• 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 Seeks Big Role in Post-War Iraq

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

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
17,848
24
81
I really don't understand that(bolded) statement. France didn't leave anything, the US has gone in under it's own volition.
That the US acted on its own authority really has no bearing on the fact that France left or 'allowed' (same difference) us to bear all the risks, costs, and criticism. Now they want to benefit from it?
This wasn't a UN "approved" act that France backed out of, it is an unapproved act that the US took despite France's(and others) opposition.
Why do you think this was not an "UN approved" act to begin with? Due solely to the obstructionist efforts of France and Russia.
If all the contracts for reconstruction go to Coalition members, especially if they are chosen by some form of Coalition controlled government, the reconstruction will appear as a form of thievery.
Thievery? lol!

Those who take the risks and shoulder the costs do by some matter of right get to control the reconstruction. Those who refuse to assume any risk or cost do not by any matter of right have any vote in reconstruction.

Its age-old common law principles and, moreover, plain logic.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,112
3,155
126
Originally posted by: dahunan
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: dahunan
What if the Iraqis vote to let the US and Britain consult/decide for them?
In that case, which I doubt would happen, the Coalition should make the choice wisely.

On the flipside: What if Iraqi's choose France/Russia?
Personally, I doubt the majority of Iraqis really know much at all about economic freedom and capitalism.

When voting time comes it will surely be interesting.

Tony Blair is in America today to try to persuade Bush on this exact same subject.
They likely have some experience with Free Market economics, they did have shops and other such small business. I think the ability to speak freely will be what's really foreign to them.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,112
3,155
126
Originally posted by: tcsenter
I really don't understand that(bolded) statement. France didn't leave anything, the US has gone in under it's own volition.
That the US acted on its own authority really has no bearing on the fact that France left or 'allowed' (same difference) us to bear all the risks, costs, and criticism. Now they want to benefit from it?
This wasn't a UN "approved" act that France backed out of, it is an unapproved act that the US took despite France's(and others) opposition.
Why do you think this was not an "UN approved" act to begin with? Due solely to the obstructionist efforts of France and Russia.
If all the contracts for reconstruction go to Coalition members, especially if they are chosen by some form of Coalition controlled government, the reconstruction will appear as a form of thievery.
Thievery? lol!

Those who take the risks and shoulder the costs do by some matter of right get to control the reconstruction. Those who refuse to assume any risk or cost do not by any matter of right have any vote in reconstruction.

Its age-old common law principles and, moreover, plain logic.
{Don't know how to do all that fancy schmancy Quote/reply, so I'll just number/comment}

1) No. For this to be an "approved" war, France would have had to agree to it. France opposed, the Coalition went on with it anyway. The Coalition chose to go to war, France didn't choose to let the Coalition to bear anything, in fact France tried to prevent the Coalition from bearing anything.

2) Where is the UN's approval?

3) Plain logic? You can't have it both ways. Either this war is about WMD or it's some other reason. If the Coalition ends up in control of Iraq's oil(through Coalition owned Petroleum/Oil corps) then it's going to be very difficult to stand before the world and say this war isn't about oil.
 

Judgement

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
3,816
0
0
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: tcsenter
If the French and Russians want oil contracts honored . . . why NOT? It's the honorable thing to do . . . plus they will have to invest billions in order for Iraq to produce enough oil to make the ventures worthwhile.
Because those extremely lopsided contracts were negotiated by a dictator for his own political and economic gain and are thus illegitimate. The Iraqi people should have a say in those contracts.

I'm not opposed to partnering with the French and Russians, but given their utter obstructionism and refusal to join the coalition, leaving the United States to assume all the risks including intense criticism, access to Iraq's reconstruction should come at a premium.
I really don't understand that(bolded) statement. France didn't leave anything, the US has gone in under it's own volition. This wasn't a UN "approved" act that France backed out of, it is an unapproved act that the US took despite France's(and others) opposition. If all the contracts for reconstruction go to Coalition members, especially if they are chosen by some form of Coalition controlled government, the reconstruction will appear as a form of thievery.
U.S. and UK soldiers die, billions of dollars are spent in war efforts, each nation's citizens is split on endorsing the war or opposing it, while they are made to look like fools and warmongers in the international community... in part by France who has repeatedly denounced coalition actions (taking the politically safe route), but you still think France should still get a share in the aftermath?

I sincerely hope the Iraqi people are allowed to vote on who gets the contracts, and that they are educated enough to choose the people who purged their nation of tyranny and oppression, as opposed to those who sat back and said everything is ok because we're still getting oil... and were willing to let the Iraqi people continue to suffer under Saddam's dictatorship.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,112
3,155
126
Originally posted by: Judgement
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: tcsenter
If the French and Russians want oil contracts honored . . . why NOT? It's the honorable thing to do . . . plus they will have to invest billions in order for Iraq to produce enough oil to make the ventures worthwhile.
Because those extremely lopsided contracts were negotiated by a dictator for his own political and economic gain and are thus illegitimate. The Iraqi people should have a say in those contracts.

I'm not opposed to partnering with the French and Russians, but given their utter obstructionism and refusal to join the coalition, leaving the United States to assume all the risks including intense criticism, access to Iraq's reconstruction should come at a premium.
I really don't understand that(bolded) statement. France didn't leave anything, the US has gone in under it's own volition. This wasn't a UN "approved" act that France backed out of, it is an unapproved act that the US took despite France's(and others) opposition. If all the contracts for reconstruction go to Coalition members, especially if they are chosen by some form of Coalition controlled government, the reconstruction will appear as a form of thievery.
U.S. and UK soldiers die, billions of dollars are spent in war efforts, each nation's citizens is split on endorsing the war or opposing it, while they are made to look like fools and warmongers in the international community... in part by France who has repeatedly denounced coalition actions (taking the politically safe route), but you still think France should still get a share in the aftermath?

I sincerely hope the Iraqi people are allowed to vote on who gets the contracts, and that they are educated enough to choose the people who purged their nation of tyranny and oppression, as opposed to those who sat back and said everything is ok because we're still getting oil... and were willing to let the Iraqi people continue to suffer under Saddam's dictatorship.
I certainly understand the concept of "cost". My contention is that France has not "let" the Coalition bear any such "cost".
 

Judgement

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
3,816
0
0
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Judgement
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: tcsenter
If the French and Russians want oil contracts honored . . . why NOT? It's the honorable thing to do . . . plus they will have to invest billions in order for Iraq to produce enough oil to make the ventures worthwhile.
Because those extremely lopsided contracts were negotiated by a dictator for his own political and economic gain and are thus illegitimate. The Iraqi people should have a say in those contracts.

I'm not opposed to partnering with the French and Russians, but given their utter obstructionism and refusal to join the coalition, leaving the United States to assume all the risks including intense criticism, access to Iraq's reconstruction should come at a premium.
I really don't understand that(bolded) statement. France didn't leave anything, the US has gone in under it's own volition. This wasn't a UN "approved" act that France backed out of, it is an unapproved act that the US took despite France's(and others) opposition. If all the contracts for reconstruction go to Coalition members, especially if they are chosen by some form of Coalition controlled government, the reconstruction will appear as a form of thievery.
U.S. and UK soldiers die, billions of dollars are spent in war efforts, each nation's citizens is split on endorsing the war or opposing it, while they are made to look like fools and warmongers in the international community... in part by France who has repeatedly denounced coalition actions (taking the politically safe route), but you still think France should still get a share in the aftermath?

I sincerely hope the Iraqi people are allowed to vote on who gets the contracts, and that they are educated enough to choose the people who purged their nation of tyranny and oppression, as opposed to those who sat back and said everything is ok because we're still getting oil... and were willing to let the Iraqi people continue to suffer under Saddam's dictatorship.
I certainly understand the concept of "cost". My contention is that France has not "let" the Coalition bear any such "cost".
To that I can agree, but would have to say I don't feel France should have the right to any new contracts which come as a result of the war, only previously existing ones.
 

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
17,848
24
81
I certainly understand the concept of "cost". My contention is that France has not "let" the Coalition bear any such "cost".
Your idiocy shocks me at times.

Let means to permit or allow. If you stand by and do nothing while another takes a risk, you most certainly do 'let', 'permit', or 'allow', that person to shoulder all of the burden of that risk.

Just learning English?

