France Seeks Big Role in Post-War Iraq

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: rickn

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.

What makes you think France opposes for this reason?

Again I reiterate, you(the US) insisted on doing this and you(US) were not going to take "No"(Non) for an answer. The majority of nations(using total countries - Coalition members = Opposing countries) tried to stop you(US). Don't get pissy at the French because you(US) went ahead anyway.

 

[dmcowen674]

I say disband the useless UN too, bunch of pansies.

 

[tcsenter]

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.

Would that be the anti-Hussein uprisings now known to be happening in two cities?

Sure, the Iraqi people love living under Hussein and want to remain that way forever.

I don't remember the Jews asking to be liberated from death camps, either. They just stood there, with a blank expression.

Of course the poeple of Iraq didn't ask to be liberated, you idiot. They're too terrified to speak out, too tired to do anything, too damned hungry or sick to put any energy into anything other than finding food, and too numb to even care any more.

 

[Ornery]

"Don't get pissy at the French because you(US) went ahead anyway."

"The government is determined that French companies will be part of rebuilding Iraq, despite President Jacques Chirac's vigorous opposition to the war, a Finance Ministry official said."

Piss on their Finance Ministry. They had a chance to participate, they chose NOT to. So be it!

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

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.

You've gone off the deep end here, re-read my previous post.

 

[alexruiz]

Originally posted by: MillenniumDo 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.

I tried to take most of the included quote brackets to make it easier to read..... Yes, I get some news form arabnews.com and al-jazeera, but as I mentioned in other posts I check at least 10 different sources form at least 5 different countries (the major networks in the USA, the english site of Pravda (Russia), Le Monde (Francia), LATimes (USA), BBC (UK), Independet (UK) the major TV networks in Mexico (Televisa and TV Azteca, both right wing), whatreallyhappened.com (very very left, to the point that loses credibility for the bitterness), my favorite newspaper in Mexico (La Jornada - left wing) plus the leading newspaper in Mexico (El Universal - center, and the most balanced source of al the ones that I mentionedl). Yes, there is propaganda all over the place, but in order to get what is the closest to the truth you need to be exposed to all sides, then filter what makes sense and what not.

However, when the sources of all the countries EXCEPT the ones in the USA talk about the strong opposition of the civilians, something should be right about that information. Reporters have talked to civilians, and the overall sentiment captured by the civilians is "They are invading us. I don't like Saddam, and I am not going to fight for him, but I am going to fight for Iraq..." How about the volunteer brigades of women??? Yes, some may be scared and theratened, but PATROTISM can make them TRUST their goverment and act blindly.... You can't deny this fact because your country is inmerse in this situation. Even if you are opposed to the war, they call you "to support the troops".... ANY person has love and pride for their country, and will fight for it!!! You are rallying supporting an idiot that lack the most basic speech and negotiating skills, but you feel happy because it is for the COUNTRY. Why should it be different in Iraq??? Why?

The bulk of the casualties in the AngloAmerican troops is going to be inflicted by civilians once the troops are spread and occupying the country..... time will confrim it. (Sorry, I am not calling this a "coalition". Only 3 countries have troops -USA, UK and Australia-, 40 more support the war -Spain being the leding of them, but with marked intentions, as I pointed ETA in another thread- but the support is moral. The rest of the world -over 160 countries- said NO, so if there is a coalition, this IS the real one, and should be called "The coalition for peace")

You are forgetting the fact that the US was UNABLE to convince the UN about the existance of the weapons. Is not about legality, as trying to enforce a UN resolution when the USA has vetoed several other (yes, you know what I mean) is plain hipocrisy. The UN wanted to look for an alternative path, but obviously Bush felt in a big hurry and convinced NO ONE. Where is that respect of "democracy" when he acted like a dictator and ignored tje global opinion?? What moral authority can someone who acts by itself to request "compliance"??? How can you ask for democracy and enformecent of resolutions, when the USA had vetoed those enforcements and now it even ignores the global opinion???? Bush failed to SHOW the contundet evidence. With the cast resources of the USA, he could have shown very specific evidence, but he didn't because he didn't have it. What was the excuse??? "We want to protect our sorces..." So, it means that "protecting" a few (maybe hundreds) of "sources" was more important than avoiding the thousands of civilians casualties and refugees??? I don't see how this can be "protection of freedom" You are also bragging about the "overwhelming" superiority of your army, thus it showns that Iraq is not a threat. Most of those soldiers are fighting for their country, and they at a great disadvantage. So, because they are Iraquies their life is less important??? Why??? Great respect for life.....

