France, Germany Criticize Iraq Resolution

[Seraphim]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20030904/ap_on_re_mi_ea/un_iraq_15


By GEIR MOULSON, Associated Press Writer

DRESDEN, Germany - The leaders of Germany and France criticized a U.S. draft resolution seeking international troops and money for Iraq (news - web sites), saying it falls short by not granting responsibility to Iraqis or a large enough role to the United Nations (news - web sites).


The two nations — who led opposition to the Iraq war — lined up their stances ahead of tough negotiations over the U.S. draft resolution put forward Wednesday. Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) said the United States welcomes "constructive input" — but he insisted the U.S. plan addresses France and Germany's concerns.


The U.S. proposed seeks troops and money for Iraq's postwar reconstruction but declines to relinquish political or military control of the country.


German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and French President Jacques Chirac insisted Washington had to go further.


The U.S. plan does not address the "priority objective" — the transfer of power to a homegrown Iraqi government, Chirac said. Schroeder said the draft resolution had brought "movement" into the diplomacy. But he added: "I agree with the president when he says: Not dynamic enough, not sufficient."


"Now is the time the to look forward, and that can only happen if the United Nations can take responsibility for the political process," Schroeder said.


Still, Germany's U.N. Ambassador Gunter Pleuger said the U.S. draft was a good basis for negotiations, a view shared by many other Security Council members.


"We will see in the negotiations in the next days how far we can get," Pleuger said. "It's a good working basis but it certainly can be improved."


In Washington, Powell noted that the French and Germans had not put forward a timetable for transferring power to the Iraqis, and he underlined that the resolution calls on the Iraqis to help work out a timetable.


"I think the resolution is drafted in a way that deals with the concerns that leaders such as President Chirac and Chancellor Schroeder have raised in the past," he said. "We'd be more than happy to listen to their suggestions."


France is one of five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, a position that gives it veto power over Council actions. Schroeder and Chirac have both been adamant that the United States cede control of the political process there.


They said they hoped that the United States would be open to changes in the draft.


The draft resolution, obtained by The Associated Press, would transform the U.S.-led military force in Iraq into a U.N.-authorized multinational force under a unified command. Powell said Wednesday that an American would remain at the top of such a command.


Key provisions in the U.S. draft would:


_ Call on U.N. member states to help train and equip an Iraqi police force.


_ Invite the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council to cooperate with the United Nations and U.S. officials in Baghdad to produce "a timetable and program for the drafting of a new constitution for Iraq and for the holding of democratic elections."


_ Ask the U.N. representative in Iraq to facilitate a "national dialogue and consensus building" to promote the political transition.





_ Ask all U.N. member states and international and regional organizations "to accelerate the provision of substantial financial contributions to support the Iraqi reconstruction effort" and appeal to international financial institutions to provide loans and other assistance.

_Call on countries in the region "to prevent the transit of terrorists, arms for terrorists, and financing that would support terrorists."

On Thursday, reaction from Security Council members was mixed. Hours before Schroeder and Chirac spoke, Russia sent its first signal that it might consider sending peacekeepers to Iraq as part of an international force.

"It all depends on a specific resolution. I wouldn't exclude it outright," Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov told the Interfax news agency.

And in Beijing, Foreign Ministry spokesman Kong Quan said the U.S. offer to share Iraq's postwar reconstruction was in line with the objectives of China, which has "actively participated" in the effort to increase U.N. participation.

"We have all along stood for the early restoration of stability throughout Iraq," Kong said. "We have stood for the important growth of the United Nations in this endeavor." He did not provide details.

Chile's U.N. Ambassador Heraldo Munoz called the U.S. proposal "an adequate basis for negotiations."

Many council nations stressed that the U.N. role in Iraq, and the degree of power the United States will be prepared to relinquish, will be key issues.

Mexico's U.N. Ambassador Adolfo Aguilar Zinser, whose country opposed the war, said the thrust of a new resolution must be "the restoration of the full sovereignty of Iraqis." The Mexican position is that reconstruction in Iraq "is a job for the United Nations."

Council diplomats said they would like the resolution to be adopted before ministers gather for the meeting of the U.N. General Assembly on Sept. 23.

But some European countries are likely to resist if the United States continues to try to hold on to all the lucrative and influential ventures, such as oil contracts and the political rebuilding process, according to some council diplomats who spoke on condition of anonymity.

The postwar operation is costing the United States about $3.9 billion a month and has strained the American military, which has some 140,000 troops stationed in Iraq.

The resolution envisions a substantial infusion of international aid to defray costs now largely borne by U.S. taxpayers. At the same time, the administration is preparing a new budget request for $60 billion to $70 billion for reconstruction and the military operation of Iraq — nearly double what Congress was expecting, The Washington Post reported.

___

Associated Press correspondent Edith M. Lederer at the United Nations contributed to this report.

[martinexsquaddie]

france and germanys version
Dear UN were sorry we did'nt think this one through what do you expect the boss is from Texas :lol:
give us a hand to sort it out and we will send david Hasselhoff on a singing tour promise ;)
only with much more grovelling :lol:

[steel bonnet]

So if the US had opted to deal with Iraq soley,there`d be mass uproar.

For the US to INSIST on a more Major part from the UN,only France & German are upset.

Mmmmmmm Do the Maths & screw those two :D

Ja
Steel bonnet

[txajas]

The US DID opt to deal with Iraq alone, what is your point?

You break it you fix it....

[Bulkowski]

The US DID opt to deal with Iraq alone, what is your point?

You break it you fix it....
Yep, didnt Bush say something about not doing nation rebuilding in one of his debates? But it would be nice for people to help out

[usa320]

At first, they wanted us to go through the UN. WE didnt, they got pissed.

Now we do, and they are still pissed...

I think they just dont like us.

Screw em.

[txajas]

There is a big difference about going with UN support BEFORE going in than requesting it AFTER you have gone it. This may be a concept a tad too complex for some of you to understand....

[StarvingStudent47]

There is a big difference about going with UN support BEFORE going in than requesting it AFTER you have gone it. This may be a concept a tad too complex for some of you to understand....

But the UN wasn't going to support military action, no matter how many times we asked them. Remember?

I say we do this like we did Kosovo. Don't bother with the UN. Just say "Hey, any countries that wanna help out, we'd appreciate it. If not, just go mind your own business." Watch who shows up and take note--"A friend in need is a friend indeed." Britain and Australia are already there, and Japan and Israel have offered aid (I'm sure others have too, I just don't know who). We had a pretty broad coalition in Kosovo, even though it didn't have UN support. I think Iraq could be the same.

[Argyll]

Well guys I'm sorry but what did you expect,the US said "Up Yours"to all in Sundry and said we don't need your say or help anyway,and now they realise that things are not going to plan,they are ,what seems like demanding help from the UN,and these other countries,but still want to have full control over everything,and everyone,hardly a democratic process is it.
Without having as much as I hate to say it,the UN backing,the Armies of liberation,are now Armies of Occupation,and a steady influx of foriegn troops into that country will only add to the concerns they.the Iraqis themselves have.
Rumsfeldt and his planners got it wrong!!!,and now they want the UN to pick up the pieces,how ironic is that?
Had they waited for the sake of 60 days,the time asked for by the Weapons Inspectors,then we ,the coalition would've not been in this mess,that's possibly one US/UK KIA saved for every day we didn't wait,they asked for 60 days,and we've had what 120,and still nothing!!!!!
Our teams have Freedom of movement,the UN did not,they also had minders to interfere,our teams are on their own,without restrictions!.
Look at how many Arab states have volunteered to send troops,as they just did not see the threat,as what the West was claiming.The whole thing is a sorry mess,for which we must clean up,we were big enough to take the course of action,now we must face the consequences.

As for Kosovo,well it was NATO who took the role there,and the country is still not stable enough for troops to leave,Only Arabs really understand Arabs,and we need some of them on our side!

[aeternum]

... and Australia are already there

Ehhh nope, they are not.

No Australia peacekeepers for Iraq
CANBERRA, Australia (AP) -- Australia will not send peacekeepers to Iraq even if the U.N. Security Council supports a new multinational force to help U.S. troops there, Prime Minister John Howard has said.

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/auspac/09/05/sprj.irq.aust.ap/index.html

[Argyll]

There are Aussies in Baghdad right now!!

[budanski]

But some European countries are likely to resist if the United States continues to try to hold on to all the lucrative and influential ventures, such as oil contracts and the political rebuilding process, according to some council diplomats

It's all about money, money money.

UN countries are holding out for more rewards for doing nothing except supporting Saddam and stealing Iraqi's money.

Despite the media spin, it seems to me this is just dealing, we've only started, and I think we're in a good position to get a fair deal for us and the Iraqis out of this.

Why does the press keep insisting on spinning this as a "reversal" of policy? Powell has been talking for ages about seeing if we can get a resolution that would allow for a UN mandate so long as the US is in charge ultimately of the security and reconstruction issues. It all just depends on whether France and Russia would agree to terms that we could live with. I don't see a reversal here. The press, like France and Germany, just want to make this into an "I told you so" issue, which it is definitely not.

[Fargin]

It's already an "I told you so" issue, hell it even was six months ago.

[aeternum]

The idea was to use the iraqi oil to pay for the rebuilding costs. But until this can happen, it will take years to moderinze the oil industrie, they need money from somewhere else. So its time to let the UN members join the game. For the US Administration it would be the ideal solution, to gain money from countries like France, Germany etc. and use it to rebuild iraq. So far so good. The problem is, they let mostly US companies do the work. They get all the benefit. Foreign money to help the US ecomomy. That’s a pretty much no-no. So until they are willing to re-evaluate the commissioning, they wont have any luck trying to confince anyone for help.

Both the USA nor France or Germany are selfless countries. They all have their own agenda to follow.

aet

[He219]

I totally concur with StarvingStudent47's assesment.


UN countries are holding out for more rewards for doing nothing except supporting Saddam and stealing Iraqi's money.

Here here!


It's already an "I told you so" issue, hell it even was six months ago.

I wonder what the 'I told you so' critics will say when the WMD program is eventually uncovered? UN inspections certainly would not have forced the downfall or removal of Saddam's Regieme and the critics never once explained how the UN was going to do the like. The US always wanted the support and backing of the International Community to do what we are doing today.

Have a nice day!

[budanski]

The problem is, they let mostly US companies do the work. They get all the benefit. Foreign money to help the US ecomomy. That’s a pretty much no-no.

Cause most of the companies most experienced and most capable happens to be from the U.S. Bechtel and Haliburton are no small fries. I'm sorry if the U.S. doesnt see the world as a socialist playground and hand out jobs because the need a quota of europeans to make it legit. The U.S. and its coalition fought this so they should get the brunt of the contracts.

Foreign money to help the US economy is not a new concept. Europe and China invests heavily in the U.S. Isnt it funny thats its a no-no but when the **** hits the fan. "Oh the U.S. needs to give more for this famine, disease, natural disasters, etc."

[Fargin]

You say when, I say if you eventually find the immediate threat.

I will tell you: "Iraq was never a direct threat to America, before Amercian soldiers were killed in carbombings and ambushes inside Iraq."

[Argyll]

He 219,
Oh so now its only a program that need to be uncovered,that is complete and utter crap!!!,both the US and the UK stated the case for war was the WMDs themselves,not piles of paper saying how to make them,get a chemistry book and pages off the net ,they can tell you how to make Sarin and Tabin,pieces of paper do not constitute a clear and present danger to the USA or the West,why have none of the top people said anything about these programs...........pehaps they do not exist after all,all we have is the word of dubious intelligence sources.
The US/UK started this with all the macho Sabre rattling,and refused to allow the UN more time,when they would've passed a unanimous green light to sort it out,they did not,and now they're starting to feel that they are not in control,I stated months ago,that these clandestine attacks would grow,as they have done.
Again I was,and still am all for sorting out this problem,but if Iraqs neighbours did not see the same threat,why was the case so famously put for war............we have created a mess that was not there 6 months ago..............and we expect the UN to pick up the pieces?
For an extension of 60 days further inspection,look what is happening.
As for the UN countries holding out ,there's more than a grain of truth in that.But if you go and hit a wasps nest without having the right kit........expect to get stung!!
This is now about face saving,and time to eat a bit of humble pie,as they also say you cannot have your cake and eat it!!.Unless the country is handed back to the Iraqi people,and not run by US selected personnel,then I fear that complete chaos will start to take root,the begginings are there,and US/UK casualties will continue to mount.
We should not have started a war without having the proper contingency plans to cover ALL eventualities,and outcomes,it is called risk assesment,and if anybody who works in the production industry knows if you fail to carrry one out,and something goes wrong,then you're in a whole lot of trouble,this was clearly not done here.
If Saddam Hussein wanted to give terrorists WMD's don't you think his hatred for the west,he would've done that a long time ago.
The general public are getting fed up with the crap being fed to them,about the reason for going to war,here in the UK the Government are on shaky ground,and the public simply do not believe anymore.
60 days thats all they were asking for,hindsight is a wonderfull thing!!!

[aeternum]

Foreign money to help the US economy is not a new concept. Europe and China invests heavily in the U.S. Isnt it funny thats its a no-no but when the **** hits the fan. "Oh the U.S. needs to give more for this famine, disease, natural disasters, etc."

Dont mix it up. Investments are something completly different to what the US want to happen in Iraq. When the EU companies invest in the USA, they get somthing back for their money, its revenue and co-determination. But in Iraq, the US Administartion wants the money but wont share anything nor do they want to give a revenue.
Its like i would say, you give me your money, your house and your car and you get back.... zero - deal?

Sorry but this wont happen.




The U.S. and its coalition fought this so they should get the brunt of the contracts.

Well i dont have a problem with that, but then dont come and ask for help now. But obviously thats exactly what happens now. You need help. Well I say, you want help, alright, what do we get for helping you? Nothing? Hmm ok let me think about it....hmmmmm.....no.

Its all up to the US Administration now.

[He219]

The US is the single largest investor in global security. The Marshall Plan was a great example of how helping others with US money is to the benefit of the whole.

Argyl, I never said anything about uncovering just papers. It's the bloddy program of how, quantities and where they are now. What I don't quite understand is the 60 day thing. So the inspectors look and don't see anything. Saddam would still be in power. WMD will be found, it's a matter of time.

The US CAN and SHOULD do it without the whining Socialist Governments of France and Germany to tell us 'I told you so' and then to their dismay, find that the US was right in the long run.

As for investments, France's Alcatel is looking into building a fibre-optic network in Afghanistan , which could be built alongside reconstruction of the country's roads. Afghanistan's Telecommunications Minister Mohammad Massoum Stanakzai said the country needs 300 million dollars in private investment over three years to transform its telecoms sector into a national network. Do you expect the US to pay for this too?

Iraq does not have a viable revenue generating source to date for the tast of rebuilding it's infrastructure. The US is financing it interm and has sole discretion in determening who it selects for the task.

[budanski]

Foreign money to help the US economy is not a new concept. Europe and China invests heavily in the U.S. Isnt it funny thats its a no-no but when the **** hits the fan. "Oh the U.S. needs to give more for this famine, disease, natural disasters, etc."

Dont mix it up. Investments are something completly different to what the US want to happen in Iraq. When the EU companies invest in the USA, they get somthing back for their money, its revenue and co-determination. But in Iraq, the US Administartion wants the money but wont share anything nor do they want to give a revenue.
Its like i would say, you give me your money, your house and your car and you get back.... zero - deal?

Sorry but this wont happen.




The U.S. and its coalition fought this so they should get the brunt of the contracts.

Well i dont have a problem with that, but then dont come and ask for help now. But obviously thats exactly what happens now. You need help. Well I say, you want help, alright, what do we get for helping you? Nothing? Hmm ok let me think about it....hmmmmm.....no.

Its all up to the US Administration now.

As I stated in my earlier post, Powells been floating this idea for awhile.

Is anyone really surprised that the Frogs and the Krauts will not go along with any plan that doesnt place them in charge so they can reap profit from the Iraqi's?

why else are they're trying to make it seem like we can't handle it. Just look at the resolution, it's not asking for much of anything, just that the euroweenies step up to the plate with their pocketbooks, the way the US has always stepped up to the plate when they had their hand out.

France and germany just want to get in there to do some arm twisting with the remanents of the old regime to try to get their hands on those lucrative contracts.

Look, the fight here isnt about asking more money from France and Germany. Its more about France getting in the way with U.S. in passing a resolution for the UN to get involved. Remember, that France is only using this position for a "I told you so" and does not represent the UN as a whole. What I dont get is that if you Euroweenies believe so much in the union, why not make France give up its veto and share it with the union. Just don't play it off that the U.S. is beggin just France and Germany for this help.

[Argyll]

The 60 day reference is to having the full backing of Military action,sanctioned by the UN,Another resoloution would've been passed sanctioning war with the full support of the UN,by allowing the inspectors more time,even if they found nothing,as is the current status of the US Military teams,they would then have been able to say times up!!,and we would've had a much broader coalition,with full troop support.
WMD will be found ,in a matter of time,trouble is not giving the inspectors the same time,reeks of double standards...................how much time do we need,I'd say realtively short,others will say as long as it takes,If the initial intelligence was so good,then they should've been able to pinpoint these places right away,and I don't buy this oh they must've moved them,for $25 Million dollars nobody is willing to open their mouth?What does this tell you,it was not Bath party Generals who were operating the bulldozers,if they buried them,it would've been a local!
It was the same as prior to the war the so called "defector" who claimed to be an Iraqi Republican Guard Officer,who went on the networks claiming his unit had Chemical weapons ready to use,and that many of the RG units were equally equiped,could this have been an elaborate US plant to back up the case for going to war,very fishy that despite his claims,not even a shell filled with piss was found!Go figure?

[He219]

Another resoloution would've been passed sanctioning war with the full support of the UN,by allowing the inspectors more time

That would be stretching it, Argyll. I thought the critics were saying find the weapons through the UN inspectors, if none - no war. The time for action was relative given the temperatures of the approaching summer. Heck, they already had precurser sandstorms to deal with. Not a double sandard at all. Sixty days may have streched into another say, 12 years of inaction to solidify Saddams power base and weapons conceilment.

The cause to remove Saddam was to make the region, people and the world safe from the immediate and theoretical threats posed by Saddam and his advanced weapons program. Time will sort out all the details. An Interesting NPR report alluded that Iraq purposely misguided western intelligence as to the status of their WMD program. The defectors were fed information to 'cook the books', so they said. But why would they?
Perhaps an elaborate diception for plausible deniability if troops ever moved in?

The current task is to stabilize the region. Again the US asks for UN support and again the 'weasels' work to say serve their own ambitions and not 'GW's Iraq 'Abenteuer'.....

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp/20030905/capt.sge.ccg47.050903174806.photo00.default-385x264.jpg


"The goal of the United Nations is to ensure the return of the inspectors. The discussion in America now has another goal: It is aimed at Saddam Hussein and his removal. It was not the goal of the United Nations, and cannot be, to replace Saddam Hussein, but only the return of the inspectors. That is a sensible, a correct, goal," Schroeder said (http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2002/08/26082002135714.asp).

[Trigger]

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp/20030905/capt.sge.ccg47.050903174806.photo00.default-385x264.jpg
"I'm with Stupid"

[StarvingStudent47]

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp/20030905/capt.sge.ccg47.050903174806.photo00.default-385x264.jpg
"I'm with Stupid"

Best. Caption. Ever.

[Argyll]

".........I have no strings to hold me up"

I can go along with some of the stuff about stability,but the most volatile place that places Arab aginst the rest is Not in Iraq,but in Israel,and the occupied territories,there are more fundamentalists in that part of the region than anywhere else in the Mid East,and that goes for Jewish Extremists as well,that is more of a stability problem,than Iraq was,as I said before,Iraq could pose no threat to it's neighbours,we saw to that in 91,but still we said he was a threat,if there are no weaponised WMD's or any other WMD's I fail to see where that threat would materialise from,considering there are more fundametailst nutters in Saudi(9/11 link), from the outset this just looked like unfinished business,or as the cynics would say "Hey Pop,anything you could do I can do better!!"

Lets look at it from the Iraqi point of view,as after all this war was for them,apart from the removal of the regime,are they indeed better off?
We destabilised a whole country,removed its entire way of life for the past 40 years,which leaves its borders open to infiltartion from all sides,and all sorts of nut cases from the Turks in the North,to the Iranians in the East,and the Saudis in the South,each country with an interest in pissing the US off.
It was also naive to think that his loyal folowers such as the Fedayeen and the RG/SRG would not start some kind of Clandestine warfare,after all,is this not classical Spec Ops doctrine,like the US,he had SF brigades,all waiting to wreck havoc on the invaders of their land.

[Miles Teg]

Socialist Governments of France
We are not on a Socialist government since April 2002


And the word of the day : We told so... rofl

Since the beginning of the war the us said that the reconstruction we will be done without us. Why now ??

[He219]

Lets look at it from the Iraqi point of view,as after all this war was for them,apart from the removal of the regime,are they indeed better off?
We destabilised a whole country,removed its entire way of life for the past 40 years....

The vacum created after the fall of centralized authority typically results in a periond of turmoil, fear and unease. Take the end of WWII; things actually got worse after the war for Germans (as well as allies like the English) as was during the most difficult parts of the war. Would you use that same argument as saying that Germany was stable since the rise of the Nazis and that unfortunately their entire way of life for the past 15 years was distrupted? Heck no!

All good things come to those who are willing to work for it. Instant gratification is not an argument the cynics should use...

http://a1112.g.akamai.net/7/1112/492/03312000/news.lycos.com/news/ot_getImage.asp?op=thumb&id=412250
Enlarge (http://news.lycos.com/news/photo.asp?section=WorldPhotos&photoId=412250&captions=off)

The Iraqi Civil Defence Corps, (ICDC) on patrol in Tikrit, Iraq, Friday, Sept. 5, 2003. Following a three week U.S. training course, Iraqi militia returned to the streets of Saddam Hussein's home town, initially on light patrol and traffic duties. (AP Photo/Rob Griffith)


As for demanding....


..and now they realise that things are not going to plan,they are ,what seems like demanding help from the UN,and these other countries,but still want to have full control over everything,and everyone,hardly a democratic process is it.


Powell Offers Flexibility (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=542&ncid=716&e=3&u=/ap/20030905/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_un_iraq) on Iraq at U.N.

Heading into a tough U.N. debate, Secretary of State Colin Powell offered on Friday to "adjust and adapt" a proposed U.S. resolution to demands by European governments for a quick transition to Iraqi rule in Baghdad.

[Argyll]

No I agree about having to work for it,but the upshot of the war was to restore Iraqi democray as quick as possible,and to give the country back,as I said,the fallout from the war was obviously not planned for,and that in itself show very poor judgement and shows a lack of respect for your enemy,the fact that there are quite simply not enough troops to carry out their duties shows something went wrong,the fact that despite the positive stuff,the negative stuff about morale,and how the GI's are frustrated about being told they're there for a year maybe more,despite all the indications as soon as Baghdad fell,and the war was won the vast majority of the troops would be sent home,they're out there in full kit in 50 degrees,and tired and exhausted and being shot at daily,casualties are mounting daily,and things are not quite as they should be.......someone Fuc*ed up in their planning,and I doubt it was a Military Person!!!!

[Gordon]

I don't see what the problem is here. From the start of this France and Germany didn't want in on the coalition so where's the problem with the fact that they still don't? As it is some of their points made about the draft resolution seem pretty valid from their point of view. They didn't want to do it on US terms before the war started and they don't want to do it on US terms now .... well, what did you expect.

[Miles Teg]

They didn't want to do it on US terms before the war started and they don't want to do it on US terms now .... well, what did you expect.
Thanks

And we don't forget that the US are in Irak to find Mass Destruction Weapons. That what they said no?
There is so many Weapons left in Irak. It's too dangerous, we will never allow french people to go in until you don't find them. rofl

[aeternum]

Is anyone really surprised that the Frogs and the Krauts will not go along with any plan that doesnt place them in charge so they can reap profit from the Iraqi's?

Well GI Jane, you cant expect France and Germany to give you troops and money all on your terms, we arent the UK - sorry UK nothing personal :)

Actually i cant remember that either France nor Germany said they want to be incharge. They both said, handing over the overall controll to the UN would be the best solution.

[He219]

Argyll;
What did you expect, a free ride in the park - out in 30 days??

People were saying we would be in for 3-5 years until Iraq can be totally independent and able to protect itself from domestic threats. Nothing new to me. As for daily casualties, heck that is totally relative. In Vietnam we were loosing hundreds of soldiers per week at times.

Nobody f-ed up. You've been listening to the media more than the DoD. The Iraqis were expected to contribute in restoring their own internal affairs without dependence on occupying forces. The idea of occupying forces in the middle east is quite a touchy suject as you well know. So Rummy and the Gang 'should' have had 500,000 US troops in for how long?? I think not.


Miles Teg, that's frogspawn!

If France is not Socialist then would it be Gaullist Conservative Socialist in lieu of Radical Leftist Socialist? I hardly believe that your Government is against Social Welfare and Services.

So what do the Frenchies Say, we told so, hohoho??

Just What did you guys say - that Saddam has no WMD?

UN participation, why now? Because it is in the interests of the Iraqis and the American Taxpayer to put France's 'I told you so' attitude behind us for the betterment of the Iraqi people and the normalization of political cooperation amongst States, that's why. I'm shure that when WMD are found we will say, 'See you Fruitloops, We told you so'...

;)

[Miles Teg]

'See you Fruitloops, We told you so'...
Wait and see ;)


What did you expect, a free ride in the park - out in 30 days??
Yes, US said that, no? We don't believe but they said that.


If France is not Socialist then would it be Gaullist Conservative Socialist in lieu of Radical Leftist Socialist? I hardly believe that your Government is against Social Welfare and Services.

In france :

Communist, far left (bad guys but not dangerous ;) )
Socialist, left
Some on center
Republic, Right(Chirac, current government) <--
FN, MNR far right (bad guys ;) )

We still don't pay (directly ;) ) for our health and some other services. Life in France is good, maybe some far neighbours a little shouty (despite the wide of Atlantic ;) )

[budanski]

And we don't forget that the US are in Irak to find Mass Destruction Weapons. That what they said no?
There is so many Weapons left in Irak. It's too dangerous, we will never allow french people to go in until you don't find them. rofl
There is still the Sun you Frogs have to worry about...

[aeternum]

And we don't forget that the US are in Irak to find Mass Destruction Weapons. That what they said no?
There is so many Weapons left in Irak. It's too dangerous, we will never allow french people to go in until you don't find them. rofl
There is still the Sun you Frogs have to worry about...

Are you making fun out of the 10.000 civilians that died during the heat period the last weeks/month?

[He219]

Are you making fun out of the 10.000 civilians that died during the heat period the last weeks/month?

I believe he was relating to France's detachment towards it's own people. They had no Idea what was going on or how many were affected.

Miles Teg; I don't believe the US ever said that we would be out of Iraq in 30 days...

p-)

[Trigger]

We still don't pay (directly ) for our health and some other services. Life in France is good.
Yeah, senior citizen discount rides to the morgue, free Johnny Depp matinees, and weekly showers optional.
Sounds like paradise. rofl

[Miles Teg]

Are you making fun out of the 10.000 civilians that died during the heat period the last weeks/month?
Maybe one day I will allow myself to make fun with GI dead in Irak and people falling from WTC.
But I'm too french for that. (Nice and respectfull --> you say cowards for this I think)

[Miles Teg]

Sounds like paradise.
And you don't mention about Rael sect (Clonaid) about clonage. And Christophe Lambert. rofl
We have lot of this.

I assure you, it's a very fun country.

[Trigger]

Well for national embarrassments we have you beat:
1. Bill Clinton
2. Reality TV
3. Hollywood

Good times all around!

