• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

France and Germany reject US Iraq plans

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,489
0
0
What an interesting perspective BOBDN, et al have. They'd rather see the mission fail to disgrace a president they don't care for, at the cost of Iraqi and US lives, rather than shore up and supoprt the situation and bring democracy to Iraq. What's a few 100 more soliders, a few 1,000 more terrorist victims if Bush can be brought down!

But of course, they've supported the Iraqi people and the military all along right?

Why not just make contributions direct to Al Qaida BOBDN, et al? That way the situation will get even worse over there, and Bush will fall? In fact, why not just participate directly in terrorism, go over and shoot some soldiers and iraqis, that will help Bush fall even faster! Then you can come closer to that quagmire you so desire, and Bush will fall!

Your true colors are shining through, like a rainbow
:beer:
 

phillyTIM

Golden Member
Jan 12, 2001
1,940
10
81
Originally posted by: gsaldivar

The Bush administration never said they "don't need any help."
Actually they said "we'll take'em on alone" very much back late last year. What's the difference?

 
Dec 27, 2001
11,272
0
0
Originally posted by: BOBDN
From the BBC

Stand firm chaps! Let Bush sink before helping in Iraq.

If Chirac and Schroeder give in to Bush he'll never learn his lesson. This being the first time in Bush's life he's had to take responsibility for anything he's done it's important to make him take learn there are consequences to his actions.

France and Germany reject US Iraq plans
How about we make chicks who get knocked up take responsibility for their actions too, then? No? Ah, I forgot...double standard...thanks for reminding me.
 

gsaldivar

Diamond Member
Apr 30, 2001
8,691
1
0
Originally posted by: phillyTIM
Originally posted by: gsaldivar

The Bush administration never said they "don't need any help."
Actually they said "we'll take'em on alone" very much back late last year. What's the difference?
Okay.... maybe you can help BOBDN find some links that support this?


 

phillyTIM

Golden Member
Jan 12, 2001
1,940
10
81
Christ, you all want everyone else to do all the work.

here: but a few links from the net so you don't get your panties in a bunch:

Bush Ready To Go It Alone

Blair Tells Bush: Don't Go It Alone

US Threatens to Go It Alone

"The president will retain all of his authority and options to act in a way that may be appropriate for us to act unilaterally to defend ourselves," Powell told Fox News television, adding that Bush would probably go to Congress before the end of the year to seek support for military action.
 

gsaldivar

Diamond Member
Apr 30, 2001
8,691
1
0
Originally posted by: phillyTIM
"The president will retain all of his authority and options to act in a way that may be appropriate for us to act unilaterally to defend ourselves," Powell told Fox News television, adding that Bush would probably go to Congress before the end of the year to seek support for military action.

The problem here is that these statements refer to the US's willingness to pursue recourse outside of the United Nations.

This has nothing to do with BOBDN's initial assertion:

The Bush administration has been saying all along they don't need any help and now it is painfully apparent they do.
Threatening action without UN authorization is completely different than saying that we "don't need any help."

The coalition of 45 countries who supported the US's effort to topple the Iraqi regime was formed BEFORE THE BEGINNING OF THE WAR.

When/where did the US say that we "don't need any help".................???


 

phillyTIM

Golden Member
Jan 12, 2001
1,940
10
81
spin all you want, bush ready & willing to go it alone says enough that he doesn't need any help.

we can debate semantics all day long, but i hold firm to what i said, backed up with your LINKS
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
141
116
Good, I want Battleship Bush to sink before next November.
 

gsaldivar

Diamond Member
Apr 30, 2001
8,691
1
0
Originally posted by: phillyTIM
spin all you want, bush ready & willing to go it alone says enough that he doesn't need any help...we can debate semantics all day long, but i hold firm to what i said, backed up with your LINKS

It's not "spin" or "semantics".

It's simple reading comprehension - they usually teach it in grade school.

Maybe you can clarify..........

WHERE in my link does it say that we "don't need any help"...?


 

gsaldivar

Diamond Member
Apr 30, 2001
8,691
1
0

Threatening action without UN authorization is completely different than saying that we "don't need any help."

 

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
8,984
84
91
Bush this, Bush that...geez. Whats done is done, and there isnt anything we can do to change the past here. Whether you supported the war or not in the first place, it shouldnt matter at this point. I dont see how holding out helping the Iraqis to "teach Bush a lesson" is going to help them any. Politicking around to do just that doesnt help them one bit. They need help from the US and anyone else who is willing, despite whether they helped out in the war or opposed it. France, Germany, et al holding out like this really does no good. They have already made their intentions to help known, so they should just go ahead and try to further their political agenda later after they do so. The sooner the Iraqis can get more help, the better...no matter where it comes from.
 

gsaldivar

Diamond Member
Apr 30, 2001
8,691
1
0
Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Bush this, Bush that...geez. Whats done is done, and there isnt anything we can do to change the past here. Whether you supported the war or not in the first place, it shouldnt matter at this point. I dont see how holding out helping the Iraqis to "teach Bush a lesson" is going to help them any. Politicking around to do just that doesnt help them one bit. They need help from the US and anyone else who is willing, despite whether they helped out in the war or opposed it. France, Germany, et al holding out like this really does no good. They have already made their intentions to help known, so they should just go ahead and try to further their political agenda later after they do so. The sooner the Iraqis can get more help, the better...no matter where it comes from.
Well said.
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,489
0
0
Originally posted by: phillyTIM
spin all you want, bush ready & willing to go it alone says enough that he doesn't need any help.

we can debate semantics all day long, but i hold firm to what i said, backed up with your LINKS
What about my suggestions, Philly? you ignored those...

 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,386
2
81
It's all about the benjamins. American companies get long term contracts and current rebuilding ones while they get nothing. Bush needs to throw them a bone if he want them in on it.
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
0
0
Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Bush this, Bush that...geez. Whats done is done, and there isnt anything we can do to change the past here. Whether you supported the war or not in the first place, it shouldnt matter at this point. I dont see how holding out helping the Iraqis to "teach Bush a lesson" is going to help them any. Politicking around to do just that doesnt help them one bit. They need help from the US and anyone else who is willing, despite whether they helped out in the war or opposed it. France, Germany, et al holding out like this really does no good. They have already made their intentions to help known, so they should just go ahead and try to further their political agenda later after they do so. The sooner the Iraqis can get more help, the better...no matter where it comes from.
What is your opinion of the US refusing to relinquish any control (political or military) over there? Is the reason for this more important than the well-being of the Iraqis? Did we have the Iraqis' best interest in mind when we decided that refusing to relinquish any control would make securing international help that much more difficult. Surely, there's enough blame to go around.

 

freegeeks

Diamond Member
May 7, 2001
5,460
1
71
Heheh - 6 months ago we were the axis of weasels and now Bushy boy is in big troubles and needs the support of France and Germany.

I HOPE THAT FRANCE AND GERMANY GIVE HIM THE BIG MIDDLE FINGER AND LET HIM PAY FOR HIS ARROGANCE OF THE LAST YEAR. :evil:

I hope that none of my tax euros go to the rebuilding of the mess created by Bush

good job Bush, keep on insulting us, you sure will gain our support that way.

I can only hope that the responsible americans vote the loser out of the white house

 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,864
83
91
your right, thats the root of it, the eu doesn't want to spend, their are in a financial hole as it is. and all those contracts they had with sadam and want honored doesn't have anything to do with it:p
 

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
8,984
84
91
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Bush this, Bush that...geez. Whats done is done, and there isnt anything we can do to change the past here. Whether you supported the war or not in the first place, it shouldnt matter at this point. I dont see how holding out helping the Iraqis to "teach Bush a lesson" is going to help them any. Politicking around to do just that doesnt help them one bit. They need help from the US and anyone else who is willing, despite whether they helped out in the war or opposed it. France, Germany, et al holding out like this really does no good. They have already made their intentions to help known, so they should just go ahead and try to further their political agenda later after they do so. The sooner the Iraqis can get more help, the better...no matter where it comes from.
What is your opinion of the US refusing to relinquish any control (political or military) over there? Is the reason for this more important than the well-being of the Iraqis? Did we have the Iraqis' best interest in mind when we decided that refusing to relinquish any control would make securing international help that much more difficult. Surely, there's enough blame to go around.
Well, I can only hope that the US does not relinquish any control to anyone, except to the Iraqis as soon as it is feasable. They are the only ones that should have it in the end. This takes time. It cannot happen too soon or Iraq will discentigrate into civil war, chaos, and bloodshed on a level that will dwarf the present situation with no hope of forming a representative, democratic goverrnment. Until it does, we are the ones that have to see this through because we are the ones who started this. There is no point in relenquishing control to France, et al because we are the ones, along with the British, who are providing most of the forces over there. As some are quick to point out, Iraq is our problem cause we went in and waged this war. They (France, etc) have said they want to help. Good. If they do not want to, we are capable of doing it on our own as some of you seem so keen to say we want to do. That is not the case. We do prefer that we get help rebuilding Iraq, but it is not 100% necessary. Relenquishing control to help securing help easier is just politicking. If they really wanted to help, they would forgo this and just jump in and help instead of using possible aid as a political tool to secure control and protect their own economic interests. Although it seems as if I'm trying to be critical of many other natioins here, I'm not trying to be. Bottom line is that we are in control, and would welcome some help. Politicing on either side does nothing, as does redistribuing control. If they really want to help the Iraqi people instead of themselves, they should go ahead and do so instead of waiting to try to change what is the political/military reality on the ground now.
 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
It's all about the benjamins. American companies get long term contracts and current rebuilding ones while they get nothing. Bush needs to throw them a bone if he want them in on it.
Agreed.
 

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
8,984
84
91
Originally posted by: Corn
It's all about the benjamins. American companies get long term contracts and current rebuilding ones while they get nothing. Bush needs to throw them a bone if he want them in on it.
Agreed.
Yeah, that does make a good point. It is all about the money. Thats why France, Germany, etc are holding out imho. They want in too to help themselves.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY