Guest Ash Ketchum Report post Posted March 25, 2003 Click First, they say "No, you can't go free them from Saddam" and now they want in on post-war Iraq after they did nothing. Hopefully Bush will just stand up and say, "Screw you, Chirac. You and your damn country didn't help out... you don't get a say in what happens afterwards." As they say: To the victors go the spoils... And to the French... jack shit. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Tyler McClelland Report post Posted March 25, 2003 Please provide a quote where France said they didn't want the Iraqi people free from Saddam. No undertones, I want a real quote. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jobber of the Week Report post Posted March 25, 2003 Why shouldn't France object to the US restructuring the Iraqi government? The US helped bring Saddam into power, armed him to the teeth, assisted his use of chemical and biological weapons against the Iranians, and Halliburton (who Cheney still receives up to $1 million a year in "deferred pay" from) has illegally sold oil pumping equipment to Iraq. also, letting the US structure a new Iraqi government would be rewarding them for an unprovoked invasion. Of course, France shouldn't have a role in restructuring Iraq (beyond supplying humanitarian aid, anyway), but if this war is truly about freeing the Iraqi people, the restructuring of Iraq should be left to those who don't have any investment in Iraq's resources. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Tyler McClelland Report post Posted March 25, 2003 Who do you think should be in charge, JotW? Pure curiosity. I think it should be a joint UN mission, personally. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest teke184 Report post Posted March 25, 2003 The French can go screw themselves... the whole reason they didn't want us going in to begin with was that they had a bunch of under-the-table deals with Saddam's government that WON'T be honored if he's deposed. If they wanted to keep them, they shouldn't have been pricks about blocking us in the UN and gone in with us, thus keeping at least SOME of their deals with the new government. Of all the countries that were making noise against us a few weeks ago, I'm least upset with Germany right now because they haven't been caught selling Saddam arms he shouldn't have nor have they been demanding to be in on post-war Iraq and to have us cut out of the equation. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest SP-1 Report post Posted March 26, 2003 Unprovoked Invasion? That whole supporting terrorists, violating UN Sanctions, etc stuff gets them a gold star? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jobber of the Week Report post Posted March 26, 2003 The terrorist stuff is sketchy. He gives money to families of Palestinian bombers, correct? That would count as supporting violence in Israel, but I personally think the money we give Israel does much the same thing, even though directly giving money to the Israeli government while violating treaties holds a small moral high ground over encouraging people to martyr themselves for their family's fiancial success. And, the Israel thing also blows the UN arguement out of the water. As we discussed in another thread, Israel has ignored a bunch of UN security counsel resolutions (whether or not you feel they are justified to do so is irrelevant) and we still fully support them. And Tyler, in an ideal world, we could get a panel of Arab countries we're on good terms with, have them work together to come up with an Iraqi government, and oversee this panel for about 5-10 years before an official independant Iraqi government is formed out of this. At worse, we'll be the Stephanie McMahon to their WWE writing team. At best, we won't be making any more enemies out of current allies. Saudi Arabia, for instance, would be less likely to turn on America if they're invited into the Iraqi Rebuilding Crew or what have you. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Anglesault Report post Posted March 26, 2003 And Tyler, in an ideal world, we could get a panel of Arab countries we're on good terms with, All one of them. And of ALL people to give this job to, those Arab countries? Yeah, those are the sane minded people I want reshaping Iraq. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest SP-1 Report post Posted March 26, 2003 The terrorist stuff is sketchy. He gives money to families of Palestinian bombers, correct? That would count as supporting violence in Israel, but I personally think the money we give Israel does much the same thing, even though directly giving money to the Israeli government while violating treaties holds a small moral high ground over encouraging people to martyr themselves for their family's fiancial success. And the camps they found in Northern Iraq before the damn war ever started? Shall we no-sell that? And the terrorist that got medical treatment in Baghdad? And, the Israel thing also blows the UN arguement out of the water. As we discussed in another thread, Israel has ignored a bunch of UN security counsel resolutions (whether or not you feel they are justified to do so is irrelevant) and we still fully support them. I, admittedly cannot broach this subject for lack of knowledge other than to say that Bush can't be held responsible for the retardation of past administrations. As for the Arab world helping build Iraq, don't you think that this is going to cause a little resentment amongst the Iraqi people? They deserve to have more than just a little say in their political futures. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Anglesault Report post Posted March 26, 2003 Plus there is something fundamentally wrong with Iran and Saudi Arabia creating the new Iraqi democracy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest McLeary Report post Posted March 26, 2003 If they wanna help out , fine. Concierge is a French word, isn't it? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Anglesault Report post Posted March 26, 2003 If they wanna help out , fine. Concierge is a French word, isn't it? Along with saboteur Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Tyler McClelland Report post Posted March 26, 2003 Plus there is something fundamentally wrong with Iran and Saudi Arabia creating the new Iraqi democracy. Why? Iran has a very stable and good system of democracy. Their executive branch is slightly too powerful, but it's still nothing bad. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Anglesault Report post Posted March 26, 2003 Plus there is something fundamentally wrong with Iran and Saudi Arabia creating the new Iraqi democracy. Why? . Country name: conventional long form: Islamic Republic of Iran conventional short form: Iran local short form: Iran local long form: Jomhuri-ye Eslami-ye Iran former: Persia Government type: theocratic republic (CIA World Fact Book.) I think we should be trying to move them away from religious lunacy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Tyler McClelland Report post Posted March 26, 2003 How old is that? If you actually read up about Iran, their government is increasingly reformist. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Anglesault Report post Posted March 26, 2003 Last year, last updated like last week (Dunno what was updated though) But hey, if you say so, I have nothing to dispute it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Tyler McClelland Report post Posted March 26, 2003 Eh, I don't doubt that it can still be considered a theocratic republic. After all, their chief executive (the Ayatollah) is a religious figure. However, the other part (Republic) is also a big factor... the legislature is making progress towards a good democracy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Anglesault Report post Posted March 26, 2003 Eh, I don't doubt that it can still be considered a theocratic republic. After all, their chief executive (the Ayatollah) is a religious figure. That's actually why I decided to do the minimal research to see it's official designation. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest LaParkaMarka Report post Posted March 26, 2003 That's why I'm kinda suprised Iran was lumped in with Iraq and North Korea in the Axis of Evil. A lot of the younger people in Iran are pro-democracy and pro-West before the Axis of Evil speech. I mean, the other two are rather understandable, but Iran is at least reaching towards democracy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest teke184 Report post Posted March 26, 2003 The Iranian PEOPLE want democracy... the current theocracy in charge is determined to stay in power though. At least we aren't hearing stories of Iranian opposition leaders "disappearing" like in Chile, Argentina, El Salvador, etc. during the 80s. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Vyce Report post Posted March 26, 2003 Plus there is something fundamentally wrong with Iran and Saudi Arabia creating the new Iraqi democracy. Why? Iran has a very stable and good system of democracy. Their executive branch is slightly too powerful, but it's still nothing bad. *falls out of chair* No, I shouldn't joke, because Tyler frightens me very, very badly. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Tyler McClelland Report post Posted March 26, 2003 I could provide a ton of sources that support the fact that Iran has been making large strides towards democracy, but I won't waste the time since you won't read them. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Crazy Dan Report post Posted March 26, 2003 I agree. The youth of Iran want change. I have posted in other threads that the US should support this democratic movement. I trully believe that this youth movement wants political and social change. They want their MTV. I think that they are fed up with having Islam shoved down their throats. This is a situation that is going to come to a head, and just like in 1979. Where a youth movement greatly outnumbered those in power. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest EricMM Report post Posted March 26, 2003 Listen, the youth of everywhere want change. I'm sure if you polled everyone under 21 in america, hell 25, most people would be against the war, and social security tax, and even tax cuts and military spending. But young people don't control things, they just care about things. And whine about things. And protest about things. Bush is not a young man. Bush Sr. was an old man. Old men hold the power in most of the countries of the world, and in Iran, old men control the country, and they make it a theocracy. Basically, the parliment or whatever in Iran can make any choices it wants, as long as the Ayatollah (not of rock and rollah) says it's ok. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Tyler McClelland Report post Posted March 26, 2003 The same thing is the case in the United States. It's called veto power. Are you saying our congress has no power? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest mach7 Report post Posted March 26, 2003 Click First, they say "No, you can't go free them from Saddam" and now they want in on post-war Iraq after they did nothing. Hopefully Bush will just stand up and say, "Screw you, Chirac. You and your damn country didn't help out... you don't get a say in what happens afterwards." As they say: To the victors go the spoils... And to the French... jack shit. No, instead they give the contracts to all of Bush's buddies so that they can get even more rich off of "rebuilding Iraq." Oh, wait, you mean that's the plan already? Oh, wait, you mean Bush also told the UK that they're not getting contracts either, just like France? But isn't the UK helping Bush? So after you put aside all of the false "information" about biological, chemical and nuclear WMD's that Iraq supposidly has... the whole point of this war was to make a bunch of rich, evil men.. even richer. Good lawd, Geroge W. would NEVER do that. Would he? [smell the sarcasm] Duh. I feel sorry for CNN-Watching Propaganda-Monkey's like you. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest EricMM Report post Posted March 26, 2003 You spout off all that shit Mach 7, and you're calling us misinformed? Christ... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest SP-1 Report post Posted March 26, 2003 You spout off all that shit Mach 7, and you're calling us misinformed? Christ... You beat me to it, Eric. Mach, nothing has been proven false in the WMD allegations. Though I'd love to know why Iraqi troops are suddenly arming themselves with gas masks and what we'll find in that CAMOUFLAGED, GUARDED CHEMICAL PLANT. But I'm sure we planted that there and then paid Iraqi soldiers to stand there and wait for us to "discover" it, right? Gotcha. Also, where did Bush TELL the UK that they get nothing? The UK EXPORTS OIL AND THEREFORE DOES NOT NEED A CONTRACT. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest TheMikeSC Report post Posted March 26, 2003 You spout off all that shit Mach 7, and you're calling us misinformed? Christ... You beat me to it, Eric. Mach, nothing has been proven false in the WMD allegations. Though I'd love to know why Iraqi troops are suddenly arming themselves with gas masks and what we'll find in that CAMOUFLAGED, GUARDED CHEMICAL PLANT. But I'm sure we planted that there and then paid Iraqi soldiers to stand there and wait for us to "discover" it, right? Gotcha. Also, where did Bush TELL the UK that they get nothing? The UK EXPORTS OIL AND THEREFORE DOES NOT NEED A CONTRACT. I remember hearing something about us finding somewhere in the neighborhood of 3,000 chemical suits in a hospital. No, why in the world would a hospital have ANY chemical suits --- much less about 3,000 of them? -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Brian Report post Posted March 27, 2003 Well, Halliburton did win the first contract for oil distribution. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