 

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
17,848
24
81
1) No. For this to be an "approved" war, France would have had to agree to it. France opposed, the Coalition went on with it anyway. The Coalition chose to go to war, France didn't choose to let the Coalition to bear anything, in fact France tried to prevent the Coalition from bearing anything.
Which is another way of saying France stood by and let the US shoulder all of the risk. Now they want a part in the reconstruction? I thought you said France was opposed to this effort?
Where is the UN's approval?
France and Russia obstructed that effort, as we have already established.
3) Plain logic? You can't have it both ways. Either this war is about WMD or it's some other reason. If the Coalition ends up in control of Iraq's oil(through Coalition owned Petroleum/Oil corps) then it's going to be very difficult to stand before the world and say this war isn't about oil.
Where has anyone said that Iraq's oil reserves will become a wholly owned entity of the US Government?

It has been stated many times by the US State Department that the Iraqi's will pay for their own liberation and reconstruction, through the only means the Iraqi's have to pay for it - oil. We will take reasonable measures to secure that repayment, nothing more.

Liberating Iraq, disarming and deposing Hussein, and compelling the Iraqi's to pay for it are not mutually exclusive things. They are all logical and related.
 

Sketcher

Platinum Member
Aug 15, 2001
2,237
0
0
Not at all surprising.

Enlightening perhaps, but tell me ya'll didn't see that coming? :confused:
 

TheCorm

Diamond Member
Nov 5, 2000
4,326
0
0
It should be a UN controlled rebuilding BUT I think the people who actually ploughed millions into the war should be the big players.

If it becomes a situation where just the US and UK decide...then many Iraqis may continue to think of it as a conquering war and not a liberating one.

But the French seem to be so far up their own a$$e$ some times!

Corm
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,211
126
If I drive my car through a crowd, perhaps I should profit from the health care and funeral expenses. After all I did go through the trouble of doing it and scratched my car in the process.
This is crap. We invade a country, call it liberation, get pissed off because others dont want to do the same, then we claim the moral high ground. Well it was about regime change, then WMD DEFINATELY not liberation, then its now liberation. Sounds like Clinton all over it again. Saying whatever he thinks will sell.
 

AndrewR

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,159
0
0
Why is it impossible for anti-war zealots to understand that eliminating WMD in Iraq necessarily means eliminating Saddam?
 

rawoutput

Banned
Jan 23, 2002
429
0
0
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
If I drive my car through a crowd, perhaps I should profit from the health care and funeral expenses. After all I did go through the trouble of doing it and scratched my car in the process.
This is crap. We invade a country, call it liberation, get pissed off because others dont want to do the same, then we claim the moral high ground. Well it was about regime change, then WMD DEFINATELY not liberation, then its now liberation. Sounds like Clinton all over it again. Saying whatever he thinks will sell.
If the US's goal was to murder citizens in a big Hummer then I would understand your point. Why can't it be both? Getting rid of potential terrorist assets and freeing a people to be able to govern themselves how they want. I don't believe in a live and let live mentality when we have the power to remove a butcherer. I don't believe that is about oil or imperialism if in the long run people will stop being murdered needlessly.
 

Ornery

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
20,020
14
81
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
If I drive my car through a crowd, perhaps I should profit from the health care and funeral expenses. After all I did go through the trouble of doing it and scratched my car in the process.
This is crap. We invade a country, call it liberation, get pissed off because others dont want to do the same, then we claim the moral high ground. Well it was about regime change, then WMD DEFINATELY not liberation, then its now liberation. Sounds like Clinton all over it again. Saying whatever he thinks will sell.
Hah! Where does France fit into this twisted analogy? Uh, an ambulance chasing lawyer demanding a cut of the litigation pie, or what? Either way, THEY SUCK! :|
 

DigitalLove

Member
Jan 10, 2002
38
0
0
Originally posted by: AndrewR
Why is it impossible for anti-war zealots to understand that eliminating WMD in Iraq necessarily means eliminating Saddam?
Why is it impossible for pro-war zealots to understand that eliminating WMD in Iraq does not require the elimination of Saddam?

Why not just bomb the WMD-producing sites once we find them? Even if he does have WMD, I don't believe he is an eminent threat to us. Let's not kid ourselves... this is not a war about WMD or disarmament--only gullible asses like yourself would fall for that.
 

Mookow

Lifer
Apr 24, 2001
10,162
0
0
Originally posted by: Fencer128
Originally posted by: Mookow
I think the honorable thing to do is to allow the Iraqi people and their future government to choose who they want to develop their oil fields, whether it be a company from the USA, France, Russia, or another country. Saddam Hussien granted the oil contracts in an attempt to get France and Russia to advocate lifting sanctions. Its funny how the day after the Russian Foreign Minister praised Iraq's cooperation with the inspectors, Iraq reinstated a large contract it had cancelled with a Russian oil company. The cancellation came soon after Russia voted in favor of Res. 1441
I did not know this. Can you post a link please?

Andy
Certainly. I'm not going to vouch for the bias of the source since I have never conciously read anything else from them, but this was the first hit after entering "fina french iraq oil contract" into Google (about 2/3 of the way down the page) and only the factual parts are what you wanted answers to, anyway:

"On January 16, in direct contradiction of Blix's statements, the Russian Deputy Foreign Minister met with the Iraqi government and praised "the positive spirit of cooperation from Iraq" on the weapons inspections.

On January 17, the Russian oil company Lukoil "miraculously" announced that it had persuaded Baghdad to reverse the decision made on December 8th to cancel the contract with Lukoil to develop the West Qurna oil field.

Later that day, it was announced that Iraq and Russia had signed three new oil accords to explore and develop oil fields in southern and western Iraq."

I also put into italics a bit that I didnt know...

EDIT: The part about resolution 1441 is a little bit above the quoted portion
 

Modeps

Lifer
Oct 24, 2000
17,177
1
0
For all of you that mention that france'll give billions or whatever... yeah, Iraq already owes France something to the tune of $300 billion, which is one reason why they didnt want a war. If we oust Saddam and his boys, they wont get their money. Seems pretty reasonable that they'd wanna try and make some money off of the post-Saddam Iraq.
 

rudder

Lifer
Nov 9, 2000
19,431
82
91
Originally posted by: AnyMal
What a bunch of weasels! I think we should keep them out of Iraq permanently. The criteria should be "have you done anytning to aid the liberation of Iraq?"
They have aided alright, the wrong side. Just between the missile fuel from France and the night vision, gps jamming, and other goodies from Russia, I hope Dubya tells all of them to take a flying leap.

 

LeeTJ

Diamond Member
Jan 21, 2003
4,899
0
0
i've heard that South Korea and Hyundai in particular has been hurt really badly by this war because they had a lot of construction projects in Iraq. Since S. Korea did support the war, they should be given the opportunity to get those contracts back. IMO anyway.
 

DigitalLove

Member
Jan 10, 2002
38
0
0
Originally posted by: tcsenter
I certainly understand the concept of "cost". My contention is that France has not "let" the Coalition bear any such "cost".
Your idiocy shocks me at times.

Let means to permit or allow. If you stand by and do nothing while another takes a risk, you most certainly do 'let', 'permit', or 'allow', that person to shoulder all of the burden of that risk.

Just learning English?
Your idiocy shocks me at times.

Nobody fvcking asked you to "liberate" Iraq, you little retard. You CHOSE to invade against the will of the international commmunity, so you must bear the cost and criticisms. You fvcking invade a country, bomb it to hell, fvck up it's infrastructure, then you want the Iraqi people to pay for it? Why the fvck you keep rambling about 'let', 'permit', 'allow', blah blah... ? Like I said, it was your CHOICE to go to war--nobody asked for it, and nobody forced you to take these 'risks'. Dumbass!

Just learning English?

See? I can be condescending too. Haha.


 

Tiger

Platinum Member
Oct 9, 1999
2,312
0
0
If the French and Russians want oil contracts honored . . . why NOT? It's the honorable thing to do . . . plus they will have to invest billions in order for Iraq to produce enough oil to make the ventures worthwhile.
No the honorable thing to do was to help the coalition militarily. If not then sit on their hands at the UN. But then again, what would the french know about honorable? They're whores. They shouldn't be allowed to profit from it.


 

TheCorm

Diamond Member
Nov 5, 2000
4,326
0
0
Originally posted by: Tiles2Tech
Let's just bomb France and let 'em rebuild their OWN country.
Sounds like a plan, I will arrange for some local area to be changed to a launching site for US weapons over here in the UK ;)

DigitalLove, your flame had absolutely nothing to do with his post.
I 2nd that....
 

exp

Platinum Member
May 9, 2001
2,150
0
0
I think the title should read: "France Seeks Role in World"
"France Seeks Remedy For Ever-Shrinking Penis Size" would be more in line with the impression I'm getting from them. Classic inferiority complex...
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY