Now French want to legitimize overthrow of Saddam

DZip

Senior member
Apr 11, 2000
375
0
0
I just saw a banner add on the coverage of the successful campain to liberate the Iraqi people that said "France, Germany, and Russa plan meeting to discuss their role in the New Iraq". They claim that only the UN can legitimize the new government. Was this the same stand they took by uniting before the war to illegitimize the war because the US and UK claimed the UN was not making Saddam live up to the cease fire agreement. I think the liberating coalition should oversee the Iraqi's as they form a new government.
Anyone agree?
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,265
126
IT IS NOT ABOUT FRANCE RUSSIA THE US OR ANYONE ELSE BUT THE IRAQIS


Hopefully someone heard me. The French cannot legitimize anything, nor can we. Only the Iraqis can. Now the role everyone else CAN play is in assisting the Iraqis in rebuilding in the way THEY want too. Christ sakes people this isnt a pissing match.
 

Rogue

Banned
Jan 28, 2000
5,774
0
0
The thing is, we will probably concede and let them do it so that we don't look bad for holding their stance against them. I do think that they will have a severly diminished role in the process than they would have had if they had participated, but we will permit them to participate in the rebuilding of Iraq. Besides, maybe Russia and France will help us to identify and disable/destroy their weapons they supplied to Saddam and perhaps Germany will help to identify and repair the underground bunkers they built for Saddam. They do have a role, even if it is to cover up their own indiscretions (sp?).
 

Judgement

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
3,816
0
0
Originally posted by: DZip
I just saw a banner add on the coverage of the successful campain to liberate the Iraqi people that said "France, Germany, and Russa plan meeting to discuss their role in the New Iraq". They claim that only the UN can legitimize the new government. Was this the same stand they took by uniting before the war to illegitimize the war because the US and UK claimed the UN was not making Saddam live up to the cease fire agreement. I think the liberating coalition should oversee the Iraqi's as they form a new government.
Anyone agree?

You sound surprised, we've seen this coming since the war started and France etc refused to get involved while denouncing the actions made by the U.S.
 

EXman

Lifer
Jul 12, 2001
20,079
15
81
French = :eek: ( <--embarassed)

for real these guys have no shame

Fvck the French
 

blade

1957 - 2008<br>Elite Moderator Emeritus<br>Troll H
Oct 9, 1999
2,772
1
0
I think the liberating coalition should oversee the Iraqi's as they form a new government.

Yes. We did all the blood, sweat and tears. The french deserve sh*t. Ok, maybe let them clean the sewers out.

Fvck the French

:wine:
rose.gif
 

UNCjigga

Lifer
Dec 12, 2000
24,809
9,015
136
Originally posted by: CptObvious
Our blood sweat and tears so THEY can make money....uhhh, No

:disgust:
So it really is all about making money in the end? :|

Thanks for the clarification...couldn't see past Bush's smoke and mirrors until a fellow conservative cleared that up for me. Ironic how conservatives deny the war is about money and then furrow their brows at those money-grubbing bastards in France, Germany and Russia. How dare they try to profit from our liberation movement!
rolleye.gif


I don't like abortion, I don't like 'Hollywood' values, and I definately think we need to enforce some sort of moral (if not religious) values in our public schools, but I'd HATE to identify as a conservative. This pompous, self-righteous attitude some of the neo-conservatives have sickens me, and I hate that we're now using this in our foreign policy. Everytime I hear Bush speak about 'WMD' and 'terrorism' and 'Sah-dum' I feel like I'm being strung along in some hype circus and I feel dumber for having listened to him. The very least he could do is maintain a consistent message about what the hell we plan to do in Iraq and what our goal is for post-war Iraq when we're done.
 

Judgement

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
3,816
0
0
Originally posted by: uncJIGGA
Originally posted by: CptObvious
Our blood sweat and tears so THEY can make money....uhhh, No

:disgust:
So it really is all about making money in the end? :|

Thanks for the clarification...couldn't see past Bush's smoke and mirrors until a fellow conservative cleared that up for me. Ironic how conservatives deny the war is about money and then furrow their brows at those money-grubbing bastards in France, Germany and Russia. How dare they try to profit from our liberation movement!
rolleye.gif


I don't like abortion, I don't like 'Hollywood' values, and I definately think we need to enforce some sort of moral (if not religious) values in our public schools, but I'd HATE to identify as a conservative. This pompous, self-righteous attitude some of the neo-conservatives have sickens me, and I hate that we're now using this in our foreign policy. Everytime I hear Bush speak about 'WMD' and 'terrorism' and 'Sah-dum' I feel like I'm being strung along in some hype circus and I feel dumber for having listened to him. The very least he could do is maintain a consistent message about what the hell we plan to do in Iraq and what our goal is for post-war Iraq when we're done.

The French don't wanna look like assholes to the newly freed Iraqi people for protesting and denouncing the war, which in fact prolonged Iraqis' suffering. They need to fix their image with Iraq before a government that isn't lead by a dictator comes into power.
 

iamwiz82

Lifer
Jan 10, 2001
30,772
13
81
Originally posted by: uncJIGGA
Originally posted by: CptObvious
Our blood sweat and tears so THEY can make money....uhhh, No

:disgust:
So it really is all about making money in the end? :|

Thanks for the clarification...couldn't see past Bush's smoke and mirrors until a fellow conservative cleared that up for me. Ironic how conservatives deny the war is about money and then furrow their brows at those money-grubbing bastards in France, Germany and Russia. How dare they try to profit from our liberation movement!
rolleye.gif


I don't like abortion, I don't like 'Hollywood' values, and I definately think we need to enforce some sort of moral (if not religious) values in our public schools, but I'd HATE to identify as a conservative. This pompous, self-righteous attitude some of the neo-conservatives have sickens me, and I hate that we're now using this in our foreign policy. Everytime I hear Bush speak about 'WMD' and 'terrorism' and 'Sah-dum' I feel like I'm being strung along in some hype circus and I feel dumber for having listened to him. The very least he could do is maintain a consistent message about what the hell we plan to do in Iraq and what our goal is for post-war Iraq when we're done.

How are we as a country going to MAKE money in this whole thing? You keep saying MAKE, but we will MAKE nothing.
 
Jul 1, 2000
10,274
2
0
Great. Let's have the UN go in there and build a new government, just like they did in the former Yugoslavia. That has worked out great, so far.
rolleye.gif


I agree with Hayabusrider in theory. In practice, it is a little tougher than that. Iraq is a fractured nation with Kurds, Sunnis (the ruling minority - until earlier today), and the Shiites. There is a distinct possibility that Iraq could turn into another Lebanon if left to its own devices, like Lebanon was.

The U.S. needs to provide stability to the region until an infant government, hopefully of the Iraqi's choosing, has the strength to walk under its own power. The problem with the pie-eyed notion of leaving the Iraqis alone, after we have squashed Saddam like the filthy dung beetle that he is (was)is that Iran will likely swoop down and take power during the post-war confusion - with aid from the Shiites in Basra. Baghdad would be isolated, and we would be dealing with a radical Islamic superstate - an Iran twice as powerful as before. Nobody wants that.

We need to rebuild Iraq stronger than it was. We need to create a benevolent democracy that can serve as a beacon of freedom to the oppressed peoples of the region. Freedom is contagious.

The greatest legacy that the United States can have is deliberately infecting the Middle East with democracy.
 

mboy

Diamond Member
Jul 29, 2001
3,309
0
0
Originally posted by: uncJIGGA
Originally posted by: CptObvious
Our blood sweat and tears so THEY can make money....uhhh, No

:disgust:
So it really is all about making money in the end? :|

Thanks for the clarification...couldn't see past Bush's smoke and mirrors until a fellow conservative cleared that up for me. Ironic how conservatives deny the war is about money and then furrow their brows at those money-grubbing bastards in France, Germany and Russia. How dare they try to profit from our liberation movement!
rolleye.gif


I don't like abortion, I don't like 'Hollywood' values, and I definately think we need to enforce some sort of moral (if not religious) values in our public schools, but I'd HATE to identify as a conservative. This pompous, self-righteous attitude some of the neo-conservatives have sickens me, and I hate that we're now using this in our foreign policy. Everytime I hear Bush speak about 'WMD' and 'terrorism' and 'Sah-dum' I feel like I'm being strung along in some hype circus and I feel dumber for having listened to him. The very least he could do is maintain a consistent message about what the hell we plan to do in Iraq and what our goal is for post-war Iraq when we're done.

