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

gr8tango

Member
Jan 28, 2003
106
0
0
such anger and animosity, yet the only change will come from the politicians...

why don't we let everyone who wants to participate in 'post-war' Iraq do so? The price for admission would be how they would pay for it. Those countries who insist on participating need to pony up the brunt of the money to cover the rebuilding costs, while those countries who helped create the 'post-war' opportunity auto-matically get a say for only nomical economic contributions. As the saying goes, let them put their money where their mouth is.
 

Ornery

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
20,020
14
81
  • Like Saddam, we told France to, "Make your choice."
    • They blew it! :|
    Now, all Iraq are belong to us!
 

Fencer128

Platinum Member
Jun 18, 2001
2,700
1
71
Originally posted by: Ornery
  • Like Saddam, we told France to, "Make your choice."
    • They blew it! :|
    Now, all Iraq are belong to us!
April fool - right?

Cheers, ;)

Andy
 

Ornery

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
20,020
14
81
French Kiss and Make Up?
By Neil Cavuto, Tuesday, April 01, 2003
  • When you're wrong, you're wrong and I should admit this day, when it comes to the French, I was wrong.

    You heard me right: I've blasted them too much and now I realize I went too far.

    I called them ingrates for ripping us on Iraq when we helped them through so many wars. They have told me it's precisely because they're grateful that they're trying to have us avoid other wars.

    I offered a few choice places they could stick their wine and cheese. They never -- not once -- told me what I could do with my Yodels.

    I said they're more interested in protecting buildings than they are protecting principles. They responded when you value the things that look good, you are doing good.

    They said I struck from the gut and not the head.

    They were right. I was way too emotional and more often way too strident.

    They remained the utmost of decorum and dignified. I was more "shoot from the hip," and far from dignified.

    They see this war on this day as proof great countries can make great mistakes. I see this day for what it is: April Fools.

    Got you.
 

arcitech2

Member
Apr 1, 2003
76
0
0
Originally posted by: Leon
Interesting article

While French contributed nothing to this war, they already thinking about profits from it. Let the dirty Americans do all the fightning, while they get more oil contracts, and not a single buck spent for war costs/reconstruction. Talk about an easy ride there....



Leon
France did plenty. Where do you find the best small missles for sale to anyone? Who likes to sell arms to people that don't like Americans? Yes, the French have been in this war from the start!;)
 

Ornery

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
20,020
14
81
  • ... going to war without France is like going deer hunting without an accordion. You just leave a lot of useless noisy baggage behind.

    --Jed Babbin, former deputy undersecretary of defense in the first Bush administration
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
good point to add this in here, in the Food for Oil program Saddam had control over where a MAJORITY of the assets went, a bank in France holds and handles the funds.

from 1996-2000 he used French and Russian comapnies for his "aid" purchases, to the tune of 2 billion each. Another 4 billion each was promised if sanctions could be lifted, mostly in oil deals.
Why do you think they were trying to have the sanctions lifted YEARS AGO? Why do you think they were comfortable with any solution that left Sadam in power. The Iraqi people can make new deals with who they wish, somehow I doubt they will choose those that sold them out and tried to keep their "leader" in power. We see that they willingly signed all the resolutions, then violated them by providing illegal arms, their BLATANT DISREGARD for UN RESOLUTIONS set a clear precedent for the Us to do the same, at least we never signed one stating we would not CONTINUE the gul war. BTW there is NO UN resolution that claims this war is illegal or banned the use of force against Iraq, but the 17 in place leave no doubt as to the consequences and clearly justify this war.

From 2000-2002 the majority of the money went to Syria, Eqypt, and Jordan in an effort to curry favor with regional countries. Syria and Iraq have a pretty dicey history, the reason for their sudden about face and support should be obvious.

Who's on the moral high ground here anyway?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY