Originally posted by: rickn
given the french history, they'll wanna build them another nuclear reactor
Originally posted by: tcsenter
Your idiocy shocks me at times.I certainly understand the concept of "cost". My contention is that France has not "let" the Coalition bear any such "cost".
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?
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.
Originally posted by: tcsenter
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?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.France and Russia obstructed that effort, as we have already established.Where is the UN's approval?Where has anyone said that Iraq's oil reserves will become a wholly owned entity of the US Government?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.
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.
Originally posted by: rickn
given the french history, they'll wanna build them another nuclear reactor
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?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.
That's the way it works.You fvcking invade a country, bomb it to hell, fvck up it's infrastructure, then you want the Iraqi people to pay for it?
And France made the choice to oppose it. Why have they changed their mind?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!
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?See? I can be condescending too. Haha.
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 memoOriginally 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.
Originally posted by: DigitalLove
Originally posted by: tcsenter
Your idiocy shocks me at times.I certainly understand the concept of "cost". My contention is that France has not "let" the Coalition bear any such "cost".
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.
Originally posted by: tcsenter
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?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.
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.That's the way it works.You fvcking invade a country, bomb it to hell, fvck up it's infrastructure, then you want the Iraqi people to pay for it?And France made the choice to oppose it. Why have they changed their mind?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!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?See? I can be condescending too. Haha.
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.
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????
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?
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."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."
Originally posted by: sandorskiI would agree, but that depends on whether services(non-military) have already been rendered or not, IMO.
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.
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.
Originally posted by: alexruiz
Originally posted by: tcsenter
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?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.
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.That's the way it works.You fvcking invade a country, bomb it to hell, fvck up it's infrastructure, then you want the Iraqi people to pay for it?And France made the choice to oppose it. Why have they changed their mind?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!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?See? I can be condescending too. Haha.
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????
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.1) Umm, no. France was opposed to war, they are for rebuilding.
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.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.
We didn't go to the UNSC for the final approval that France's veto would have made impossible.The Coalition went to the UNSC for approval, they didn't get it, they proceeded anyway.
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.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.
A majority wasn't assured, either way.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.
There are no UN Resolutions mandating any action on the part of Israel.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?