Bill Targets U.S. Troops Buried in France

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
"The part of the bill that means a lot more is the part about not letting France be part of the reconstruction of Iraq, including the oil contracts"



What if the Iraqis want to deal with France?

I don't believe I've seen this question asked before. Makes you think. Once we liberate the Iraqis and begin to rebuild the country, are we going to ask the Iraqis themselves what they think/want?

After the French are on record at the UN for not wanting to remove Saddam, I think they will know who is looking after their best interests. This is why, even if the resolution fails, it needs to be voted on.

Well, what if the Iraqis want to deal with the French?

They probably will not have much choice while an interum goverment is in place, but after that i am sure they will be able to deal with who they want.

Ahh, so the Iraqis won't have a voice. They will be committed to contracts made for them instead. To go elsewhere they will have to break those. Ok I understand now.

That is not what I said. The interum goverment will make the decisions while a democratic goverment is being put in place. There will be no iraqi goverment to make decisions right after this war is over.

So they could deal with France then

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Shouldn't she be more concerned with more pressing issues like changing French fries to freedom fries?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
"The part of the bill that means a lot more is the part about not letting France be part of the reconstruction of Iraq, including the oil contracts"



What if the Iraqis want to deal with France?

I don't believe I've seen this question asked before. Makes you think. Once we liberate the Iraqis and begin to rebuild the country, are we going to ask the Iraqis themselves what they think/want?

After the French are on record at the UN for not wanting to remove Saddam, I think they will know who is looking after their best interests. This is why, even if the resolution fails, it needs to be voted on.

Well, what if the Iraqis want to deal with the French?

They probably will not have much choice while an interum goverment is in place, but after that i am sure they will be able to deal with who they want.

Ahh, so the Iraqis won't have a voice. They will be committed to contracts made for them instead. To go elsewhere they will have to break those. Ok I understand now.

That is not what I said. The interum goverment will make the decisions while a democratic goverment is being put in place. There will be no iraqi goverment to make decisions right after this war is over.

So they could deal with France then

It is possible, I would not say it is probable at this point. France has tried everything in its power to stop the US doing this. I dont see the US accepting any help from France in the reconstruction process.

 

[Analog]

just politics folks.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
"The part of the bill that means a lot more is the part about not letting France be part of the reconstruction of Iraq, including the oil contracts"



What if the Iraqis want to deal with France?

I don't believe I've seen this question asked before. Makes you think. Once we liberate the Iraqis and begin to rebuild the country, are we going to ask the Iraqis themselves what they think/want?

After the French are on record at the UN for not wanting to remove Saddam, I think they will know who is looking after their best interests. This is why, even if the resolution fails, it needs to be voted on.

Well, what if the Iraqis want to deal with the French?

They probably will not have much choice while an interum goverment is in place, but after that i am sure they will be able to deal with who they want.

Ahh, so the Iraqis won't have a voice. They will be committed to contracts made for them instead. To go elsewhere they will have to break those. Ok I understand now.

That is not what I said. The interum goverment will make the decisions while a democratic goverment is being put in place. There will be no iraqi goverment to make decisions right after this war is over.

So they could deal with France then

It is possible, I would not say it is probable at this point. France has tried everything in its power to stop the US doing this. I dont see the US accepting any help from France in the reconstruction process.

Now we have the crux of the matter. Perhaps not you, but many say we need to put a democracy in Iraq. Some say after a time. Now the point is, that if we set up the parameters of who they can and cannot deal with, it will be extremely difficult to reverse those policies forced on them. Now why should Iraq be saddled with our petty differences with France? That is no way to establish a friendly relationship with the Iraqi people. It will be very interesting to see how "liberty" comes to Iraq.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
"The part of the bill that means a lot more is the part about not letting France be part of the reconstruction of Iraq, including the oil contracts"



What if the Iraqis want to deal with France?

I don't believe I've seen this question asked before. Makes you think. Once we liberate the Iraqis and begin to rebuild the country, are we going to ask the Iraqis themselves what they think/want?

After the French are on record at the UN for not wanting to remove Saddam, I think they will know who is looking after their best interests. This is why, even if the resolution fails, it needs to be voted on.

Well, what if the Iraqis want to deal with the French?

They probably will not have much choice while an interum goverment is in place, but after that i am sure they will be able to deal with who they want.

