you have to understand something.
americans are tolerated in the middle east, for many reasons but they are just tolerated.

So, please tell me, where in the international white pages should the US intelligence look up OBL? We already tried the internaitonal yellow pages under the heading of 'Famous World Terrorists," "Islamic Terrorists," and "Terrorists."

so, which world are you living in. I would not make such a gross universal generalization. In the middle east, the politics change quickly now days. During the 50's, 60,s, 70's, and 80's, most of the Middle East were allies of the USSR, remember them? Now that the USSR is gone, they will use whatever superpower serves their purposes (US, Europe, Asia, latin America).

lili

Originally posted by Geromino
So, please tell me, where in the international white pages should the US intelligence look up OBL? We already tried the internaitonal yellow pages under the heading of 'Famous World Terrorists," "Islamic Terrorists," and "Terrorists."

so, which world are you living in. I would not make such a gross universal generalization. In the middle east, the politics change quickly now days. During the 50's, 60,s, 70's, and 80's, most of the Middle East were allies of the USSR, remember them? Now that the USSR is gone, they will use whatever superpower serves their purposes (US, Europe, Asia, latin America).

no, i don't remember, you are talking about the satelite countries in the border of USSR?
you would prefere those countries are under US "protectorat"?
like cuba was under URSS "protectorat"?
did USA accepted it?

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Geromino
so, which world are you living in. I would not make such a gross universal generalization. In the middle east, the politics change quickly now days.

Lili pointed out that the US is tolerated in these countries. That the regimes in power may often ally themselves with the US does not refute this. If anything you’re supporting Lili’s assertion.

Havelock

Orginally posted by Geromino

so, which world are you living in. I would not make such a gross universal generalization. In the middle east, the politics change quickly now days. During the 50's, 60,s, 70's, and 80's, most of the Middle East were allies of the USSR, remember them? Now that the USSR is gone, they will use whatever superpower serves their purposes (US, Europe, Asia, latin America).

Europe, Asia and Latin America are not Superpowers. Just more proof you are an example of America's failing educational system.

After reading all this Thread I realise excatly how much the American media controls their population. There are many reasons, oil, military bases, constructions contracts, claims of WMD's and Terrorist Training and of course the fact daddy failed to do the job. They never showed any concern to the well being of the Iraqi people and still don't with their soldiers absolved from any internation war crimes, and orders to shoot first. Such humanitartism hasn't been seen since...um....Prince Vlad "Dracul" Tepes's treatment of the invading Turks.

The question was what we thought about France's attitude towards America's "Foreign Policy". I am disappointed Ireland and other countries are not as vocal in France in their disapproval of the tyranical acts preformed by America under the laughable guise of liberty. I wish France could be allowed more freedom in blocking America's schemes.

Personally I'd push for the UN to let America hang in Iraq. Hopefully until the elections, where some one like Wes Clark will win, in which case the UN offers a hand to America in prosicuting Bush and Co, offers monoitary support to the redevolpment on the condition of American with drawl etc....

But it ain't gonna happen, America will strong arm the UN or ignore the conditions of the aid, rape Iraq of its oil, invade Saudi in the foreseable future, then Lybia, North Korea.....then who else, well we'll wait to see who next the accuse of being A) Producing WMD's Out selling American suppliers of WMD's C) Supporting Terrorism D) Not being white E) Slagging Bush F) Had a problem with America in the past 200 years G) etc...

PS: I have no problems with Americans, I actually quite like a lot of them. Its the current government (dictatorship) that I don't like. Give me one reason to. Its a good thing God blesses America, because currnetly no-one else is.

bloggs

Just read this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3130776.stm



I believe that in the future, Iraq's oil (which belongs to the Iraqi people) will be completly sold off to some American Oil firms (no doubt friends of George W Bush). Iraq will be turned into a sort of Saudi Arabia, where a ruling elite who are pro-US keep Iraqi oil pumping cash into American bank accounts, while the Iraqi people scrap a living.

Sand

But it ain't gonna happen, America will strong arm the UN or ignore the conditions of the aid, rape Iraq of its oil, invade Saudi in the foreseable future, then Lybia, North Korea.....then who else, well we'll wait to see who next the accuse of being A) Producing WMD's Out selling American suppliers of WMD's C) Supporting Terrorism D) Not being white E) Slagging Bush F) Had a problem with America in the past 200 years G) etc...

No. No they wont. They will not invade Saudi in the forseeable future. They will not then invade Lybia, North Korea or who else.

You criticise Geronimo as being an example of the terrible american education system. Now Im not going to agree or disagree as Ive not really read Geronimos posts. But given your "evaluation" of the current political situation as summarised above Id advise you to move house or stop throwing stones.

Damn im confused. Can some please tell me what this war as all about???

You might as well ask what WW2 was about. Theres a horde of reasons. Britain and Frances exscuse was defending Poland. Obviously by defending they meant Soviet occupation and oppression.

The end result was overall quite positive for the majority of the world. It will probably be the same for Iraq. So long as Iraq isnt just treated as a stick to beat Bush with to the cost of the average Iraqi.

lili

you forget something sand, it's that nobody wanted of ww2 except hitler and nobody wanted of this war in iraq, except bush.

Sand

you forget something sand, it's that nobody wanted of ww2 except hitler and nobody wanted of this war in iraq, except bush.

Not even Hitler wanted WW2. He wanted a short succession of quick, vitorious and glorious wars with little inteference from the West.

And Bush wasnt the only one who wanted an invasion of Iraq.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by lili
you forget something sand, it's that nobody wanted of ww2 except hitler and nobody wanted of this war in iraq, except bush.

I wanted the war in Iraq. So did the Iraqi people. You should try getting your news from non-biased media outlets. See through the anti-American bull**** propaganda.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by lili
you forget something sand, it's that nobody wanted of ww2 except hitler and nobody wanted of this war in iraq, except bush.

Tell me something lili, do you think the French during 1940-44 wanted America to enter WW2?