Regarding the contracts, somebody said there that only the new Iraqui goverment has the abilty to choose, and that is a fair assumption. However, the country MUST not be billed for reconstrution, as they NEVER asked to be "liberated", the invaders should pay the burden of war and the cost to leave the country in the same state that it was before the invasion. The rest is the responsability of the Iraqui goverment. Well, but the USA already put several billions in the war, and that is against the taxpayer pocket. That is then a lesson to the taxpayers..... if you complain about the economy, ask the goverment to use the money wisely. No, even better, demand the goverment to use it wisely. If the objective is freedom and liberation, why worry for money??? Freedom is an important value to share. The contracts for Halliburton are almost a given, and the "war for oil" meant this. You or the average person are not going to see any benefit, but for the stockholders (*cough* Cheney *cough*) the war is being fought with missiles of gold..... I would like to see NUMBERS proving if my statements are wrong.

Guys, I feel a deep respect for our neighbors up north (my wife is American by the way), I understand the values you feel, and I have witnessed the authentic efforts to portait those values. I had before the idea that the average America was an imperialist blood-thirsty, drug and sex addict; but after meeting several person I realized they are normal people who want to live, struggle for happiness, cry and laugh.... and I feel so glad that my false view changed. Show those values that you feel and don't allow your goverment to EXPOSE you to more terrorism just to benefit a few persons. "War for oil" never meant the USa taking over oil fields, it always meant getting the contracts to exploit those oil fields by force.

 

[alexruiz]

Originally posted by: MillenniumDo 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.

I chose him because he fits my old and wrong stereotype of person in the USA..... not to mention that I need to add racist, KKK and Nazi.....

 

[Oakenfold]

We could always send in a Anandtech special ops team to takeout France.

All your bases are OURS

 

[datalink7]

Chirac has warned that France would vote against any U.N. Security Council resolution that would give "the American and British belligerents the right to administer Iraq."

Uhh.... LMAO? Hasn't the US and British already bypassed the UN?

 

[alexruiz]

Originally posted by: datalink7

Chirac has warned that France would vote against any U.N. Security Council resolution that would give "the American and British belligerents the right to administer Iraq."

Uhh.... LMAO? Hasn't the US and British already bypassed the UN?

Yes, thay have, but it was done using brute force, not reason.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: alexruiz

Originally posted by: MillenniumDo 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.

I chose him because he fits my old and wrong stereotype of person in the USA..... not to mention that I need to add racist, KKK and Nazi.....

You don't even know what they KKK was, and your country is the one that colluded with the Nazis in WWII, but I digress. BTW, you mentioned in your above post that only three countries had sent troops. Nope. Four and growing. Poland, US, UK, Australia.

I find it side that you read 30 different news sources a day and missed that Poland was helping...

 

[alexruiz]

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: alexruiz

Originally posted by: MillenniumDo 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.

I chose him because he fits my old and wrong stereotype of person in the USA..... not to mention that I need to add racist, KKK and Nazi.....

You don't even know what they KKK was, and your country is the one that colluded with the Nazis in WWII, but I digress. BTW, you mentioned in your above post that only three countries had sent troops. Nope. Four and growing. Poland, US, UK, Australia.

I find it side that you read 30 different news sources a day and missed that Poland was helping...

You have a valid point in Poland, and maybe I skipped that paragraph.... Anyway, it doesn't make it a broad coallition. Over 100 countries opposed ARE a coalition.

KKK, aren't those the guys who used to fire a cross in front of black people's houses??? Their motives.... racism! And if you remember the posts of this @$$hole, that is exactly how he thinks.

Finally, my friend, you totally slipped in "your country colluded with the Nazis in WW2"....
Prove that !ditotic aseveration. I am going to be nailing this thread until I get that answer..... Mexico colluded with the Nazis...... LMAO.... Give the evidence of that......

 

[Thraxen]

Yes, thay have, but it was done using brute force, not reason.

BS. Maybe you don't agree with the reasons, but the US tried to present their reasons through months of diplomacy (after a decade of IRAQ spitting in the face of UN resolutions). There have been 26 wars since the UN began and only three times has any of the countries involved asked for UN approval. All 3 times it was the US (first Gulf War, Afganistan, and the current one). No one else seems to want to play by the rules, but the US is the evil one...right? F that. Countries like France prefer to sit on their ass and criticize others who are actually trying to solve problems before they get out of hand. You would think more European countries would have learned the consequences of waiting after the two world wars, but I guess not.

IMO, the US should step out of the world scene totally. Stop all financial aid and remove our military from other countries. Then we can put out a press release that the US will no longer get involved in any conflict unless we ourselves are attacked directly. Then we can sit back and watch another Mid East war break out in which Israel would likely nuke the place to oblivion, we can watch N. Korea invade S. Korea and nuke it's neighbors, China can feel free to take full military action against Taiwan and maybe even invade Japan to pay them back for invading China in WWII, and who knows what else while countries like France cry about everything going on but won't lift a finger to stop anything. The US is much more of a stabilizing force than many people on this board seem to realize simply because all the various regimes out there know the US is willing to fight for the rights of others. But hey, whatever. I'm all for stepping out since that is what everyone wants these days. Time for the world to learn another lesson.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: alexruiz

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: alexruiz

Originally posted by: MillenniumDo 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.