American,British, Australiana and some Polish tax money funded this war with a positive outcome being the Iraqi people are liberated. Since France, Germany and Russia contributed NOTHING, why should the coalition of the willing allow French, GErman or Russian construction firms come in get the contracts to rebuild the infrastructure.
The UN will help with humanitarian aide and thats about it (all they are capable of anyway). U can bet your A$$ that American, then British and then the rest of the coalition's native firms get the big contracts to rebuild the infrastructure that will eventually lead to an all Iraqi run and funded country.
Our tax money funded the war that liberated them, why shouldn the countries that paid (with more then just $$$) get the rebuilding contracts (for things the Iraqi people cant do themselves).

 
Jul 1, 2000
10,274
2
0
Originally posted by: uncJIGGA
Originally posted by: CptObvious Our blood sweat and tears so THEY can make money....uhhh, No :disgust:
So it really is all about making money in the end? :| Thanks for the clarification...couldn't see past Bush's smoke and mirrors until a fellow conservative cleared that up for me. Ironic how conservatives deny the war is about money and then furrow their brows at those money-grubbing bastards in France, Germany and Russia. How dare they try to profit from our liberation movement!
rolleye.gif
I don't like abortion, I don't like 'Hollywood' values, and I definately think we need to enforce some sort of moral (if not religious) values in our public schools, but I'd HATE to identify as a conservative. This pompous, self-righteous attitude some of the neo-conservatives have sickens me, and I hate that we're now using this in our foreign policy. Everytime I hear Bush speak about 'WMD' and 'terrorism' and 'Sah-dum' I feel like I'm being strung along in some hype circus and I feel dumber for having listened to him. The very least he could do is maintain a consistent message about what the hell we plan to do in Iraq and what our goal is for post-war Iraq when we're done.

What is wrong with trying to make up a little bit of the money that the United States spent on liberating an oppressed people? We have spent billions on this campaign... why should the United States not be compensated?
 

UNCjigga

Lifer
Dec 12, 2000
24,809
9,015
136
Originally posted by: iamwiz82
Originally posted by: uncJIGGA
Originally posted by: CptObvious
Our blood sweat and tears so THEY can make money....uhhh, No

:disgust:
So it really is all about making money in the end? :|

Thanks for the clarification...couldn't see past Bush's smoke and mirrors until a fellow conservative cleared that up for me. Ironic how conservatives deny the war is about money and then furrow their brows at those money-grubbing bastards in France, Germany and Russia. How dare they try to profit from our liberation movement!
rolleye.gif


I don't like abortion, I don't like 'Hollywood' values, and I definately think we need to enforce some sort of moral (if not religious) values in our public schools, but I'd HATE to identify as a conservative. This pompous, self-righteous attitude some of the neo-conservatives have sickens me, and I hate that we're now using this in our foreign policy. Everytime I hear Bush speak about 'WMD' and 'terrorism' and 'Sah-dum' I feel like I'm being strung along in some hype circus and I feel dumber for having listened to him. The very least he could do is maintain a consistent message about what the hell we plan to do in Iraq and what our goal is for post-war Iraq when we're done.

How are we as a country going to MAKE money in this whole thing? You keep saying MAKE, but we will MAKE nothing.
Really, you didn't hear about the US Mint's plan to relocate to Iraq, where cheap labor means each $1 bill costs 50 cents??
rolleye.gif
What's your point? I quoted CptObvious in my post so it was obviously directed at his earlier comments...he used MAKE money too.

Our government is already on a mission to seize Baath party assets around the world. When they discover hordes of hard currency/bullion (Arab regimes are known for stockpiling assets ala Fort Knox rather than putting them in paper currencies/banks) do you think they will just hand it over to 'the Iraqi people'? I'm sure we will sign some very lucrative oil deals with whatever Iraqi government controls the wells too (you think we're really going to help form independent, privately-held Iraqi oil companies?!) We already have a few lucrative contracts with firms like Halliburton to help rebuild Iraq (beyond oil-field repair, I don't know what else we plant to build?) There is money to be made in this war...

 

AT

Senior member
Oct 9, 1999
388
0
0
Originally posted by: mboy
[

American,British, Australiana and some Polish tax money funded this war with a positive outcome being the Iraqi people are liberated. Since France, Germany and Russia contributed NOTHING, why should the coalition of the willing allow French, GErman or Russian construction firms come in get the contracts to rebuild the infrastructure.

Because it is not the coalition of the willing's choice but the Iraqi people's. I'm sure they will give most/all contracts to coalition but it is still THEIR choice.
 

UNCjigga

Lifer
Dec 12, 2000
24,809
9,015
136
Originally posted by: mboy
American,British, Australiana and some Polish tax money funded this war with a positive outcome being the Iraqi people are liberated. Since France, Germany and Russia contributed NOTHING, why should the coalition of the willing allow French, GErman or Russian construction firms come in get the contracts to rebuild the infrastructure.
The UN will help with humanitarian aide and thats about it (all they are capable of anyway). U can bet your A$$ that American, then British and then the rest of the coalition's native firms get the big contracts to rebuild the infrastructure that will eventually lead to an all Iraqi run and funded country.
Our tax money funded the war that liberated them, why shouldn the countries that paid (with more then just $$$) get the rebuilding contracts (for things the Iraqi people cant do themselves).

Originally posted by: DevilsAdvocate
What is wrong with trying to make up a little bit of the money that the United States spent on liberating an oppressed people? We have spent billions on this campaign... why should the United States <EM>not be compensated</EM>?
Nothing is wrong with enjoying the fruits of favored-nation trade relations with a new Iraq. I just don't like the fact that we are excluding so many NGOs and other international organizations from not just the re-building process, but the judicial process (war crimes) and the peacekeeping process as well. I'd rather have UN peacekeepers in Iraq once its safe for us to pull out. The less time American troops spend on Iraqi soil the better. We do NOT want to treat this country like a colony...I'm sure with all the aid we dole out they won't mind but the Arab League and the rest of the world for that matter will see it as 21st century colonialism which is what they've been trying to avoid all along.

 

yowolabi

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2001
4,183
2
81
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
IT IS NOT ABOUT FRANCE RUSSIA THE US OR ANYONE ELSE BUT THE IRAQIS


Hopefully someone heard me. The French cannot legitimize anything, nor can we. Only the Iraqis can. Now the role everyone else CAN play is in assisting the Iraqis in rebuilding in the way THEY want too. Christ sakes people this isnt a pissing match.

I hear you.
 

mboy

Diamond Member
Jul 29, 2001
3,309
0
0
Originally posted by: AT
Originally posted by: mboy
[

American,British, Australiana and some Polish tax money funded this war with a positive outcome being the Iraqi people are liberated. Since France, Germany and Russia contributed NOTHING, why should the coalition of the willing allow French, GErman or Russian construction firms come in get the contracts to rebuild the infrastructure.

Because it is not the coalition of the willing's choice but the Iraqi people's. I'm sure they will give most/all contracts to coalition but it is still THEIR choice.


Actually it is OUR choice until the Iraqi's have a functionin Government, Military and Police aparatus in place. Until then, OUR military is running the show in order to bring the country to a point where it can be run by themselves.
Ask Germany and Japan what happened after we defeated them.
Ever hear of the Marshall plan? Do u know who/what Marshall was?
 

yowolabi

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2001
4,183
2
81
Originally posted by: mboy
Originally posted by: AT
Originally posted by: mboy
[

American,British, Australiana and some Polish tax money funded this war with a positive outcome being the Iraqi people are liberated. Since France, Germany and Russia contributed NOTHING, why should the coalition of the willing allow French, GErman or Russian construction firms come in get the contracts to rebuild the infrastructure.

Because it is not the coalition of the willing's choice but the Iraqi people's. I'm sure they will give most/all contracts to coalition but it is still THEIR choice.


Actually it is OUR choice until the Iraqi's have a functionin Government, Military and Police aparatus in place. Until then, OUR military is running the show in order to bring the country to a point where it can be run by themselves.
Ask Germany and Japan what happened after we defeated them.
Ever hear of the Marshall plan? Do u know who/what Marshall was?

We were at war with Japan. They were a conquered nation. We have stated time and time again that our goal is to get rid of the dictatorship and liberate Iraq, not conquer it. That's why when someone put the US flag up early in the war, his commander made him take it down. What we are allowed to do in this war is nothing similar to Japan or Germany. We aren't dictating terms to a defeated foe. The people we fought against are now out of power, and the people of Iraq get to decide what happens next.
 

BlvdKing

Golden Member
Jun 7, 2000
1,173
0
0
The next step is to clean up the remainder of the old regime, and establish a new government that accurately represents the Iraqi people. Whether the US or the UN does it, who cares? Let just get the troops out ASAP. They won't be tolerated there for very long after the war ends.

Why not let other countries spend the BILLIONS of dollars (or euros) to rebuild Iraq and let us focus on our own economy?
 

AT

Senior member
Oct 9, 1999
388
0
0
Originally posted by: mboy

Actually it is OUR choice until the Iraqi's have a functionin Government, Military and Police aparatus in place. Until then, OUR military is running the show in order to bring the country to a point where it can be run by themselves.
Ask Germany and Japan what happened after we defeated them.
Ever hear of the Marshall plan? Do u know who/what Marshall was?

To my knowledge the point of the war was to get rid of Saddam and his WMD's. Not occupy a sovereign state in an already fragile part of the earth where continued strong US military presence will only cause more tension. I doubt that it would take long for Iraqi people to start feeling betrayed if after being freed from Saddam they find themselves under US control regardless of their gratitude for events leading to that.

It is the right thing to do to let the Iraqi people decide their own fate from now on.
 

oLLie

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2001
5,203
1
0
Originally posted by: AT
Originally posted by: mboy

Actually it is OUR choice until the Iraqi's have a functionin Government, Military and Police aparatus in place. Until then, OUR military is running the show in order to bring the country to a point where it can be run by themselves.
Ask Germany and Japan what happened after we defeated them.
Ever hear of the Marshall plan? Do u know who/what Marshall was?

To my knowledge the point of the war was to get rid of Saddam and his WMD's. Not occupy a sovereign state in an already fragile part of the earth where continued strong US military presence will only cause more tension. I doubt that it would take long for Iraqi people to start feeling betrayed if after being freed from Saddam they find themselves under US control regardless of their gratitude for events leading to that.

It is the right thing to do to let the Iraqi people decide their own fate from now on.

So your idea is that we destroy Saddam and leave as soon as his regime is out. I'm sorry but that sounds like a horrible plan, I think it would be a disaster in fact. They call it "nation-building" for a reason... we have to be involved and we have to help. I think the first step is some sort of interim government. Tell me all your reasons for why we should immediately leave after the Saddam regime is gone.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
I don't think these countries like Russia for example care too much about who is in power in Iraq, as long as they can make some money.
They just want to be able to compete for Iraqi business. Russia sells a lot of stuff aside from weapons to Iraq. Anything from combines, tires, cars, trucks, tractors. They don't want to lose a major trading partner, or the Americans to use their military presence to crowd out Russian companies and replace them with US companies.
There is also a question of Iraqi debt to Russia, which is substantial.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: SuperTool
I don't think these countries like Russia for example care too much about who is in power in Iraq, as long as they can make some money.
They just want to be able to compete for Iraqi business. Russia sells a lot of stuff aside from weapons to Iraq. Anything from combines, tires, cars, trucks, tractors. They don't want to lose a major trading partner, or the Americans to use their military presence to crowd out Russian companies and replace them with US companies.
There is also a question of Iraqi debt to Russia, which is substantial.
Hmmm...maybe Bono will show up soon and try to get Russia to waive that debt. ;)