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

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,388
3,518
126
Like I said in another thread, my apologies to Americans, but Bush has made 2 messes already, if the UN or others relieve US forces again it just frees him up to make another mess. Turf Bush then we'll talk.
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
0
0
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?
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
0
0
Originally posted by: MovingTarget
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.

Do you guys think that Benjamins didn't come into the decision to not relinquish any control over there?
 

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
8,992
96
91
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?
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.

Oh, I forgot to mention something. I believe that we should get the pie in Iraq in proportion to the effort we put into the whole operation. If France puts in the effort also, they should get an amount of the "bounty" of Iraq proportional to what they contribute. Its hard, if not impossible in practice, but it seems only fair. Most likely, we would only be able to determine how much effort everyone put into this after the fact, unfortunately. And probably we would come out on top along with the British, if an impartial entity were to do an analysis of it. This is just wishful thinking....it probably wont happen though...
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
0
0
I follow you. I'm simply trying to point out that it isn't fair to be saying things like "Damn those fvcking French and Germans. They're putting their best interests before the interests of the Iraqis. Their well-being should be what's most important, not $$$" when, IMO, we are doing the same thing.

Like I said, there's enough blame to go around. The US doesn't wear a halo while playing a harp when it comes to Iraq.

IMO ;)
 

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
8,992
96
91
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...
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
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:
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.

Bush is responsible for every death, US and Iraqi, that has and will happen. Not me. Not anyone who opposed this madness.

He disgraced himself and our nation.

He has made the single greatest contribution to Al Qaeda anyone could make. He has given them a rallying point in Iraq and he's taken the focus and the resources away from the real fight against terrorism

Don't you dare accuse me of helping Al Qaeda. If the Bush maniacs had listened to the millions of people around the world who opposed this invasion, the UN or his allies who opposed this invasion we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now.

Don't transfer Bush's mistakes to us. The problem is all Bush and the idiots who supported him.

You're aiding Al Qaeda. Not us. We tried to stop you. You wouldn't listen.
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
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...
How exactly do you consider the Germans and French saving Bush's ass in Iraq a reward?

The US is asking for exactly what everyone told us we'd need before the invasion.

Had Bush and Co. waited and gone in with UN approval we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now.

Bush should be apologizing to our allies. Our allies should demand regime change here as a condition for providing their much needed aid.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: phillyTIM
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
I like your style, BOBDN! I totally, 125% echo what you say!
Sorry guys, but I'm concerned you're missing the point. I suspect this is exactly what Bush-lite wants.

Yes, Bush is in a quagmire of his own making. He invaded Iraq based on lies, and now it's finally starting to bite him. The American public and media are finally starting to pay attention. They're asking questions. They're starting to worry about their dying sons and the rising costs. They want Bush to do something. Now.

This puts Bush between a rock and a hard place. He doesn't honestly care that much about the deaths and the cost; he's on a mission from God and besides, Halliburton is happy as a pig in slop. But he doesn't want to give up control and he doesn't want to share the spoils with any damn fur-uh-ners. He needs something to blame, something to deflect the unrest about the lies, the deaths, and the costs.

Rove whispers in his ear. Hallelujah! Let's blame the French and the Germans and the rest of those worthless bastards in the U.N. -- again. Let's come up with a plan we know they'll reject. When they do, we blame them. We tried to make this a multinational effort. Really, we did. We tried from the beginning to build a coalition of the willing, but those damn fur-uh-ners don't want peace. They want the U.S. to feel terrorism. They resent our success and our power and our wealth. It's US against the world, America. We're on our own. Like it or not, we are the world's policeman because nobody else will step up to the plate. It is our burden, the price of our success and power. You should thank God you have George W. Bush as America's steward in a world gone mad.

So there we are. It's US against the world. We set the terrorism mood ring to orange, we pass Patriot II, we blame France and Germany whenever people get restless. As costs soar, we start cutting back at home. Sorry, folks, we're at war. We just can't afford these extravagant welfare programs like Social Security any more, The environment? We're at war, can't let anything stand in the way of stripping the natural resources we need to protect America. Freedom of speech? We're at war, can't have subversive fur-ah-ners jeopardizing our brave men and women in the trenches.

Welcome to the 21st century, America.



Is this over-the-top? Sure ... I hope. You've got to admit though, it's a neo-con wet dream. It's exactly what they want. By rejecting our proposal for Iraq, we move one step closer to the nightmare and give Bush-lite more ammunition to claim "it's not my fault" -- the one thing he does well.

 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: jahawkin
Wait, I thought the UN was deemed "irrelevant" just 6 months ago - what gives??
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.


CkG
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: jahawkin
Wait, I thought the UN was deemed "irrelevant" just 6 months ago - what gives??
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.


CkG
There you go, folks. It's already beginning. It's not Bush's fault for proposing an unacceptable plan. No sir. Not at all.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: jahawkin
Wait, I thought the UN was deemed "irrelevant" just 6 months ago - what gives??
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.


CkG
There you go, folks. It's already beginning. It's not Bush's fault for proposing an unacceptable plan. No sir. Not at all.
How was it "unacceptable"? and only to Germany and France?

CkG
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,214
126
I am sure the Coalition of the Willing can pay for all this. No need to involve the UN. Poland is swimming in cash.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
How was it "unacceptable"? and only to Germany and France?

CkG
Read the article.
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.

CkG
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
How was it "unacceptable"? and only to Germany and France?

CkG
Read the article.
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.

CkG
Here's what I read.

France and Germany don't want to make their troops and cash available with the Bush administration calling all the shots.

The price of their sorely needed help is a bonafide UN resolution and shared control.

Kinda' like it shoulda' been in the first place before the Bush administration rushed in a f'ed it all up.
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
0
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: jahawkin
Wait, I thought the UN was deemed "irrelevant" just 6 months ago - what gives??
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.


CkG
There you go, folks. It's already beginning. It's not Bush's fault for proposing an unacceptable plan. No sir. Not at all.
How was it "unacceptable"? and only to Germany and France?

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."


 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: jahawkin
Wait, I thought the UN was deemed "irrelevant" just 6 months ago - what gives??
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.


CkG
There you go, folks. It's already beginning. It's not Bush's fault for proposing an unacceptable plan. No sir. Not at all.
How was it "unacceptable"? and only to Germany and France?

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."

Actually the country with an opinion that matters is france, as they have the veto power. I dont see any resolution passing as long as france has veto power.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: jahawkin
Wait, I thought the UN was deemed "irrelevant" just 6 months ago - what gives??
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.


CkG
There you go, folks. It's already beginning. It's not Bush's fault for proposing an unacceptable plan. No sir. Not at all.
How was it "unacceptable"? and only to Germany and France?

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.

Mexico's stance doesn't look to be condemning the resolution and Syria's is ambiguous at worst.

CkG
 

freegeeks

Diamond Member
May 7, 2001
5,460
1
71
what does Bush expect ??? France and German must send troops while the americans call the shots.

I don't think so --

 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,864
83
91
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.
 

freegeeks

Diamond Member
May 7, 2001
5,460
1
71
Originally 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.
get real - it's the Bush administration that want's the help of the Germans, French and Russians not the other way around


 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,864
83
91
Originally posted by: freegeeks
Originally 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.
get real - it's the Bush administration that want's the help of the Germans, French and Russians not the other way around
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.
 

freegeeks

Diamond Member
May 7, 2001
5,460
1
71
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
Originally posted by: freegeeks
Originally 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.
get real - it's the Bush administration that want's the help of the Germans, French and Russians not the other way around
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.
now we are "democratic members of the free world" and 6 months ago we were "stinking cheese eating surrender monkeys"

LOL - hilarious


obligation??? I don't think so

1)the Bush administration has insulted France, German and Belgium on numerous occasions and is still doing it
2)the Bush administration didn't need the UN 6 months ago, he didn't gave a sh*t about the opinions of France, Germany and other UN members 6 months ago when he was convinced he could do it alone without approval of the UN
3)the Bush administration used cowboy macho diplomacy in the last 2 years and now it's biting him in the ass

these are the facts

for all I care the Bush administation can blow me - NO AXIS OF WEASEL TROOPS in Iraq and no support whatsoever for the Bush administration and it's failing Iraqi policy

Bushy wanted to do it alone, now he can clean the mess up -- expect more body bags coming to the USA

 

ASK THE COMMUNITY