Ahh, so the Iraqis won't have a voice. They will be committed to contracts made for them instead. To go elsewhere they will have to break those. Ok I understand now.

That is not what I said. The interum goverment will make the decisions while a democratic goverment is being put in place. There will be no iraqi goverment to make decisions right after this war is over.

So they could deal with France then

It is possible, I would not say it is probable at this point. France has tried everything in its power to stop the US doing this. I dont see the US accepting any help from France in the reconstruction process.

Now we have the crux of the matter. Perhaps not you, but many say we need to put a democracy in Iraq. Some say after a time. Now the point is, that if we set up the parameters of who they can and cannot deal with, it will be extremely difficult to reverse those policies forced on them. Now why should Iraq be saddled with our petty differences with France? That is no way to establish a friendly relationship with the Iraqi people. It will be very interesting to see how "liberty" comes to Iraq.

Do we currently control who Japan or Germany does bussiness with?

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: yellowfiero
just politics folks.

Plz tell that to the soldiers that were fallen. Btw, we dont agree with the country that you died defended, so we're going to yank you out of your graves that you RIP in for 50 years to make a political statement.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: N8Magic

Originally posted by: sandorski
Quick! Everybody jump on the bandwagon of France bashing!

If this becomes a France bash-a-thon, i'll just delete the thread. 🙂

🙂 I wasn't trying to encourage bashing in this thread. My comment, though vague, was about the political hay making going on.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
"The part of the bill that means a lot more is the part about not letting France be part of the reconstruction of Iraq, including the oil contracts"



What if the Iraqis want to deal with France?

I don't believe I've seen this question asked before. Makes you think. Once we liberate the Iraqis and begin to rebuild the country, are we going to ask the Iraqis themselves what they think/want?

After the French are on record at the UN for not wanting to remove Saddam, I think they will know who is looking after their best interests. This is why, even if the resolution fails, it needs to be voted on.

Well, what if the Iraqis want to deal with the French?

They probably will not have much choice while an interum goverment is in place, but after that i am sure they will be able to deal with who they want.

Ahh, so the Iraqis won't have a voice. They will be committed to contracts made for them instead. To go elsewhere they will have to break those. Ok I understand now.

That is not what I said. The interum goverment will make the decisions while a democratic goverment is being put in place. There will be no iraqi goverment to make decisions right after this war is over.

So they could deal with France then

It is possible, I would not say it is probable at this point. France has tried everything in its power to stop the US doing this. I dont see the US accepting any help from France in the reconstruction process.

Now we have the crux of the matter. Perhaps not you, but many say we need to put a democracy in Iraq. Some say after a time. Now the point is, that if we set up the parameters of who they can and cannot deal with, it will be extremely difficult to reverse those policies forced on them. Now why should Iraq be saddled with our petty differences with France? That is no way to establish a friendly relationship with the Iraqi people. It will be very interesting to see how "liberty" comes to Iraq.

Do we currently control who Japan or Germany does bussiness with?

It sure has been a long time since the Japanese or German people attacked us. I doubt they were allowed make decisions for quite a while. Remember though, we went in as the conquerers of those who in fact attacked us and our allies. We had a hostile population that had to be controlled. It has been even longer since the Iraqi people attacked the US. As in never. Supposedly the people of Iraq will be enthralled with their liberation. We are not at odds with the Iraqi people though, remember? This will be something that bears watching and seeing the accompanying spin.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Does anyone know or remember of the French Mobile Group 1
Wiped out to the man in Vietnam in 1954 - 5,000 grave markers. Here's a picture from the area
After the Fall of Saigon, the North Veitnamese Politicos pulled up every marker, so traces of the graves would not be seen.
Disgraceful

That's a sobering photo. 🙁

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
"The part of the bill that means a lot more is the part about not letting France be part of the reconstruction of Iraq, including the oil contracts"



What if the Iraqis want to deal with France?

I don't believe I've seen this question asked before. Makes you think. Once we liberate the Iraqis and begin to rebuild the country, are we going to ask the Iraqis themselves what they think/want?

After the French are on record at the UN for not wanting to remove Saddam, I think they will know who is looking after their best interests. This is why, even if the resolution fails, it needs to be voted on.

Well, what if the Iraqis want to deal with the French?

They probably will not have much choice while an interum goverment is in place, but after that i am sure they will be able to deal with who they want.

Ahh, so the Iraqis won't have a voice. They will be committed to contracts made for them instead. To go elsewhere they will have to break those. Ok I understand now.

That is not what I said. The interum goverment will make the decisions while a democratic goverment is being put in place. There will be no iraqi goverment to make decisions right after this war is over.

So they could deal with France then

It is possible, I would not say it is probable at this point. France has tried everything in its power to stop the US doing this. I dont see the US accepting any help from France in the reconstruction process.

Now we have the crux of the matter. Perhaps not you, but many say we need to put a democracy in Iraq. Some say after a time. Now the point is, that if we set up the parameters of who they can and cannot deal with, it will be extremely difficult to reverse those policies forced on them. Now why should Iraq be saddled with our petty differences with France? That is no way to establish a friendly relationship with the Iraqi people. It will be very interesting to see how "liberty" comes to Iraq.

Do we currently control who Japan or Germany does bussiness with?

It sure has been a long time since the Japanese or German people attacked us. I doubt they were allowed make decisions for quite a while. Remember though, we went in as the conquerers of those who in fact attacked us and our allies. We had a hostile population that had to be controlled. It has been even longer since the Iraqi people attacked the US. As in never. Supposedly the people of Iraq will be enthralled with their liberation. We are not at odds with the Iraqi people though, remember? This will be something that bears watching and seeing the accompanying spin.

Nice subject change.

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: charrison


Do we currently control who Japan or Germany does bussiness with?

Not as far as I know of, other than the currently existing UN trade embargos.

 

[chowderhead]

Maybe Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite should sponser a bill that would outlaw damaging and stealing election/campaign signs.
Brown-Waite's husband admits to damaging and stealing campaign signs
She should sponser a bill to use GOVERNMENT money to pay back her opponent in the 2002 Elections for the signs her husband stole/damaged. :disgust:

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

It sure has been a long time since the Japanese or German people attacked us. I doubt they were allowed make decisions for quite a while. Remember though, we went in as the conquerers of those who in fact attacked us and our allies. We had a hostile population that had to be controlled. It has been even longer since the Iraqi people attacked the US. As in never. Supposedly the people of Iraq will be enthralled with their liberation. We are not at odds with the Iraqi people though, remember? This will be something that bears watching and seeing the accompanying spin.

Tell me, do you think it was wise for the US and it's allies to have waited until 1939 and 1942 to fight Germany? Or would it have been wiser to have stomped on Hitler's regime around 1934-35 when we knew he was in violation of the post WWI Treaty that disarmed Germany and forbade it from rearming?

Must we wait until a regime is so dangerous that it costs millions of lives to stop it? Must we wait until a regime has developed nukes and the means to deliver them before we decide they are dangerous and must be stopped?

I don't know about you, but a cold war with the USSR was scary enough for me. A cold war with Saddam is unthinkable.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
"The part of the bill that means a lot more is the part about not letting France be part of the reconstruction of Iraq, including the oil contracts"



What if the Iraqis want to deal with France?

I don't believe I've seen this question asked before. Makes you think. Once we liberate the Iraqis and begin to rebuild the country, are we going to ask the Iraqis themselves what they think/want?

After the French are on record at the UN for not wanting to remove Saddam, I think they will know who is looking after their best interests. This is why, even if the resolution fails, it needs to be voted on.

Well, what if the Iraqis want to deal with the French?

They probably will not have much choice while an interum goverment is in place, but after that i am sure they will be able to deal with who they want.

Ahh, so the Iraqis won't have a voice. They will be committed to contracts made for them instead. To go elsewhere they will have to break those. Ok I understand now.

That is not what I said. The interum goverment will make the decisions while a democratic goverment is being put in place. There will be no iraqi goverment to make decisions right after this war is over.

So they could deal with France then

It is possible, I would not say it is probable at this point. France has tried everything in its power to stop the US doing this. I dont see the US accepting any help from France in the reconstruction process.

Now we have the crux of the matter. Perhaps not you, but many say we need to put a democracy in Iraq. Some say after a time. Now the point is, that if we set up the parameters of who they can and cannot deal with, it will be extremely difficult to reverse those policies forced on them. Now why should Iraq be saddled with our petty differences with France? That is no way to establish a friendly relationship with the Iraqi people. It will be very interesting to see how "liberty" comes to Iraq.