I chose him because he fits my old and wrong stereotype of person in the USA..... not to mention that I need to add racist, KKK and Nazi.....

You don't even know what they KKK was, and your country is the one that colluded with the Nazis in WWII, but I digress. BTW, you mentioned in your above post that only three countries had sent troops. Nope. Four and growing. Poland, US, UK, Australia.

I find it side that you read 30 different news sources a day and missed that Poland was helping...

You have a valid point in Poland, and maybe I skipped that paragraph.... Anyway, it doesn't make it a broad coallition. Over 100 countries opposed ARE a coalition.

KKK, aren't those the guys who used to fire a cross in front of black people's houses??? Their motives.... racism! And if you remember the posts of this @$$hole, that is exactly how he thinks.

Finally, my friend, you totally slipped in "your country colluded with the Nazis in WW2"....
Prove that !ditotic aseveration. I am going to be nailing this thread until I get that answer..... Mexico colluded with the Nazis...... LMAO.... Give the evidence of that......

The 100 countries opposed do not have a common ground. That does not make a coalition. I did not mean Nazis in WWII; I meant Germany in WWI. I was inaccurate to say Nazis in WWI. Sorry.

KKK-You know nothing about... do don't go there. tcsenter wasn't racist, he merely said you lived in a third world country. I am sure that is upsetting, but it is affecting your rationale.

AS for when in WWi:Zimmerman Letter.

 

[alexruiz]

Originally posted by: Millennium

The 100 countries opposed do not have a common ground. That does not make a coalition. I did not mean Nazis in WWII; I meant Germany in WWI. I was inaccurate to say Nazis in WWI. Sorry.

KKK-You know nothing about... do don't go there. tcsenter wasn't racist, he merely said you lived in a third world country. I am sure that is upsetting, but it is affecting your rationale.

AS for when in WWi:Zimmerman Letter.

I took the rest of the brackets, it gets hard to read.....

While there is economic interest by some countries (money, money) there are some that are opposed to war DESPITE the fact that would get a lot of benefits..... Mine is one of those. "Tight oil supply??? Don't worry, OIL from Campeche is on the way....." We could make tons of money with the oil situation and the war, yet we are still loyal to out VALUES and PRINCIPLES. There is common ground between many of the opposing countries, and that is PEACE and RESPECT (curiously, countries who are developing should be included here)

What I am missing about the KKK??? The color of the skin made the person inferior??? While I don't know the DEEP details, I don't think my GENERAL conception is wrong..... Regarding that big idiot racist drug-addict, well, the comments were not only about being "third world" (something that I know and don't feel ashamed of, in fact, that gives you fuel to try harder and do it better). Look for his "kind words" ....

Maybe his gayness was rejected by a latin lover.....

WWI: Yes, we learn it in school. However, as you are aware, in 1917 the Mexican revolution was at full steam (note: In our history the revolution is 100 years AFTER we got indepent form Spain). Despite the offer, the country was in complete turmoil. The new president (Venustiano Carranza) was so close to Woldroow Wilson and Theodor Roosevelt that he wouldn't even consider it seriously. In fact, he was getting planes and weapons from the USA to fight Emiliano Zapata and Pancho Villa...... (personal comment: Another proof of how the USA screws up and support the wrong guy)
But even if we would have sided with Germany, there is alot of difference between the Kaiser and the Fuhrer.....

In WW2, we even sent a squad to the Pacific (escuadron 201) and were one of the VERY few countries who supported the Republic of Spain with weapons and bastiments against Franco in the civil war(The USSR was the other country supporting the republic.....)

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: DigitalLove

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.

I'm actually amazed at the stupidity of that response. Then what is the war about, O Omniscient One?

 

[arynn]

Originally posted by: datalink7

Chirac has warned that France would vote against any U.N. Security Council resolution that would give "the American and British belligerents the right to administer Iraq."

Uhh.... LMAO? Hasn't the US and British already bypassed the UN?

The US/UK et al bypassed the UN for the invasion. However, they want to include the UN in the rebuilding of Iraq. If France and Russia refuse to legitimize the use of force, the UN will likely be bypassed again for the rebuilding phase. I have also heard on the news that the UN does not want to be responsible for the rebuilding of Iraq.

I don't expect France, Russia, Germany or anyone not supporting the military action will have any place in the initial rebuilding of Iraq as it is virtually guaranteed that the US/UK (or anyone else helping paying for the initial rebuilding) will pay a company from a country outside the coalition.

However, the oil contracts France and Russia have from Saddam should be either honored or dismissed by the Iraqi government. If the US/UK or anyone makes any long term economic decisions that would be unacceptable. (I expect this is why they want to involve the UN in the event that any long term contracts need to be award before a functional government is installed in Iraq.)

 

[Mookow]

The contracts for Halliburton are almost a given, and the "war for oil" meant this. You or the average person are not going to see any benefit, but for the stockholders (*cough* Cheney *cough*) the war is being fought with missiles of gold..... I would like to see NUMBERS proving if my statements are wrong.

Considering Cheney sold his stock before taking office, I dont see how awarding a contract to his FORMER company helps him financially.

 

[alexruiz]

Originally posted by: Mookow

The contracts for Halliburton are almost a given, and the "war for oil" meant this. You or the average person are not going to see any benefit, but for the stockholders (*cough* Cheney *cough*) the war is being fought with missiles of gold..... I would like to see NUMBERS proving if my statements are wrong.

Considering Cheney sold his stock before taking office, I dont see how awarding a contract to his FORMER company helps him financially.

Come on my friend... don't be that innocent.... If only the rest of life was as easy as "bypassing" this minor annoyance (get someone to lend the name as "owner".... ) There is no limit for the imagination of the greedy!!!

I am honestly surprised by the overall innocence and trust of the average American... It is in fact a virtue, but as downside it can be ABUSED by the ones in power.

 

[BruceLee]

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

What a joke. France sucks!!!! Figures those losers would pull some BS stuff like that.

 

[etech]

I wonder if this will shut up any of the conspricacy nuts that have been posting in this thread.

Halliburton Out of Race for Iraq Deal
Fri Mar 28, 7:32 PM ET

Energy and construction company Halliburton Co. is out of the running for a massive U.S. government contract for reconstruction in Iraq , the Agency for International Development (AID) said on Friday.
...


Another great conspiracy story shot down by the facts. I'm not worried though, there will be another one along any time now.

 

[ebloom]

France only wins when the UK and US do the fighting. :disgust:

http://www.lemonizer.com/uploads/france0328garner.gif

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: alexruiz

Originally posted by: Mookow

The contracts for Halliburton are almost a given, and the "war for oil" meant this. You or the average person are not going to see any benefit, but for the stockholders (*cough* Cheney *cough*) the war is being fought with missiles of gold..... I would like to see NUMBERS proving if my statements are wrong.

Considering Cheney sold his stock before taking office, I dont see how awarding a contract to his FORMER company helps him financially.

Come on my friend... don't be that innocent.... If only the rest of life was as easy as "bypassing" this minor annoyance (get someone to lend the name as "owner".... ) There is no limit for the imagination of the greedy!!!

I am honestly surprised by the overall innocence and trust of the average American... It is in fact a virtue, but as downside it can be ABUSED by the ones in power.

So I guess since we can't totally seperate a businessman from his former company, we should, after a man gets elected to office, immediately shut down any company he has worked for or owned stock in. Or that any of his friends have owned stock in. Or any company his contributors owned stock in or worked for

 

[TheCorm]

Originally posted by: ebloom
France only wins when the UK and US do the fighting. :disgust:

http://www.lemonizer.com/uploads/france0328garner.gif

LOL

 

[Ornery]

Of All the Nerve
By Neil Cavuto, Thursday, March 27, 2003

• Why do the French make things so easy for me?
  
  
  Have you heard this one?
  
  Never mind that France wanted nothing to do with getting rid of Saddam and wants everything to do with rebuilding Iraq after Saddam. Here's the kicker: France says Britain and the U.S. should not have a role -- it's up to the United Nations to decide.
  
  So, let me see if I've got this right. France offered not one soldier, not one plane, not one tank, or ship, convoy or grenade. Not one missile. Not one drop of blood. And yet, France is going to decide the new Iraq?
  
  Well pardon me, Pepe, but I don't think so.
  
  I don't know what amazes me more: How callous the French are, or how arrogant they are. People are still dying in Iraq and they are already tripping over their corpses to cash in on Iraq?
  
  France couldn't lift a hand to a rifle to help us, but is more than willing to go for a few of their precious Euros to screw us?
  
  We fight and die to free a people whose suffering you more than happily ignored. And they saunter in to set up shop so that they can merrily profit?
  
  Please tell me the French word for chutzpa!
  
  France schemes to sell brie, after we've given blood?
  
  France plots business storms, while our guys are choking in sandstorms?
  
  France notifies the world they're ready to do deals, while we have servicemen in this country notifying families of killed soldiers they're ready to do funerals?
  
  What the French lack in guts, they more than make up for in nerve.
  
  France wouldn't help the Iraqi people when they needed rescuing, but is more than willing to dive in and take the money because maybe France needs rescuing.
  
  The French are as morally bankrupt as I hope soon they will be financially bankrupt.
  
  Pity the poor country that calls you a friend and realizes the hand it's holding, is only digging for spare change.