[He219]

We still don't pay (directly ) for our health and some other services. Life in France is good.
Yeah, senior citizen discount rides to the morgue, free Johnny Depp matinees, and weekly showers optional.
Sounds like paradise. rofl
:P

No really Miles Teg; You PAY DIRECTLY in Taxes and others dictate how it will be spent and in what proportions. To say that the Government pays for this and for that is a joke, the Taxpayer does. I value determining how much and where my money is spent and only by me. To think that you 'don't pay' takes away incentive, initiative and resourcefulness because why work hard if you 'dont have to pay'? Taking fiscal discretion away from the breadwinner is Socialism, period.

[Gordon]

I value determining how much and where my money is spent and only by me.

I don't mean to sound ignorant but how do you determine where your money, ie. the money you've paid in taxes, is spent exactly?

[Argyll]

So if nobody fuc*ed up why do you need more troops?
Some one within the DOD stated that they were not prepared for this type of prolonged clandestine warfare,some General I believe!
How can the Iraqis contribute ,when there is no security within that country,are you honestly telling me that all this was planned for,all the post war fatalities,the rioting,the car bombs the works?The lack of evidence to physical WMD's,the Baghdad pimpernel?
The reference to Battlefield casualties from the Vietnam war is a bold one to make,because the US lost that war at home,due to the fact that so many GIs died,and public opinion started to go heavily against the war,so what you're saying to me and the rest of this forum,that casualties on the scale of Vietnam are acceptable to the US People,I can assure you,if the UK was losing scores daily,the voting public would demand the withdrawl,as it would be pretty plain as the nose on your face,the perpetrators of these attacks,are not interested in a US backed Leadership.Well I'll draw your attention to Somalia,after the loss of 18 soldiers in one incident,the Clinton administartion pulled the plug,and withdrew,leaving the fight for freedom and democracy to others,and said basically,we tried,get on with it yourselves!!

Rumsfeldt and the gang as you so qaintly put it,shouldve crossed the "I's and dotted the T's",prior to unleashing the might of the US arsenal onto that country,so that the security issue that is present,would've been dealt with before now,a lack of troops to carry out this task,tells me someone got their sums wrong!!

[He219]

Is anyone really surprised that the Frogs and the Krauts will not go along with any plan that doesnt place them in charge so they can reap profit from the Iraqi's?

Well GI Jane, you cant expect France and Germany to give you troops and money all on your terms, we arent the UK - sorry UK nothing personal :)

Actually i cant remember that either France nor Germany said they want to be incharge. They both said, handing over the overall controll to the UN would be the best solution.

I'll write it again:

http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20030905/thumb.1062779512.us_un_iraq_powell_wx105.jpg
Powell Offers Flexibility (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=542&ncid=716&e=3&u=/ap/20030905/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_un_iraq) on Iraq at U.N.

WASHINGTON - Heading into a tough U.N. debate, Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) offered on Friday to "adjust and adapt" a proposed U.S. resolution to demands by European governments for a quick transition to Iraqi rule in Baghdad.

[He219]

I value determining how much and where my money is spent and only by me.

I don't mean to sound ignorant but how do you determine where your money, ie. the money you've paid in taxes, is spent exactly?

By not paying it in Taxes in the first place!

:P


So if nobody fuc*ed up why do you need more troops?

That's international support. Politically, the next election can't afford the attrition of negative media in Iraq right now. Getting International cooperation is crucial to changing political consensus. It's for the long haul. The US always sought the greatest number of participants until France said 'No' is all cases....


How can the Iraqis contribute
They already are, police, Civil Defense, etc... By looting and sabotaging their own infrastructure they are prolonging their own hardships as well as ours. What certainly was not planned for is finding out how the actual sabotage delays reconstruction and stabilizing efforts.



because the US lost that war at home,due to the fact that so many GIs died,and public opinion started to go heavily against the war,so what you're saying to me and the rest of this forum,that casualties on the scale of Vietnam are acceptable to the US

Indeed political support erodes with the negative publicity of one death or so per day. Theoretically it is a relative statistic, but public consensus fill faulter over time unless the burden is shared. Casualties on the scale of Vietnam are clearly unacceptible to public opinion over prolonged duration. The Somalia reference should be based on Clinton's own restrictions on giving the troops the equipment for the tast at hand they had asked for, armor and Spectre Gunships.

Bitching about 'I told you so' regardless if/when WMD will be found is inconducive to the stability of the region and detrimental to the welfare of the Iraqi people and continues the disenfranchizement of global cooperation.

[Miles Teg]

I value determining how much and where my money is spent and only by me

This is egoism... I think.
Here the reacher are paying for who can't pay for their health.

Little confusion between social and socialism.

Frank herbert : On road. Make turn to avoid to crush a dog, it's to be sentimental.
But hitting a group of pilgrim when making turn to avoid to crush a dog , this is called sentimentalism.
Do you see?

I france our vision of your health is "Urgence". you know with george clowney and Doc Carter ? Each episod we see poor people who can't pay their health.

Don't talk about dead of this summer, I've already explain why these victim were lonely and without care. Since 5 years we are making effort to provide assistance by people to dependant (aged) people.

[Miles Teg]

Heading into a tough U.N. debate, Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) offered on Friday to "adjust and adapt" a proposed U.S. resolution to demands by European governments for a quick transition to Iraqi rule in Baghdad.

So, now, it's up to us to find solutions to the problem?

You fell very deep...

[Miles Teg]

I've just read some news from AFP. Our Foreing minisitry (de Villepin) said "The resolution is on good ways" "but essentialy inspired by a logic of security". The proposition for Powell are coming.

Hoshyar Zebari, the new Irak Foreign minister ask help from Europe. This is a real call.
Finally I hope some help will come from France and germany.

But how you will consider that, I'm sure some people here will say that US don't certainly need of the help of the silly french. I will answer "What do you want?"

[He219]

Here the reacher are paying for who can't pay for their health.
Who determines how much to pay and what kind of services they should receive? Leave that decision to me. There is such a thing as chronic dependence that ultimately saps initiative and resolve from the individual.


Little confusion between social and socialism.
I call it Humanitarianism and Socialism. One is voluntary, the other mandated. I believe in Charity and good will, not government mandate.


So, now, it's up to us to find solutions to the problem?
This is a twelve year old problem of the international community. France opted not to act in 'Any Circumstance'. To say that it NOW is FRANCE's problem is so chauvanistically - French!

As much as we CERTAINLY CAN DO WITHOUT THE FRENCH, it is in the interests of global harmony that there be mutual participation....

p-)

[Gordon]

I'll write it again:

http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20030905/thumb.1062779512.us_un_iraq_powell_wx105.jpg
Powell Offers Flexibility (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=542&ncid=716&e=3&u=/ap/20030905/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_un_iraq) on Iraq at U.N.

WASHINGTON - Heading into a tough U.N. debate, Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) offered on Friday to "adjust and adapt" a proposed U.S. resolution to demands by European governments for a quick transition to Iraqi rule in Baghdad.

And the French and Germans never rejected it outright, they said it was a basis to work from which needed some adjustment.

[Miles Teg]

He219

As much as we CERTAINLY CAN DO WITHOUT THE FRENCH, it is in the interests of global harmony that there be mutual participation....

Miles Teg

Hoshyar Zebari, the new Irak Foreign minister ask help from Europe. This is a real call.
Finally I hope some help will come from France and germany.

woot Coool, we find a piece of mutual agreement.
I hope the amendments from EU will be correct and accepted by UN and US.
I'm fearing about the terms that US will certainly never let US army under other country responsability.
Giving rudder to the UN, like we are making with french troop in Ivoria Coast, can't be made half.

I hope.

[He219]

That was in response to this, Gordon:

Well GI Jane, you cant expect France and Germany to give you troops and money all on your terms, we arent the UK - sorry UK nothing personal

[Gordon]

;) .... gotcha.

[Miles Teg]

What is the nationality of the author of the quote?

EDIT: German, ok...

[Gordon]

I'm fearing about the terms that US will certainly never let US army under other country responsability.

There's been numerous instances of US units under UK control as well as vice versa.

[Miles Teg]

There's been numerous instances of US units under UK control as well as vice versa.

But Uk was involved since the beginning. And about the decisions of all the troops?
Do you think it's possible? I hope so.

[He219]

You break down joint security operations into sectors, just like Germany after WWII...


http://www.milton.k12.vt.us/WebQuests/MAranjo/Images/pic%20frog%20catching%20bug.gif

;)

[Gordon]

As far as I understand it one part of the draft resolution is that the US keep political and military control of Iraq, I expect this is probably one part of resolution which is unlikely to be up for debate. This could be one of the major problems as far as France and Germany are involved in giving troops as they would be under US command, albeit this command will be indirect. They would probably be given an area and certain objectives to complete rather than be under the direct orders of a US officer, as is situation for the UK and poland presently, so it may not be such a problem, i guess we'll just have to see.

Just a few thoughts to chuck around.

[Miles Teg]

yeaahhh :lol:
But I don't understand what do you mean He?

I never said under the responsability of french. rofl
For the moment, despite my biggest hope, I can't imagine that.
"-Hey, froggy, I give you the key of the Abrahams. Take care the brakes are not newbrand.
-Chef! Chef! Elle est où la marche arriére ??" rofl

Good to laugh with you He219

[Miles Teg]

They would probably be given an area and certain objectives to complete rather than be under the direct orders of a US officer
Clean the Airport like in Afghanistan ;)
I believe of the french troop under US orders, but I can't imagine US under french orders.

The fact of aera seem more realistic. But with a lot of country, this will be better under the orders of UN. (not a really good idea, UN give often very bad orders, like abandon the guard of a village in Yougosalvie. Our french first, desobei to this order, but were forced to. Soon after leave the village this was the slaughter, many civilian die by genocid.
Same in Ivory Coast, the people are francophone, why UN don't keep little amount of french troop for communication, instead of this the troop will be totally replace by Bungladesh troops.)

[He219]

Likewise, Miles Teg. Let's hope they work something out at the UN.

Bonsoir (http://www.naturesound.com/frogs/audio/amtoad.ram)!

http://www.naturesound.com/frogs/thmbnls/atoad.jpg

;)

[aeternum]

Well i dont think there will be any troops from Germany and France in Iraq within the next 8 months. Why? Because you dont need more troops to carryout the mission assigned. But in 8 months when the polish, spain etc troops need to be replaced you could see some french and german flags in Iraq.

aet

[Rantanplan]

Arrrhhh, This Discussion is Booooooooooooorrrrrrrrrrrrrrring :fork:

[Gordon]

Well i dont think there will be any troops from Germany and France in Iraq within the next 8 months. Why? Because you dont need more troops to carryout the mission assigned. But in 8 months when the polish, spain etc troops need to be replaced you could see some french and german flags in Iraq.

aet

Ummm ... last i heard is that one of the main complaints is the lack of man-power. Fairplay there are enough troops there now to do the mission as it is but the point is that the mission is not all encompassing. For example there aren't enough troops at the borders, which is a problem and it's pretty obvious that more troops would be useful for the general security.

[seventy6er]

Hi,

even if we send some troops - I ask myself "What troops can we send?"
It's a bigger problem for us Germans to donate troops, given the structure of the German Army. The Bundeswehr from day one was an army for the defense of our country. This results that we still don't have enough troops that can be deployed fast like the US, the UK or like France has. Another problem is, that we still have a conscript army. Please remembert, that whenever we sent troops to Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo, these units had to be merged from units from all over Germany: For example, when the DoD says "OK, we need two transport companies and a Fallschirmjäger-Kompanie" these units were made up of soldiers from like 10 or more companies. When I was in Kosovo, my unit was made up of soldiers from 11 companies from my division. You can't send a whole company, or better: a whole Brigade or division. That makes it somewhat more difficult. Just that you understand a little better. The last 10 years, it has gotten better but still a lot or restructuring has to be done. I hope that someday we will have a professionel army without conscripts.

Just wrote this, so that some of you better understand that it's not as easy for us to donate troops - even if we wanted. We Germans make it harder for ourselves - typical... :roll:

I think our Army needs another 10 years...

Like Tane Angle always says, "Just some thoughts..."

Have a good one... ;)

[Sabre]

seventy6er:

I'm interested, is this restructuring before deployment done in order to have career soldiers on operations rather than conscripts?

What I mean is do they take more experienced, non-conscripts from various companies to make a 'semi-professional' company, instead of a mostly conscript one?

I ask this because I have heard several 'right-of-centre' people in the UK mention the fact that the Bundeswehr is a conscript army almost in a 'sour grapes' kind of way. Meaning that the US wouldn't want them anyway, because conscript troops would be more of a liability than a help. I found this a very offensive and devious attempt at backstabbing our German allies, who have helped in peacekeeping far more than the americans have.


As far as the UN situation goes, I think some of the guys have got the wrong end of the stick. They have said that France and Germany wanted UN support before the war, but now that the US is asking for it, they don't want it.

In reality, the problem is that they want to see a much larger UN role. Not the token one demanded by the US, almost in an attempt to justify the war. Again, I don't see it as a reversal on either 'side'. The US doesn't give a s**t. If they get UN support, it'll just help to justify their case. If they don't, they're no worse off. France and Germany have always wanted to take the UN route, and still do.



aeternum, you said this:

"budanski wrote:

The U.S. and its coalition fought this so they should get the brunt of the contracts.


Well i dont have a problem with that, but then dont come and ask for help now. But obviously thats exactly what happens now. You need help. Well I say, you want help, alright, what do we get for helping you? Nothing? Hmm ok let me think about it....hmmmmm.....no."

I'm afraid that I DO have a problem with this, budanski. You are blatently taking a "To the victor, the spoils!" approach to what is meant to be a liberation. This might as wel have been a Dark Ages 'rape and pillage' war.

It just shows that the only plan that was fully worked out was the bank balance:

Military expentidure: -$ X billion (go for a 'rumsfeld army-lite')
rebuilding costs: -$ Y billion (or just don't bother to do it properly)
cost of lives lost: $ 0 (lives cost nothing, no limit here)
Contracts taken by
US companies: +$ (X+Y+Z) billion

Balance: +$ Z Billion

[KaraBenNemsi]

What I mean is do they take more experienced, non-conscripts from various companies to make a 'semi-professional' company, instead of a mostly conscript one?

Generally speaking, that's right. "Normal conscripts" (the ones doing the 9 month long military service) are not allowed to take part in foreign operations (though there might be some rare exceptions).
BTW...Currently more and more units being needed for e.g peace keeping operations like Paratroopers, Mountain Hunters etc. no longer take conscripts. So they are more or less fully professional....

[aeternum]

seventy6er:

I'm interested, is this restructuring before deployment done in order to have career soldiers on operations rather than conscripts?

What I mean is do they take more experienced, non-conscripts from various companies to make a 'semi-professional' company, instead of a mostly conscript one?

German conscripts, if they dont volunteer, arent allowed to be send to missions abroad by law.

Current personal strengh of the german army (all branches)
professional soldiers: 58.970 (life long)
professional soldiers (2 year, 4, 8, 12 years): 131.540
regular conscripts: 66.230
volunteer conscripts: 23.160
= ~280.000

anyone can be send to missions abroad but the regular conscripts (66.230 soldiers)

[seventy6er]

seventy6er:

I'm interested, is this restructuring before deployment done in order to have career soldiers on operations rather than conscripts?

What I mean is do they take more experienced, non-conscripts from various companies to make a 'semi-professional' company, instead of a mostly conscript one?


Regular conscripts (serving 9 months) can participate in missions like in Kosovo, Afghanistan and so on. But they have to volunteer. Like someone mentioned before, conscripts who serve their regular 9 months normally can't go - there are only some dudes who can volunteer, for example if they are native speakers of the region where the mission takes place (e. g. there were some guys in my contingent in Kosovo who had their origins in Serbia, Kosovo or Macedonia. They served as translators. Or there was a dude who in his "civil life" worked as a post-office-manager; he served in Kosovo as the manager of the field-post-office.

Conscripts who volunteer to serve up to 23 months in the armed forces have to sign a treaty when they sign in, if they want to participate in missions outside of Germany. Once they signed and gave their "OK", they can be drafted.

In fighting companies deployed, usually all soldiers are either "Berufssoldaten" (serving lifetime) or "Zeitsoldaten" (serving 4, 8 or 12 years). Conscripts only do guarding-duties, but they won't participate in battles (only self-defense) because they lack the skills a well-trained German infantryman/tanker/whatever has. Although you will find conscripts in German Leopard tanks - and they really do well. Ask some of our allies that train with the German Army (for example at US training-grounds at Hohenfels). US tankers are often amazed when they get to know that a hi-tech weapon-system like an MBT can be operated with the help of conscripts.



Meaning that the US wouldn't want them anyway, because conscript troops would be more of a liability than a help.

That ain't true, the only problem I personally see is that the single units are mixed and merged out of many units... But like we saw in the recent conflicts since 1993, these fears are unfoundedly.