Do we currently control who Japan or Germany does bussiness with?

It sure has been a long time since the Japanese or German people attacked us. I doubt they were allowed make decisions for quite a while. Remember though, we went in as the conquerers of those who in fact attacked us and our allies. We had a hostile population that had to be controlled. It has been even longer since the Iraqi people attacked the US. As in never. Supposedly the people of Iraq will be enthralled with their liberation. We are not at odds with the Iraqi people though, remember? This will be something that bears watching and seeing the accompanying spin.

Nice subject change.

If you wish to view it that way. The switch to Japan and Germany could be viewed that way as well. I chose to address your post in some context though. So be it. Back to Iraq and France.

If Iraq wants to deal with France, should the US forbid it even if an interim govt is in place?

Self determinition is implicit in the concept of democracy. If you truly want Iraq to be democratic, then you would want to try to accomodate the wishes of Iraqi representatives whenever possible while a stable govt. was being set up. Therefore, in this scenario you support Iraq trade with France, although it might gall some in the US. Not a matter of national security after all. In this case, you would support that right?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
"The part of the bill that means a lot more is the part about not letting France be part of the reconstruction of Iraq, including the oil contracts"



What if the Iraqis want to deal with France?

I don't believe I've seen this question asked before. Makes you think. Once we liberate the Iraqis and begin to rebuild the country, are we going to ask the Iraqis themselves what they think/want?

After the French are on record at the UN for not wanting to remove Saddam, I think they will know who is looking after their best interests. This is why, even if the resolution fails, it needs to be voted on.

Well, what if the Iraqis want to deal with the French?

They probably will not have much choice while an interum goverment is in place, but after that i am sure they will be able to deal with who they want.

Ahh, so the Iraqis won't have a voice. They will be committed to contracts made for them instead. To go elsewhere they will have to break those. Ok I understand now.

That is not what I said. The interum goverment will make the decisions while a democratic goverment is being put in place. There will be no iraqi goverment to make decisions right after this war is over.

So they could deal with France then

It is possible, I would not say it is probable at this point. France has tried everything in its power to stop the US doing this. I dont see the US accepting any help from France in the reconstruction process.

Now we have the crux of the matter. Perhaps not you, but many say we need to put a democracy in Iraq. Some say after a time. Now the point is, that if we set up the parameters of who they can and cannot deal with, it will be extremely difficult to reverse those policies forced on them. Now why should Iraq be saddled with our petty differences with France? That is no way to establish a friendly relationship with the Iraqi people. It will be very interesting to see how "liberty" comes to Iraq.

Do we currently control who Japan or Germany does bussiness with?

It sure has been a long time since the Japanese or German people attacked us. I doubt they were allowed make decisions for quite a while. Remember though, we went in as the conquerers of those who in fact attacked us and our allies. We had a hostile population that had to be controlled. It has been even longer since the Iraqi people attacked the US. As in never. Supposedly the people of Iraq will be enthralled with their liberation. We are not at odds with the Iraqi people though, remember? This will be something that bears watching and seeing the accompanying spin.

Nice subject change.

If you wish to view it that way. The switch to Japan and Germany could be viewed that way as well. I chose to address your post in some context though. So be it. Back to Iraq and France.

If Iraq wants to deal with France, should the US forbid it even if an interim govt is in place?

Self determinition is implicit in the concept of democracy. If you truly want Iraq to be democratic, then you would want to try to accomodate the wishes of Iraqi representatives whenever possible while a stable govt. was being set up. Therefore, in this scenario you support Iraq trade with France, although it might gall some in the US. Not a matter of national security after all. In this case, you would support that right?

You dont seem to understand what an interum goverment is. Directly after Iraq is taken over, the US will be its goverment. As an Iraqi goverment is put in place, Iraq will get more power to do as it wishes. It the beginning it will have little to none.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

It sure has been a long time since the Japanese or German people attacked us. I doubt they were allowed make decisions for quite a while. Remember though, we went in as the conquerers of those who in fact attacked us and our allies. We had a hostile population that had to be controlled. It has been even longer since the Iraqi people attacked the US. As in never. Supposedly the people of Iraq will be enthralled with their liberation. We are not at odds with the Iraqi people though, remember? This will be something that bears watching and seeing the accompanying spin.

