Here Piggy, Piggy!!!

[Johnny Yuma]

After this war is concluded and the process of rebuilding Iraq is begun, of the member countries of the UN Security Council that did not support the United States at the outset, which one will be the first country to retroject that they did support the United States the whole time?

.... and Who will be the first of these weasels to try and make it to the trough, after the hard work is done?

[Ralph63]

Originally posted by Johnny Yuma
.... and Who will be the first of these weasels to try and make it to the trough, after the hard work is done?

Sounds like future harvestplans for neo-colonial US-protectorate of Iraq. I guess most of the rebuilding are destined to be financed by Iraqi oil. Certainly not by US taxmoney. The big pig is destined to win over the smaller weasels, thats for sure. :D

But wait - trouble seems to rear its ugly head:

"...The opposition groups — loosely allied Kurdish, Shiite Muslim and secular organizations — have long insisted that most Iraqis look forward to the ouster of President Saddam Hussein and his security-heavy Baath Party government. But they have expressed irritation that, in their view, the Bush administration has made little effort to include Iraqis in military or political strategy. [...]
“There is a difference between a war of liberation and a war of conquest. Liberation means Iraqis are at the forefront. Conquest means the invaders are in charge,” said Hoshyar Zubari, an official of the Kurdistan Democratic Party, one of five groups recognized by the Bush Administration as allied opposition forces..." -Daniel Williams THE WASHINGTON POST

Colin Powell: "We didn't take on this huge burden with our coalition partners not to be able to have a significant dominating control over how it unfolds in the future... [...] We have picked on a greater obligation -- to make sure there is a functioning Iraqi government that is supported by the coalition, the center of gravity remaining with the coalition, military and civilian"

"have a significant dominating control over how it unfolds in the future..." Hmm - great democratic freedom for the Iraqis under onkel Sams patronizing influence. Im sure the Arabs gonna love it.

[localbrew]

But the Kurds are not the whole country. Just like in Afghanistan where we were careful not to make the Northern Alliance any promises.

The UN will not administer Iraq in any way. Notice how silent Kofi has become after Tony Blair last spoke to him immediately after his Camp David meeting? Even France voted for the resumption of the oil for food program and Tony last came calling at the UN. This is a Bush “in your face” UN and rightfully so.

Maybe Spain could administer Iraq. Just a thought……

[Mediocrates]

Actually Ralph the oil for food program as it stood before funnelled billions of dollars to the French and Germans. Negroponte's subtle requested change takes that money out of their hands. Current reserves already built up the oil for food accounts according to the WSJ stand at about 40 billion dollars or about 2 years production of Iraqi oil. A portion of that money except under the worst possible scenario could be used to rebuild the country.

What do you see wrong with this?

[Johnny Yuma]

I'm thinking France will be nudging others aside and claiming,"We were there all along! We LOVE Americans!"

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by Ralph63
Hmm - great democratic freedom for the Iraqis under onkel Sams patronizing influence. Im sure the Arabs gonna love it.
And what have arabs ever done for fellow arabs in the past? Have they ever devised the equivalent of the Marshall plan? What a laugh. They maintain the palestinians in squalor for their own ends, never providing squat and you somehow think their feelings on the reconstruction of Iraq mean anything?

Get a grip Ralph. At least give us something with a little meat on it and take your second hand anti-Americanism over to your buddy northlander's welfare flat where it will at least have some company. Around here, voices like this are old news.

[Johnny Yuma]

The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy. - Martin Luther King Jr.

[Alfred]

I have no problem with the UN helping out in the rebuilding of Iraq. As long as that does NOT included Germany, France or Russia. If we cannot secure that understanding with the UN, then we should arrange aid via the whole flock of countries that stood with us.

UK
Italy
Spain
Japan
Eastern Europe

and a bunch more.

Having France, Germany and Russia help in the re-building of Iraq would be like having SS Generals rebuild Germany, Communists rebuilding Russia or Tojo's goons rebuilding Japan after WW2.

[JustPat]

Originally posted by Ralph63
Sounds like future harvestplans for neo-colonial US-protectorate of Iraq. I guess most of the rebuilding are destined to be financed by Iraqi oil. Certainly not by US taxmoney. The big pig is destined to win over the smaller weasels, thats for sure. :D

But wait - trouble seems to rear its ugly head:

"...The opposition groups — loosely allied Kurdish, Shiite Muslim and secular organizations — have long insisted that most Iraqis look forward to the ouster of President Saddam Hussein and his security-heavy Baath Party government. But they have expressed irritation that, in their view, the Bush administration has made little effort to include Iraqis in military or political strategy. [...]
“There is a difference between a war of liberation and a war of conquest. Liberation means Iraqis are at the forefront. Conquest means the invaders are in charge,” said Hoshyar Zubari, an official of the Kurdistan Democratic Party, one of five groups recognized by the Bush Administration as allied opposition forces..." -Daniel Williams THE WASHINGTON POST

Colin Powell: "We didn't take on this huge burden with our coalition partners not to be able to have a significant dominating control over how it unfolds in the future... [...] We have picked on a greater obligation -- to make sure there is a functioning Iraqi government that is supported by the coalition, the center of gravity remaining with the coalition, military and civilian"

"have a significant dominating control over how it unfolds in the future..." Hmm - great democratic freedom for the Iraqis under onkel Sams patronizing influence. Im sure the Arabs gonna love it.
Hark, voices from beyond! The skunk (read "Sweden") will not help, but they will be glad to hold the money.

[JustPat]

Originally posted by localbrew
But the Kurds are not the whole country. Just like in Afghanistan where we were careful not to make the Northern Alliance any promises.

The UN will not administer Iraq in any way. Notice how silent Kofi has become after Tony Blair last spoke to him immediately after his Camp David meeting? Even France voted for the resumption of the oil for food program and Tony last came calling at the UN. This is a Bush “in your face” UN and rightfully so.

Maybe Spain could administer Iraq. Just a thought……
I think the negotiations are for the same coalition that leads to the freedom of Iraq will oversee her rebuilding. Though Blair has said that the UN must be kept in the picture, we may see it only as a shadow. I did notice Uncle Hans lobbying for job security though.

[JustPat]

Originally posted by Johnny Yuma
I'm thinking France will be nudging others aside and claiming,"We were there all along! We LOVE Americans!" Is this where the term "French Whore" comes from?

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by JustPat
Is this where the term "French Whore" comes from?

The French Connection (http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?s=&threadid=2716)

Australian Prime Minister John Howard : "When you start to compare [permanent security council members], America is the eagle, China is the tiger, Russia is the bear, and in my view France is the vulture," he said in an interview to ABC Radio. "It circles around and does nothing for itself, waiting for the opportunity to go and pick the benefits of other people's hard work."

[Ralph63]

Originally posted by Johnny Yuma
The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy. - Martin Luther King Jr.
Please, dont drag dead people into the debate. Its not fair since they cant speak for themselfes on this specific issue. What makes you so certain that he would support pre-emptive wars with other countries, against UN, in order to control & exploit their oil-resources, anyway?

What about previous US ex-presidents? Franklin D Roosevelt? John F Kennedy? Would they love the idea if they had lived today? I dont know. Jimmy Carter is definitely against it. So you see - this "pre-emptive wars" with "a force without rivals" policy isnt as morally straightforward as you try to imply. There are international risks involved here, that goes far beyond what many of you narrow-minded, mostly conservative rightwing-voters here can imagine.

[JustPat]

Originally posted by Ralph63
Please, dont drag dead people into the debate. Its not fair since they cant speak for themselfes on this specific issue. ... What about previous US ex-presidents? Franklin D Roosevelt? John F Kennedy? Would they love the idea if they had lived today?
Make up your mind. Do you want to include dead people or not? Roosevelt and Kennedy both practiced pre-emptive warfare, they might just like to get in on it. Let's call Miss Cleo.

Originally posted by Ralph63
What makes you so certain that [Dr. King] would support pre-emptive wars with other countries, against UN, in order to control & exploit their oil-resources, anyway?
Dr. King likely would not have supported it, but he would have been smart enough to see that this was not against the UN, but rather in spite of it. King wasn't very supportive of the spineless of the world. Oh and about the oil, I guess you don't get it. Its the Iraqi's oil, about time it was used for their benefit.

Originally posted by Ralph63
Jimmy Carter is definitely against it.
Jimmy Carter, the most worthless president I ever voted for.

Originally posted by Ralph63
So you see - this "pre-emptive wars" with "a force without rivals" policy isnt as morally straightforward as you try to imply. There are international risks involved here, that goes far beyond what many of you narrow-minded, mostly conservative rightwing-voters here can imagine.
Or maybe its those "narrow-minded, mostly conservative rightwing-voters" who have it right and you lefties are about to be found with egg "all over your body." (Thanks Artie)