BBC - War Critics Agree to Back New US (UK/Spain sponsored) UN Resolution
- Thread starter Fencer128
- Start date
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
Strange, this article didn't mention that one of the main sticking points for France, Russia and Germany was that they were afraid that Iraq would be forgiven the debts that Saddam had run up buying "things" from them.
I'll have to look around some more and see if I can find a source that brings that point out.
I'll have to look around some more and see if I can find a source that brings that point out.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
If they agree, do "sticking points" matter? Is the point to create contention if problems have been resolved? As cynical as I am, perhaps this is a silver lining that needs no gray cloud brought in to shroud it.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
No, that is a Bush philosophy. I meant exactly what I said. It is possible that all parties involved are acting for the economic good of Iraq. Even the US, if taking a pot shot at the administration makes people happy. What the "compromise" is remains to be seen, but if it is acceptable to ALL parties, where's the beef?
Perhaps the thought of a settlement that does not punish someone is unacceptable? Must someone get even to make people happy?
The only one who can "forgive" Russian, French, and German loans to Iraq is Russia, France and Germany. Anything else is not "forgiveness" it's default.
Why not let them collect from Saddam, that's who they were supporting.
Hayabusarider
How do you know that all parties are "happy". Perhaps the coalition had to cave in a little to get France, Russia and Germany to agree to do something for the people of Iraq. The question is, what will it cost the Iraqis?
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
I know that "happiness" in politics is elusive. In practical terms it means everyone is reasonably satisfied with the conditions of the compromise. This concept of "caving in" is what bothers me. Here is a little example for you. Hypothetically, suppose I offer you a deal which will allow you to earn a thousand dollars. Now the catch is that in order to do so you must agree to pay me fifty. Now you might rail against caving in, demanding the thousand dollars no strings attached. You might fail to realize you are making 950 dollars as a result. You can cut off your nose to spite your face. Of course I do not know what is in the "deal" However that does not mean that a mutually beneficial situation cannot exist. If the Iraqis are satisfied, and the US is too, what does it matter if the French and Co. do not have their noses rubbed in it? Or is it that to be "satisfactory" that must be the case? The region cannot afford such pettyness. It has seen enough crap for 10 lifetimes. Let them get on with it and not have us looking to bury the hatchet in someones back. The compromise ought to be examined and graded based on it's merits, and that is all. I am sure we will have that opportunity. Then, if the Iraqis are unhappy and getting screwed, people can once again point fingers and be happy if that is what they want. I hope for something better. I may get it, and I may not. Let's see.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
How do you know they are not? Notice the qualifiers "if" "possible"in my statements. That connotes the possibility that things might be going well. You seem intent on seeing the glass half empty before it has been poured. I allow for the fact that the agreement needs to be evaluated. Perhaps it sucks. What if it does not?
Now is it your desire to see the Iraqis unhappy? Is it your position that it is impossible for good to come of it? Are you even more cynical than I, so that you insist on evil being present in all situations? Have you no hope?
Forget about answering the above if you wish.
If the deal sucks, I will say so.
If the French and Co. do well by the Iraqis, would you admit it? Would you be satisfied if they were pleased with the arrangement?
Because Foreign debts don't go away just because you had a regime change. Russians are still paying for USSR's loans.
If the only point of this deal was to lift the sanctions off of Iraq, why did the French, Germans and Russians need to have concessions made to them?
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
Irrelevent. I am not talking about self sacrificing altruism. I am talking about a potential situation that benefits the Iraqis, and if need be everyone. If (notice if again) everyone, including the French and Co. are satisfied with the outcome, and it benefits all, that is unacceptable?
You have answered my question.
As for me, I HOPE that the time has come to for the Iraqis to be able to sell their oil for their own benefit, and that the rest of the world, not just the US is the better for it. If I am wrong, no harm is done, and I will not wish away a chance of hope in order to perpetually badmouth the US or the French or anyone else for that matter. Let all sides win. If it happens that the French are being opportunistic and the Iraqis suffer as a result, you can take solace in being right, at the expense of others. At the risk of being labeled a tree hugger (which BTW I love trees), give peace a chance.
To satisfy their business interests. They want a piece of the rebuilding business. Their only leverage is that they have to sign off on lifting the UN sanctions.
Peace to some seems to come at a steep price to others. It does no harm to point that out. The US has had every evil motive attached to its actions in Iraq with out any proof. The hypocrisy of other nations is now apparent and you choose to ignore it. I guess if bashing the US is not part of the deal than it is to be ignored. I understand now.
SuperTool, they wanted more than just a piece of the rebuilding.
just to maintain a consistent interest which brings them to action, protecting their financial interests.
They could have very easily waived Iraq's debt as many countries have done, especially considering their stated level of "concern" about the welfare of the Iraqi people, actions speak louder than words. Maybe we should have told them upfront they would get paid even if Saddam was removed from power, they probably would not have fought so hard to keep him propped up in Iraq.
BTW fencer this is a US resolution co-sponsored by the spanish and british....
"BBC - War Critics Agree to Back New US/UK/Spain UN Resolution"
France, Germany and Russia have announced they will vote for a US resolution to end United Nations sanctions on Iraq.
funny when I clicked on your link the title of the article actually reads
"War critics back US Iraq plans"
creative editing....
"BBC - War Critics Agree to Back New US/UK/Spain UN Resolution"
France, Germany and Russia have announced they will vote for a US resolution to end United Nations sanctions on Iraq.
funny when I clicked on your link the title of the article actually reads
"War critics back US Iraq plans"
creative editing....
I know - I just thought "US/UK/Spain" made it clear who principly supported the action.
Is that a problem or somehow misleading? I think you read too much into the title.
Cheers,
Andy
EDIT: have ediited the title to make it absolutely clear for everyone.
is it factual? No, is it misleading then, of course. Why not use the actual title of the article rather than change it, especially when the first quote you use contradicts the title of the thread?
Seems to me it has universal support, but support is not responsible for the creation or endorsement of the resolution.
War critics back US Iraq plans
(title of article)
France, Germany and Russia have announced they will vote for a US resolution to end United Nations sanctions on Iraq.
(first paragraph)
Spain/Uk?
(title of article)
France, Germany and Russia have announced they will vote for a US resolution to end United Nations sanctions on Iraq.
(first paragraph)
Spain/Uk?
Fine, you're right, it wasn't 100% factual. I thought I could sum up the content of the thread in the title and got it wrong. What gets me is that you insinuated that I changed it for some underlying motive "creative editting" - when all I was trying to do is show that it was supported and being touted by the UK and Spain, as well as the US (who created it). Thinking on the subject I find it hard to believe that the content of the resolution was not in anyway affected by the opinions of the UK and Spain, but that's another point.
Cheers,
Andy
Middle East - AP U.N. Support Grows for Postwar Iraq Plan
UNITED NATIONS - After winning crucial support from Russia, France and Germany, the United States was seeking Security Council backing Thursday for its plan to run postwar Iraq (news - web sites) and rebuild the country with oil revenues.
U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte insisted the United States would not accept any time limits on how long it could administer Iraq.
In a key concession, however, the United States agreed to let the Security Council "review the implementation of this resolution within 12 months."
Indicating another U.S. concession, Britain's U.N. Ambassador Jeremy Greenstock said in a BBC interview late Wednesday that the coalition sees "a role for the U.N. inspectors ... in confirming that Iraq is free of any threat in the area of weapons of mass destruction."
other than that quote you will not even find a reference to Spain or Britian in this Middle East AP story, why are they so prominent in yours? Your's is a collection of quotes and thoughts from British politicians and BBC correspondents.
UNITED NATIONS - After winning crucial support from Russia, France and Germany, the United States was seeking Security Council backing Thursday for its plan to run postwar Iraq (news - web sites) and rebuild the country with oil revenues.
U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte insisted the United States would not accept any time limits on how long it could administer Iraq.
In a key concession, however, the United States agreed to let the Security Council "review the implementation of this resolution within 12 months."
Indicating another U.S. concession, Britain's U.N. Ambassador Jeremy Greenstock said in a BBC interview late Wednesday that the coalition sees "a role for the U.N. inspectors ... in confirming that Iraq is free of any threat in the area of weapons of mass destruction."
other than that quote you will not even find a reference to Spain or Britian in this Middle East AP story, why are they so prominent in yours? Your's is a collection of quotes and thoughts from British politicians and BBC correspondents.
France and Russia, which hold veto power on the 15-member Security Council, had signaled last week that they would not block the resolution. A decision to vote for the measure instead of merely abstaining came after the Bush administration agreed to several changes this week.
maybe the story should have included at least some reference to Bush making concessions to bring about international consensus, what a diplomat...lol
maybe the story should have included at least some reference to Bush making concessions to bring about international consensus, what a diplomat...lol
that's funny, I have read about 10 different articles so far on this today, I don't see those other countres mentioned at all in most of them.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter