Originally posted by: MovingTarget
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.Originally posted by: Corn
Agreed.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.
I see your point too. I have no problem with letting the UN come in and help if they wish. But this is still our operation, for good or ill. We started it, we put in the effort to oust Sadaam, and we have the real power over there due to actual boots on the ground. I dont really see how changing some political control will help the Iraqis though. What we need are people and good old fasioned hard work, not politicians. The rightful transfer of political power should be directly from us, since we already have it, directly to the new iraqi government asap. Thats what i was trying to say, but i got a bit verbose in my attempt.Originally posted by: Gaard
Iraq is our problem cause we went in and waged this war.
I agree. Maybe I'm making it too complicated, but I doubt however that that has anything to do with the decision to not give part of the reins to the UN. If we did, do you think it, somehow, would be detrimental to the US or US companies?
So alchemize your president rushes into invade Iraq without UN sanction, screws up the entire invasion, needs the UN to bail his dumbass out and you accuse me of wanting to disgrace him? Now that's an interesting perspective.Originally posted by: alchemize
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:
How exactly do you consider the Germans and French saving Bush's ass in Iraq a reward?Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Yeah, we do agree there, Gaard. We don't exactly wear a halo in Iraq, nor should we claim that we do in all instances. We do deserve some blame there. I just wanted to say that we should not reward "those fvcking French and Germans" until they do help, not beforehand. So far, they really havent done much, but I hope that will change. The sooner the better...
Sorry guys, but I'm concerned you're missing the point. I suspect this is exactly what Bush-lite wants.Originally posted by: phillyTIM
I like your style, BOBDN! I totally, 125% echo what you say!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
And they are proving it once again. People like you, <insert names of liberals>, et al were clammoring for the UN to be involved - now you bitch and moan when Bush gives them another chance to do the right thing? Real big of you guys - real nice.Originally posted by: jahawkin
Wait, I thought the UN was deemed "irrelevant" just 6 months ago - what gives??
There you go, folks. It's already beginning. It's not Bush's fault for proposing an unacceptable plan. No sir. Not at all.Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
And they are proving it once again. People like you, <insert names of liberals>, et al were clammoring for the UN to be involved - now you bitch and moan when Bush gives them another chance to do the right thing? Real big of you guys - real nice.Originally posted by: jahawkin
Wait, I thought the UN was deemed "irrelevant" just 6 months ago - what gives??![]()
CkG
How was it "unacceptable"? and only to Germany and France?Originally posted by: Bowfinger
There you go, folks. It's already beginning. It's not Bush's fault for proposing an unacceptable plan. No sir. Not at all.Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
And they are proving it once again. People like you, <insert names of liberals>, et al were clammoring for the UN to be involved - now you bitch and moan when Bush gives them another chance to do the right thing? Real big of you guys - real nice.Originally posted by: jahawkin
Wait, I thought the UN was deemed "irrelevant" just 6 months ago - what gives??![]()
CkG
Read the article.Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
How was it "unacceptable"? and only to Germany and France?
CkG
I did. I don't see where they point out what exactly is "unacceptable" about the plan to them - all I hear is a what a reporter thinks they don't like. Like it says that Powell said - "we would be more than happy to listen to their suggestion." Seems to me they are just playing politics or just plain don't want to help Iraq.Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Read the article.Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
How was it "unacceptable"? and only to Germany and France?
CkG
Here's what I read.Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
I did. I don't see where they point out what exactly is "unacceptable" about the plan to them - all I hear is a what a reporter thinks they don't like. Like it says that Powell said - "we would be more than happy to listen to their suggestion." Seems to me they are just playing politics or just plain don't want to help Iraq.Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Read the article.Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
How was it "unacceptable"? and only to Germany and France?
CkG
CkG
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
How was it "unacceptable"? and only to Germany and France?Originally posted by: Bowfinger
There you go, folks. It's already beginning. It's not Bush's fault for proposing an unacceptable plan. No sir. Not at all.Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
And they are proving it once again. People like you, <insert names of liberals>, et al were clammoring for the UN to be involved - now you bitch and moan when Bush gives them another chance to do the right thing? Real big of you guys - real nice.Originally posted by: jahawkin
Wait, I thought the UN was deemed "irrelevant" just 6 months ago - what gives??![]()
CkG
CkG
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
How was it "unacceptable"? and only to Germany and France?Originally posted by: Bowfinger
There you go, folks. It's already beginning. It's not Bush's fault for proposing an unacceptable plan. No sir. Not at all.Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
And they are proving it once again. People like you, <insert names of liberals>, et al were clammoring for the UN to be involved - now you bitch and moan when Bush gives them another chance to do the right thing? Real big of you guys - real nice.Originally posted by: jahawkin
Wait, I thought the UN was deemed "irrelevant" just 6 months ago - what gives??![]()
CkG
CkG
CAD, did you read these paragraphs?
<<Syria, a staunch opponent of the war in Iraq and the only Arab member of the Security Council, cautiously welcomed the U.S. proposal, saying it should be looked at positively. But the commentary on state-controlled Damascus Radio also called the draft "inadequate" for insisting on keeping U.S. military control of postwar Iraq and refusing to give the United Nations a "full role."
Mexico's U.N. Ambassador Adolfo Aguilar Zinser, whose country opposed the war, said the thrust of a new resolution must be "the restoration of the full sovereignty of Iraqis."
"I think the issue of the U.N. role is going to be an important source of discussion," he said. "The philosophical view of Mexico is that this is a job for the United Nations."
Yes I read those.Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
How was it "unacceptable"? and only to Germany and France?Originally posted by: Bowfinger
There you go, folks. It's already beginning. It's not Bush's fault for proposing an unacceptable plan. No sir. Not at all.Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
And they are proving it once again. People like you, <insert names of liberals>, et al were clammoring for the UN to be involved - now you bitch and moan when Bush gives them another chance to do the right thing? Real big of you guys - real nice.Originally posted by: jahawkin
Wait, I thought the UN was deemed "irrelevant" just 6 months ago - what gives??![]()
CkG
CkG
CAD, did you read these paragraphs?
<<Syria, a staunch opponent of the war in Iraq and the only Arab member of the Security Council, cautiously welcomed the U.S. proposal, saying it should be looked at positively. But the commentary on state-controlled Damascus Radio also called the draft "inadequate" for insisting on keeping U.S. military control of postwar Iraq and refusing to give the United Nations a "full role."
Mexico's U.N. Ambassador Adolfo Aguilar Zinser, whose country opposed the war, said the thrust of a new resolution must be "the restoration of the full sovereignty of Iraqis."
"I think the issue of the U.N. role is going to be an important source of discussion," he said. "The philosophical view of Mexico is that this is a job for the United Nations."
Originally posted by: freegeeks
what does Bush expect ??? France and German must send troops while the americans call the shots.
I don't think so --
get real - it's the Bush administration that want's the help of the Germans, French and Russians not the other way aroundOriginally posted by: 0roo0roo
Originally posted by: freegeeks
what does Bush expect ??? France and German must send troops while the americans call the shots.
I don't think so --
what does france expect. they want power to shape iraq when it was american blood and gold that liberated iraq. they want to roll in after with a little help and then claim innordinate power.
as its their obligation as democratic members of the free world to help with those that are liberated.,..as they once were themselves. instead they are playing politics.Originally posted by: freegeeks
get real - it's the Bush administration that want's the help of the Germans, French and Russians not the other way aroundOriginally posted by: 0roo0roo
Originally posted by: freegeeks
what does Bush expect ??? France and German must send troops while the americans call the shots.
I don't think so --
what does france expect. they want power to shape iraq when it was american blood and gold that liberated iraq. they want to roll in after with a little help and then claim innordinate power.
now we are "democratic members of the free world" and 6 months ago we were "stinking cheese eating surrender monkeys"Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
as its their obligation as democratic members of the free world to help with those that are liberated.,..as they once were themselves. instead they are playing politics.Originally posted by: freegeeks
get real - it's the Bush administration that want's the help of the Germans, French and Russians not the other way aroundOriginally posted by: 0roo0roo
Originally posted by: freegeeks
what does Bush expect ??? France and German must send troops while the americans call the shots.
I don't think so --
what does france expect. they want power to shape iraq when it was american blood and gold that liberated iraq. they want to roll in after with a little help and then claim innordinate power.