Tell me, do you think it was wise for the US and it's allies to have waited until 1939 and 1942 to fight Germany? Or would it have been wiser to have stomped on Hitler's regime around 1934-35 when we knew he was in violation of the post WWI Treaty that disarmed Germany and forbade it from rearming?

Must we wait until a regime is so dangerous that it costs millions of lives to stop it? Must we wait until a regime has developed nukes and the means to deliver them before we decide they are dangerous and must be stopped?

I don't know about you, but a cold war with the USSR was scary enough for me. A cold war with Saddam is unthinkable.

Not what I was talking about, but people fear too much. Saddam is worse than Hitler. Saddam is worse than Stalin. Saddam is Satan.

Saddam is nothing. He could be this, he could be that. We need to attack anyone who might one day be a threat. I can go on and on.

PS If you do not know, Hitler had a real army who was in Europe and had a demonstrably powerful army. No might, no maybe.

The only way you will be able to live without fear and obtain security is to deal with it within, or kill everyone else. Much easier to do the second.

 

[Eli]

This is getting a little out of control ...

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Eli
This is getting a little out of control ...

ugh the quote's? yeah sheesh.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

It sure has been a long time since the Japanese or German people attacked us. I doubt they were allowed make decisions for quite a while. Remember though, we went in as the conquerers of those who in fact attacked us and our allies. We had a hostile population that had to be controlled. It has been even longer since the Iraqi people attacked the US. As in never. Supposedly the people of Iraq will be enthralled with their liberation. We are not at odds with the Iraqi people though, remember? This will be something that bears watching and seeing the accompanying spin.

Tell me, do you think it was wise for the US and it's allies to have waited until 1939 and 1942 to fight Germany? Or would it have been wiser to have stomped on Hitler's regime around 1934-35 when we knew he was in violation of the post WWI Treaty that disarmed Germany and forbade it from rearming?

Must we wait until a regime is so dangerous that it costs millions of lives to stop it? Must we wait until a regime has developed nukes and the means to deliver them before we decide they are dangerous and must be stopped?

I don't know about you, but a cold war with the USSR was scary enough for me. A cold war with Saddam is unthinkable.

Not what I was talking about, but people fear too much. Saddam is worse than Hitler. Saddam is worse than Stalin. Saddam is Satan.

Saddam is nothing. He could be this, he could be that. We need to attack anyone who might one day be a threat. I can go on and on.

PS If you do not know, Hitler had a real army who was in Europe and had a demonstrably powerful army. No might, no maybe.

The only way you will be able to live without fear and obtain security is to deal with it within, or kill everyone else. Much easier to do the second.

Those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it.

Hitler had no real army in 1934. He was just getting busy building one in violation of a treaty signed after Germany lost a previous war of aggression. Who does that sound like?

Saddam has arms, and has arguably been building more arms in violation of a cease fire signed after Iraq lost a previous war of aggression.

There are more parallels between Hitler, Saddam, the years leading up to WWII, and the current situation than differences. The ONLY difference now, is that the US has been somewhat more active in monitoring Iraq than the allies were in monitoring Germany.

We FAILED to stop a ruthless dictator from rearming a country against international law and in violation of treaties in the 1930s. We could have easily stopped them from doing so had we acted when we first discovered they were rearming in 1934-35. Why make that same EXACT mistake twice? Especially in this day and age with the weapons any two bit dictator can get their hands on?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
"The part of the bill that means a lot more is the part about not letting France be part of the reconstruction of Iraq, including the oil contracts"



What if the Iraqis want to deal with France?

I don't believe I've seen this question asked before. Makes you think. Once we liberate the Iraqis and begin to rebuild the country, are we going to ask the Iraqis themselves what they think/want?

After the French are on record at the UN for not wanting to remove Saddam, I think they will know who is looking after their best interests. This is why, even if the resolution fails, it needs to be voted on.

Well, what if the Iraqis want to deal with the French?

They probably will not have much choice while an interum goverment is in place, but after that i am sure they will be able to deal with who they want.

Ahh, so the Iraqis won't have a voice. They will be committed to contracts made for them instead. To go elsewhere they will have to break those. Ok I understand now.

That is not what I said. The interum goverment will make the decisions while a democratic goverment is being put in place. There will be no iraqi goverment to make decisions right after this war is over.

So they could deal with France then

It is possible, I would not say it is probable at this point. France has tried everything in its power to stop the US doing this. I dont see the US accepting any help from France in the reconstruction process.

Now we have the crux of the matter. Perhaps not you, but many say we need to put a democracy in Iraq. Some say after a time. Now the point is, that if we set up the parameters of who they can and cannot deal with, it will be extremely difficult to reverse those policies forced on them. Now why should Iraq be saddled with our petty differences with France? That is no way to establish a friendly relationship with the Iraqi people. It will be very interesting to see how "liberty" comes to Iraq.

Do we currently control who Japan or Germany does bussiness with?

It sure has been a long time since the Japanese or German people attacked us. I doubt they were allowed make decisions for quite a while. Remember though, we went in as the conquerers of those who in fact attacked us and our allies. We had a hostile population that had to be controlled. It has been even longer since the Iraqi people attacked the US. As in never. Supposedly the people of Iraq will be enthralled with their liberation. We are not at odds with the Iraqi people though, remember? This will be something that bears watching and seeing the accompanying spin.

Nice subject change.

If you wish to view it that way. The switch to Japan and Germany could be viewed that way as well. I chose to address your post in some context though. So be it. Back to Iraq and France.

If Iraq wants to deal with France, should the US forbid it even if an interim govt is in place?

Self determinition is implicit in the concept of democracy. If you truly want Iraq to be democratic, then you would want to try to accomodate the wishes of Iraqi representatives whenever possible while a stable govt. was being set up. Therefore, in this scenario you support Iraq trade with France, although it might gall some in the US. Not a matter of national security after all. In this case, you would support that right?

You dont seem to understand what an interum goverment is. Directly after Iraq is taken over, the US will be its goverment. As an Iraqi goverment is put in place, Iraq will get more power to do as it wishes. It the beginning it will have little to none.

If you truly want Iraq to be democratic, then you would want to try to accomodate the wishes of Iraqi representatives whenever possible while a stable govt. was being set up.


Yes I know what an interim government is. Now the US would not allow the Iraqis to form an alliance with Al Queda because that is a direct threat to the US. France, as annoying they might be to some has not been shown to be plotting attacks on the US. To refuse the request of the Iraqis in this case would be placing the ill temper of the US administration over the legitimate wishes of the people living there. There is no good excuse for that.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

It sure has been a long time since the Japanese or German people attacked us. I doubt they were allowed make decisions for quite a while. Remember though, we went in as the conquerers of those who in fact attacked us and our allies. We had a hostile population that had to be controlled. It has been even longer since the Iraqi people attacked the US. As in never. Supposedly the people of Iraq will be enthralled with their liberation. We are not at odds with the Iraqi people though, remember? This will be something that bears watching and seeing the accompanying spin.

Tell me, do you think it was wise for the US and it's allies to have waited until 1939 and 1942 to fight Germany? Or would it have been wiser to have stomped on Hitler's regime around 1934-35 when we knew he was in violation of the post WWI Treaty that disarmed Germany and forbade it from rearming?

Must we wait until a regime is so dangerous that it costs millions of lives to stop it? Must we wait until a regime has developed nukes and the means to deliver them before we decide they are dangerous and must be stopped?

I don't know about you, but a cold war with the USSR was scary enough for me. A cold war with Saddam is unthinkable.

Not what I was talking about, but people fear too much. Saddam is worse than Hitler. Saddam is worse than Stalin. Saddam is Satan.

Saddam is nothing. He could be this, he could be that. We need to attack anyone who might one day be a threat. I can go on and on.

PS If you do not know, Hitler had a real army who was in Europe and had a demonstrably powerful army. No might, no maybe.

The only way you will be able to live without fear and obtain security is to deal with it within, or kill everyone else. Much easier to do the second.

Those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it.

Hitler had no real army in 1934. He was just getting busy building one in violation of a treaty signed after Germany lost a previous war of aggression. Who does that sound like?

Saddam has arms, and has arguably been building more arms in violation of a cease fire signed after Iraq lost a previous war of aggression.

There are more parallels between Hitler, Saddam, the years leading up to WWII, and the current situation than differences. The ONLY difference now, is that the US has been somewhat more active in monitoring Iraq than the allies were in monitoring Germany.

We FAILED to stop a ruthless dictator from rearming a country against international law and in violation of treaties in the 1930s. We could have easily stopped them from doing so had we acted when we first discovered they were rearming in 1934-35. Why make that same EXACT mistake twice? Especially in this day and age with the weapons any two bit dictator can get their hands on?

Only difference. Hmmm

Hitler was a charasmatic idealogue that won the hearts of the German people. They voted for him. They wanted him. He was driven by the thought that Germany was naturally the master race. Saddam like Hitler? More like that master of world domination Idi Amin.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Yes I know what an interim government is. Now the US would not allow the Iraqis to form an alliance with Al Queda because that is a direct threat to the US. France, as annoying they might be to some has not been shown to be plotting attacks on the US. To refuse the request of the Iraqis in this case would be placing the ill temper of the US administration over the legitimate wishes of the people living there. There is no good excuse for that.

Without reshaping the goverment, there is no point in even putting a goverment in place. What you suggest is putting another Hussein back in.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

It sure has been a long time since the Japanese or German people attacked us. I doubt they were allowed make decisions for quite a while. Remember though, we went in as the conquerers of those who in fact attacked us and our allies. We had a hostile population that had to be controlled. It has been even longer since the Iraqi people attacked the US. As in never. Supposedly the people of Iraq will be enthralled with their liberation. We are not at odds with the Iraqi people though, remember? This will be something that bears watching and seeing the accompanying spin.

Tell me, do you think it was wise for the US and it's allies to have waited until 1939 and 1942 to fight Germany? Or would it have been wiser to have stomped on Hitler's regime around 1934-35 when we knew he was in violation of the post WWI Treaty that disarmed Germany and forbade it from rearming?

Must we wait until a regime is so dangerous that it costs millions of lives to stop it? Must we wait until a regime has developed nukes and the means to deliver them before we decide they are dangerous and must be stopped?

I don't know about you, but a cold war with the USSR was scary enough for me. A cold war with Saddam is unthinkable.

Not what I was talking about, but people fear too much. Saddam is worse than Hitler. Saddam is worse than Stalin. Saddam is Satan.

Saddam is nothing. He could be this, he could be that. We need to attack anyone who might one day be a threat. I can go on and on.

PS If you do not know, Hitler had a real army who was in Europe and had a demonstrably powerful army. No might, no maybe.

The only way you will be able to live without fear and obtain security is to deal with it within, or kill everyone else. Much easier to do the second.

Those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it.

Hitler had no real army in 1934. He was just getting busy building one in violation of a treaty signed after Germany lost a previous war of aggression. Who does that sound like?

Saddam has arms, and has arguably been building more arms in violation of a cease fire signed after Iraq lost a previous war of aggression.

There are more parallels between Hitler, Saddam, the years leading up to WWII, and the current situation than differences. The ONLY difference now, is that the US has been somewhat more active in monitoring Iraq than the allies were in monitoring Germany.

We FAILED to stop a ruthless dictator from rearming a country against international law and in violation of treaties in the 1930s. We could have easily stopped them from doing so had we acted when we first discovered they were rearming in 1934-35. Why make that same EXACT mistake twice? Especially in this day and age with the weapons any two bit dictator can get their hands on?

Only difference. Hmmm

Hitler was a charasmatic idealogue that won the hearts of the German people. They voted for him. They wanted him. He was driven by the thought that Germany was naturally the master race. Saddam like Hitler? More like that master of world domination Idi Amin.

You can nitpick small differences, but as I said, the parallels far outweigh the differences. BTW, Saddam also has a master race thing going on, or have you not noticed how he likes to commit genocide against different cultures among his own people?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Yes I know what an interim government is. Now the US would not allow the Iraqis to form an alliance with Al Queda because that is a direct threat to the US. France, as annoying they might be to some has not been shown to be plotting attacks on the US. To refuse the request of the Iraqis in this case would be placing the ill temper of the US administration over the legitimate wishes of the people living there. There is no good excuse for that.

Without reshaping the goverment, there is no point in even putting a goverment in place. What you suggest is putting another Hussein back in.

I missed how letting the representatives of the Iraqi people come to the US interim government and ask for something they want that does not threaten the US is tantamount to putting Saddam back in. I think saying that the Iraqi people have no say from day one is replacing one dictator for another.