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

rickn

Diamond Member
Oct 15, 1999
7,064
0
0
given the french history, they'll wanna build them another nuclear reactor
 

LeeTJ

Diamond Member
Jan 21, 2003
4,899
0
0
Originally posted by: rickn
given the french history, they'll wanna build them another nuclear reactor
by this argument, one could conclude that this war will be a huge boon for the french. they gain millions by building iraq nuclear reactors, we destroy what the iraqi's have. the french come back in and rebuild it all again.

 

F france.

"we wont lift a finger to help, or spend a dollar, but we want to get paid"

 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,110
3,155
126
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?
Prepare to be shocked some more.
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
Originally posted by: LeeTJ
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.

They probably will. The firms that have been given the intial contracts will likely subcontract out many portions of them to firms with experiance in Iraq.

As for the French and Russian oil deals - they were with Saddam. If they can find him after the war is over they can ask him to honor them. Those deals were given with very favorable terms to the French and Russian oil firms is my understanding. They were in effect a bribe by Saddam to try and buy support. I think the new government of Iraq should be able to decide who they want to make deals with.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,110
3,155
126
Originally posted by: tcsenter
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.
1) Umm, no. France was opposed to war, they are for rebuilding.

Listen, how did France "let" the Coalition bear the cost? They did everything they could to stop the war from starting, the Coalition was hellbent on war, not France. The Coalition went to the UNSC for approval, they didn't get it, they proceeded anyway. The UN didn't approve, the Coalition paid(are paying) a price, France didn't "let" the Coalition do their(France's) dirty work, or anyone elses, the Coalition went to war for it's own reasons outside of the UN's wishes.

2) Yes, France and Russia obstructed, but what exactly does this mean? Is everything the US decides that needs to be done what actually needs to be done? Is the US "right" and everyone else "wrong", at all times? The UN exists in such a way that veto power has been given to the Permament SC Members for a reason, that reason is to prevent tyranny by majority(something you as an American should be able to appreciate). While we are talking about "majority", let's not lay aside that even a "majority" approval for this war was highly doubtful.

If the handling of UN Resolutions by the Coalition sets a precedent, what are you going to think when UNSC members decide to enforce UN resolutions on Israel and the US's attempt at "veto" gets ignored?

3) Our positions seem to be aligning with each other on this issue. The issue that needs to be resolved is how and what kind of "repayment". IMO, control through Coalition Corporate interests does not constitute repayment and walks the fine line between repayment and thievery. Any such repayment needs to be cash owed, paid back as the means become available, just the same as Kuwait's, France's, Russia's, or anyone else is owed byIraq.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,110
3,155
126
Originally posted by: rickn
given the french history, they'll wanna build them another nuclear reactor
Interesting comment. France did build the nuclear reactor in Iraq during the 70's. At the time Iraq already had a reactor that it used for "scientific" purposes, so the French had no compelling reason to worry about WMD developement. Besides, those were different days, though there were attempts to prevent Nuclear weapons proliferation, Iraq would have easily been able to acquire the reactor from the Soviet Union. However, Iraq avoided becoming just another satellite of the Soviet Union and pursued Nuclear technology in the West. Anyway, after Iraq bought the reactor it made it's intentions known in the Arab world by announcing that it would become the first Arab Nuclear power, this announcement seemed to be ignored in the West and nobody did anything. Until Israel destroyed the reactor.

After Israel destroyed the first reactor, Iraq went back to the French wanting to buy another reactor. By this time France was well aware of the intentions, so they refused to sell another one to Iraq.

During all these events, Iraq went to a German company and asked them to build Iraq a Chemical Weapons plant. Knowing that they would get top dollar due to the secretive nature of the contract(no one outside the company knew about this project...aka illegal export) the company jumped at the opportunity.

Later in the 80's the desire for WMD and the willingness to use them was quite well established concerning Iraq. However, the political and strategic situation between Iraq/Iran compelled the US to aid Iraq in the developement of a Biological Weapons program.


You have France with it's willfully lacking knowledge of Iraq's intentions, but refusing after the truth(and Israel's destruction) is revealed to allow Iraq WMD(Nuclear). You have a Rogue Corporation giving WMD(Chemical). You have a desparate US government aiding Iraq by giving them the ability to make WMD(Biological). You want to single out France?

In short, you need to include the other players if you want to take cheap shots at France.
 

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
17,848
24
81
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.
Absolutely, and we are doing just that, in case you haven't been watching the news. But anyone so opposed to having a hand in the deposing of Hussein by military action out of some 'principle' cannot then be legitimately 'for' having a hand in the reconstruction, particularly when it will financially benefit them. What kind of unteneble moral stance is that?

So we can agree that France's opposition was not about 'principle' but about protecting its extremely favorable financial ties with the Hussein regime. Now that Marines are 50 miles from Baghdad and deposing Hussein is inevitable, the French again are following their financial interests in wanting to have a hand in the reconstruction.

The window of opportunity for France to toss its hat in the ring is over. If France wanted a hand in the reconstruction, it should have joined the coalition. No risk taken, no entitlement to the reconstruction.

The US and its allies will bear burden of this effort, all of it, including control of the reconstruction.
You fvcking invade a country, bomb it to hell, fvck up it's infrastructure, then you want the Iraqi people to pay for it?
That's the way it works.
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!
And France made the choice to oppose it. Why have they changed their mind?
See? I can be condescending too. Haha.
Yeah, but I'm condescending because I have a superior position. You're condescending because you have to be, its all you have. See the difference?
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
2
0
Originally posted by: DigitalLove

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.
Oh, Saddam's just going to let the forces waltz all around Iraq until they find them and let them destroy them? Ok, I must have missed the memo
 

KK

Lifer
Jan 2, 2001
15,902
4
81
Originally posted by: DigitalLove
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.

Are you as dumb as you sound or are you just a troll?

KK
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
how else do you expect them to recover the BILLIONS Iraq owes them, same with the Russians, that obligation and the money go out the window with saddam...
 

alexruiz

Platinum Member
Sep 21, 2001
2,750
393
126
Originally posted by: tcsenter
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.
Absolutely, and we are doing just that, in case you haven't been watching the news. But anyone so opposed to having a hand in the deposing of Hussein by military action out of some 'principle' cannot then be legitimately 'for' having a hand in the reconstruction, particularly when it will financially benefit them. What kind of unteneble moral stance is that?

So we can agree that France's opposition was not about 'principle' but about protecting its extremely favorable financial ties with the Hussein regime. Now that Marines are 50 miles from Baghdad and deposing Hussein is inevitable, the French again are following their financial interests in wanting to have a hand in the reconstruction.

The window of opportunity for France to toss its hat in the ring is over. If France wanted a hand in the reconstruction, it should have joined the coalition. No risk taken, no entitlement to the reconstruction.

The US and its allies will bear burden of this effort, all of it, including control of the reconstruction.
You fvcking invade a country, bomb it to hell, fvck up it's infrastructure, then you want the Iraqi people to pay for it?
That's the way it works.
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!
And France made the choice to oppose it. Why have they changed their mind?
See? I can be condescending too. Haha.
Yeah, but I'm condescending because I have a superior position. You're condescending because you have to be, its all you have. See the difference?

This shows the size of your brain.... again!!! So, you do it because you have the brute force, but no the reason...... great way to defend and promote freedom.... The people in Iraq DIDN'T ask to be "liberated", in fact, they now feel more the need to support the president against the invaders. They are not fighting for Saddam, they are patriots fighting for their country (the image of the apache down is proof, those people playing with the chopper were civilians, yet they looked proud of their accomplishement). When people really want freedom, they will fight for it no matter the cost. Despite the fear, despite the oppression they will look for their freedom!! I am not seeing it here, and unfortunately it won't happen (again, the overlooked patriotism of Iraq). This is going to be bloody.

Convince yourself, the likely companies to reconstruct Iraq have been announced, and the name Halliburton was there.... Many people saw it as "effect", but the people that said it was the "oil business" know it was part of the cause...... If the objective is ONLY liberation and not OIL, give the contracts to companies of other countries. If OIL was not the issue, make sure the new goverment respects the current contacts..... What is the answer for this????
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,110
3,155
126
Originally posted by: alexruiz
Convince yourself, the likely companies to reconstruct Iraq have been announced, and the name Halliburton was there.... Many people saw it as "effect", but the people that said it was the "oil business" know it was part of the cause...... If the objective is ONLY liberation and not OIL, give the contracts to companies of other countries. If OIL was not the issue, make sure the new goverment respects the current contacts..... What is the answer for this????
I'd just like to offer this suggestion: Refusing to give contracts to Coalition country corps shouldn't be what happens. IMO, some type of known process, preferably administered by Iraqi's or the UN(3rd non-exclusive-Coalition party) should use a set of criteria to ensure a fair part of the process. Coalition and non-Coalition nation's corps would then have a fair and balanced process in which to operate. Sounds complicated, but such processes already are established in many parts of the world.
 

Mookow

Lifer
Apr 24, 2001
10,162
0
0
Originally posted by: alexruiz
This shows the size of your brain.... again!!! So, you do it because you have the brute force, but no the reason...... great way to defend and promote freedom.... The people in Iraq DIDN'T ask to be "liberated", in fact, they now feel more the need to support the president against the invaders. They are not fighting for Saddam, they are patriots fighting for their country (the image of the apache down is proof, those people playing with the chopper were civilians, yet they looked proud of their accomplishement). When people really want freedom, they will fight for it no matter the cost. Despite the fear, despite the oppression they will look for their freedom!! I am not seeing it here, and unfortunately it won't happen (again, the overlooked patriotism of Iraq). This is going to be bloody.

Convince yourself, the likely companies to reconstruct Iraq have been announced, and the name Halliburton was there.... Many people saw it as "effect", but the people that said it was the "oil business" know it was part of the cause...... If the objective is ONLY liberation and not OIL, give the contracts to companies of other countries. If OIL was not the issue, make sure the new goverment respects the current contacts..... What is the answer for this????
You mean respect the extremely favorable contracts granted to be used as a lever for the lifting of sanctions and other favorable treatment for Iraq in the UNSC?

How about we let the new Iraqi government (once formed) make new contracts with whoever they want, instead of honoring the contracts made "in their name" by a dictator that has clearly shown he feels no responsibility for their well-being?
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,110
3,155
126
Originally posted by: Mookow
Originally posted by: alexruiz
This shows the size of your brain.... again!!! So, you do it because you have the brute force, but no the reason...... great way to defend and promote freedom.... The people in Iraq DIDN'T ask to be "liberated", in fact, they now feel more the need to support the president against the invaders. They are not fighting for Saddam, they are patriots fighting for their country (the image of the apache down is proof, those people playing with the chopper were civilians, yet they looked proud of their accomplishement). When people really want freedom, they will fight for it no matter the cost. Despite the fear, despite the oppression they will look for their freedom!! I am not seeing it here, and unfortunately it won't happen (again, the overlooked patriotism of Iraq). This is going to be bloody.

Convince yourself, the likely companies to reconstruct Iraq have been announced, and the name Halliburton was there.... Many people saw it as "effect", but the people that said it was the "oil business" know it was part of the cause...... If the objective is ONLY liberation and not OIL, give the contracts to companies of other countries. If OIL was not the issue, make sure the new goverment respects the current contacts..... What is the answer for this????
You mean respect the extremely favorable contracts granted to be used as a lever for the lifting of sanctions and other favorable treatment for Iraq in the UNSC?

How about we let the new Iraqi government (once formed) make new contracts with whoever they want, instead of honoring the contracts made "in their name" by a dictator that has clearly shown he feels no responsibility for their well-being?
I would agree, but that depends on whether services(non-military) have already been rendered or not, IMO.
 

clarkmo

Platinum Member
Oct 27, 2000
2,615
2
76
My 2 cents. The coalition is bearing the full cost of liberating Iraq with the U.S. beairng the brunt by a large margin.
France and Russia's objections to this liberation were largely economic.
France's request to aid in the rebuilding of Iraq is economic. They won't contribute 2 cents, they will get paid. Who will provide the funds initially? The U.S..
The coalition had UN approval from previous resolutions, any further votes were merely to appeal to the French/Russian economic concerns. This is not a war about economics. It's about freedom, something the French have forgotten about. What was it Chou En Lai replied when asked his opinion on the French revolution? We'll see. Considering Pol Pot, Idi Amin and Papa Doc Duvalier all have made their homes in France, the only consideration they deserved was at the begiining when Hussein, et al, could've fled with billions to a chalet outside of Paris but chose instead, prolly cause of syphllitic brains, to fight it out.
The French are immaterial in the here and now "Old Europe".
"I don't see how American executives can work when their lives will be at risk," he said. "There will be such hatred toward Americans."
Something I'm sure they will encourage at every opportunity. They really are greedy, despicable and decayed. No honour, nada. Of course, I'm sure there are good Frenchies somewhere, they just don't seem to make an appearance anywhere and don't seem to hold any positions of power.
 

Mookow

Lifer
Apr 24, 2001
10,162
0
0
Originally posted by: sandorskiI would agree, but that depends on whether services(non-military) have already been rendered or not, IMO.
IMO, sometimes when you deal with a dictator, you get fscked. The old contracts probably wont be honored, and however the Iraqi people feel about the US after the war, they probably wont like the same companies that were willing to exploit them, and by doing so help prop up one SOB of a dictator.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,110
3,155
126
Originally posted by: Mookow
Originally posted by: sandorskiI would agree, but that depends on whether services(non-military) have already been rendered or not, IMO.
IMO, sometimes when you deal with a dictator, you get fscked. The old contracts probably wont be honored, and however the Iraqi people feel about the US after the war, they probably wont like the same companies that were willing to exploit them, and by doing so help prop up one SOB of a dictator.
Perhaps, time will tell.
 

rickn

Diamond Member
Oct 15, 1999
7,064
0
0
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: rickn
given the french history, they'll wanna build them another nuclear reactor
Interesting comment. France did build the nuclear reactor in Iraq during the 70's. At the time Iraq already had a reactor that it used for "scientific" purposes, so the French had no compelling reason to worry about WMD developement. Besides, those were different days, though there were attempts to prevent Nuclear weapons proliferation, Iraq would have easily been able to acquire the reactor from the Soviet Union. However, Iraq avoided becoming just another satellite of the Soviet Union and pursued Nuclear technology in the West. Anyway, after Iraq bought the reactor it made it's intentions known in the Arab world by announcing that it would become the first Arab Nuclear power, this announcement seemed to be ignored in the West and nobody did anything. Until Israel destroyed the reactor.

After Israel destroyed the first reactor, Iraq went back to the French wanting to buy another reactor. By this time France was well aware of the intentions, so they refused to sell another one to Iraq.

During all these events, Iraq went to a German company and asked them to build Iraq a Chemical Weapons plant. Knowing that they would get top dollar due to the secretive nature of the contract(no one outside the company knew about this project...aka illegal export) the company jumped at the opportunity.

Later in the 80's the desire for WMD and the willingness to use them was quite well established concerning Iraq. However, the political and strategic situation between Iraq/Iran compelled the US to aid Iraq in the developement of a Biological Weapons program.


You have France with it's willfully lacking knowledge of Iraq's intentions, but refusing after the truth(and Israel's destruction) is revealed to allow Iraq WMD(Nuclear). You have a Rogue Corporation giving WMD(Chemical). You have a desparate US government aiding Iraq by giving them the ability to make WMD(Biological). You want to single out France?

In short, you need to include the other players if you want to take cheap shots at France.
you'll have to excuse me if I leave past misgivings of the US out, since we are the ones with men and women over there dying, and trying to correct the mistakes of the past and to free an oppressed people. France has did nothing but try and road block us every step of the way. What do they, FRANCE, REALLY have to hide? I have to wonder what the coalition forces are gonna turn up with Made in France stamped on it.

 

Mill

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
28,558
3
81
Originally posted by: alexruiz
Originally posted by: tcsenter
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.
Absolutely, and we are doing just that, in case you haven't been watching the news. But anyone so opposed to having a hand in the deposing of Hussein by military action out of some 'principle' cannot then be legitimately 'for' having a hand in the reconstruction, particularly when it will financially benefit them. What kind of unteneble moral stance is that?

So we can agree that France's opposition was not about 'principle' but about protecting its extremely favorable financial ties with the Hussein regime. Now that Marines are 50 miles from Baghdad and deposing Hussein is inevitable, the French again are following their financial interests in wanting to have a hand in the reconstruction.

The window of opportunity for France to toss its hat in the ring is over. If France wanted a hand in the reconstruction, it should have joined the coalition. No risk taken, no entitlement to the reconstruction.

The US and its allies will bear burden of this effort, all of it, including control of the reconstruction.
You fvcking invade a country, bomb it to hell, fvck up it's infrastructure, then you want the Iraqi people to pay for it?
That's the way it works.
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!
And France made the choice to oppose it. Why have they changed their mind?
See? I can be condescending too. Haha.
Yeah, but I'm condescending because I have a superior position. You're condescending because you have to be, its all you have. See the difference?

This shows the size of your brain.... again!!! So, you do it because you have the brute force, but no the reason...... great way to defend and promote freedom.... The people in Iraq DIDN'T ask to be "liberated", in fact, they now feel more the need to support the president against the invaders. They are not fighting for Saddam, they are patriots fighting for their country (the image of the apache down is proof, those people playing with the chopper were civilians, yet they looked proud of their accomplishement). When people really want freedom, they will fight for it no matter the cost. Despite the fear, despite the oppression they will look for their freedom!! I am not seeing it here, and unfortunately it won't happen (again, the overlooked patriotism of Iraq). This is going to be bloody.

Convince yourself, the likely companies to reconstruct Iraq have been announced, and the name Halliburton was there.... Many people saw it as "effect", but the people that said it was the "oil business" know it was part of the cause...... If the objective is ONLY liberation and not OIL, give the contracts to companies of other countries. If OIL was not the issue, make sure the new goverment respects the current contacts..... What is the answer for this????
Do you get your news from Arab News and Al-Jazeera? I mean c'mon. The only reason you singled out tcsenter was because he insulted your country in another thread a few months back. So far what you have said has not panned out. 24 American Dead, 20 British Dead; compared to 2000-3000 Iraqi dead. Even is Saddam was to use Chemical Weapons it would hurt his soldiers and country more than us. Secondly, I think the fight for Baghdad will be hard, but not as hard as you make it to be. We have been doing airstrikes on troops and the city itself for five days already. If you seriously think a tattered Republican Guard can inflict heavy casualties... you are a product of Iraqi propaganda.

Do you think the Iraqi Minister Of Information is truthful? I am guessing so.
 

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
17,848
24
81
1) Umm, no. France was opposed to war, they are for rebuilding.
I'm sure they are for rebuilding. Everyone is for rebuilding. How in the hell could anyone be 'against' rebuilding? Being 'for rebuilding' is meaningless because its a universal.
Listen, how did France "let" the Coalition bear the cost? They did everything they could to stop the war from starting, the Coalition was hellbent on war, not France.
Wrong. France did everything it could to stop the US from securing UN authorization and to discourage support for the war, that is all. It is simply dishonest to claim that France entertained the belief it could stop the war from proceeding. Chirac knew the US would proceed with or without UN authorization, he was assured of it, Chirac wanted to ensure it would not proceed under the auspices of the UN.

Armed conflict was inevitable and France chose not to be a part of it. France had a choice:

A. Contribute to this effort (be a part of the solution)
B. Do not contribute to this effort (be a part of the problem)

France clearly chose B when it could just as easily have chosen to share in the risks of this effort. In making that choice, one over the other, France is necessarily letting others bear all the risks because it had another choice: share in that risk. Which is fine, if that is their position, we'll bear all the criticism, costs, and risks. France is now out of the equation, by their own choosing. What is so difficult about this?
The Coalition went to the UNSC for approval, they didn't get it, they proceeded anyway.
We didn't go to the UNSC for the final approval that France's veto would have made impossible.
The UN didn't approve, the Coalition paid(are paying) a price, France didn't "let" the Coalition do their(France's) dirty work, or anyone elses, the Coalition went to war for it's own reasons outside of the UN's wishes.
If you consider the significant support (here I use 'support' as a euphemism for 'aiding' and 'abetting') France has rendered to the Hussein regime, I don't think you want to be so quick to portray France as not 'letting' the Coalition do its dirty work.

Hussein is a menace to the region, France partnered and aligned with this menace the entire way, supplying him with weapons, building his air-defense infrastructure, a nuclear power plant, being Hussein's little biotch in the UN, giving Hussein political clout. In fact, France contributed FAR more support to the Hussein regime than the little bit of intelligence on Iran and biologic agents provided by the United States. Chirac called Hussein a 'personal friend'.

France is responsible, on no small level, along with the United States, and a few other countries, for enabling this menace to rule Iraq with an iron fist, pose a threat to his neighbors in the region, and his continued ability to thumb its nose at the international community without consequence.

It would appear that France had an opportunity to join in solving a problem to which France in no small part helped create. France had an obligation here to help rid the region of a menace to which France has rendered much support and assistance.

The US had an obligation, too, because of our past support of the Hussein regime. The US is meeting that obligation as we speak, with the blood of American servicemen and women. Where is France? France wants to risk nothing, taking no responsibility for its own significant contributions to this problem, while others take all risks? And only after the bullets stop flying France wants to have a part in the rebuilding of Iraq? Sure, it can have a part, but on our terms, not theirs.
2) Yes, France and Russia obstructed, but what exactly does this mean? Is everything the US decides that needs to be done what actually needs to be done? Is the US "right" and everyone else "wrong", at all times? The UN exists in such a way that veto power has been given to the Permament SC Members for a reason, that reason is to prevent tyranny by majority (something you as an American should be able to appreciate). While we are talking about "majority", let's not lay aside that even a "majority" approval for this war was highly doubtful.
A majority wasn't assured, either way.
If the handling of UN Resolutions by the Coalition sets a precedent, what are you going to think when UNSC members decide to enforce UN resolutions on Israel and the US's attempt at "veto" gets ignored?
There are no UN Resolutions mandating any action on the part of Israel.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY