Payback - French, Germans and Russians barred from Iraq contracts - Page 8

DAVOUT · December 12, 2003, 09:44

PLATO

Because I know you can do better, I authorize myself to tell you that you are extremely pretentious. How can you dare and judge, you citizen of a country having a short historical existence, a nation whose first king was crowned a millennia ago? And how can you explain that we are still here, despite the innumerable lost battles, at an honourable rank (I don’t know how rates are determined) enabling us to bother you to a degree bordering hysteria? There are probably some facts that you prefer not to consider for they would not match your comfortable prejudices.

OK, Chirac is not good, but your revered President Bush is not perfect either.

As a nation, we have been what you are, … and you will be what we are, in 800 years ... or sooner.

Drake Tungsten · December 12, 2003, 09:47

Quote:

despite the innumerable lost battles

Even the French themselves can't pretend that their military history is anything other than crap.

Drake Tungsten · December 12, 2003, 09:51

Quote:

http://media.songnlife.com/xfile/****ingUSA.wma

Replace the **** with the "F word" (As the neocons so nicely put it )

I love that ****ing song. Thanks, Tass.

DAVOUT · December 12, 2003, 10:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Quote:

despite the innumerable lost battles

Even the French themselves can't pretend that their military history is anything other than crap.

You apparently did not get my point : the fact that we are still here shows that the defeats were not important, and that the victories were decisive.

;p

Q Classic · December 12, 2003, 10:09

one should also note that the decisive victories were all carried out under a foreigner or an insane *****.

Serb · December 12, 2003, 10:15

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Quote:

despite the innumerable lost battles

Even the French themselves can't pretend that their military history is anything other than crap.

Yanks.

In comparison with French military history your military history it's a story of childish games in a little sandbox. It's your luck that you're too far away from Europe, otherwise Napoleon would have kick your pity asses easily.

Bash America!!!

Long live France!!!

Serb · December 12, 2003, 10:16

Quote:

Originally posted by laurentius
Well Rossija is at least equally evil!

Fortunately for the rest of the world we are not.

DAVOUT · December 12, 2003, 10:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Q Cubed
one should also note that the decisive victories were all carried out under a foreigner or an insane *****.

Yes, from a certain point of view, all generals are insane.

Q Classic · December 12, 2003, 10:45

Quote:

Yes, from a certain point of view, all generals are insane.

what? are you alleging that patton didn't have both of his feet on the ground! you evil evil evil anti-american frog!

TheStinger · December 12, 2003, 11:29

I'm not known for my pro french views but in their history they have clearly won quite a few battles and wars.

centrifuge · December 12, 2003, 12:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Tamerlin

As far as I am concerned I am not surprised that the USA excluded the countries opposed to their policy from the contracts, I would even say that this is normal as the priority should be given to those that have paid the price of this war.

Well said Tamerlin

for this and your other posts.

PLATO · December 12, 2003, 12:41

Quote:

Originally posted by DAVOUT
PLATO

Because I know you can do better, I authorize myself to tell you that you are extremely pretentious. How can you dare and judge, you citizen of a country having a short historical existence, a nation whose first king was crowned a millennia ago? And how can you explain that we are still here, despite the innumerable lost battles, at an honourable rank (I don’t know how rates are determined) enabling us to bother you to a degree bordering hysteria? There are probably some facts that you prefer not to consider for they would not match your comfortable prejudices.

OK, Chirac is not good, but your revered President Bush is not perfect either.

As a nation, we have been what you are, … and you will be what we are, in 800 years ... or sooner.

You are probably correct. I guess my anger over French duplicity has made me so. I really don't have anything against the French people. In fact, the French posters here are some of the most reasonable and thoughtful posters on the board.

My anger is based in the fact that I had always admired France and considered them one of our strongest allies.

Chirac, I think, is very bad for your people. He seeks to dominate the EU and set up an opposing "pole" to the US. Is this what most French people think?

Sorry for the overbearing tone, I had just woke up and now I've had my coffee!!

DAVOUT · December 12, 2003, 13:34

No problem PLATO.

Democracies have always bad politicians except when they are in crisis (or only by accident

). This cannot be avoided because the most capable and honest persons are horrified at the idea to be confused with ordinary politicians. And we are not in crisis.

My compatriots are not, in majority, different from me, and were circonspect regarding sovereignty; so, we did not see, at first, the EU as a US competitor. But the US attitude and the consideration of what the EU, running full speed, could become, has probably stimulated our imagination.

Although the European nations are old, the EU is young, and is in the process of discovering its strenght. We do not look for difficult relations with the US, but more and more we will tell them our thoughs, and our desagreements if necessary. That is what I do and told my children to do. And it is easier with friends, so it should be easy with the Americans.

The current shift is caused by the theory of the unilateral preventive war which is definitely unacceptable for us, and as it is a theory it cannot be solved as most of the problems can be solved by analysis, compromise, adjustments etc. I cant see a negociated satisfactory outcome, untill a new administration adopt another policy.

Does your military primacy automatically embody a political primacy, in a time when China just told you that the two of you could lead the world? You will have to consider seriously this question.

GhengisFarb™ · December 12, 2003, 13:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Tamerlin
Have fun mocking me and the French...

But all of the fun is taken away if the French don't mock back.

Ned · December 12, 2003, 13:52

Davout, Unilateral preventative war unacceptable to France?

Explain Kosovo.

Ned · December 12, 2003, 13:56

News from the White House:

This may all be a ploy to allow Baker bargaining chips in his debt-reduction talks. The thinking is that if a country tones down its anti-US rhetoric and positions, and does something for Iraq on reconstruction and debt reduction, the ban will be lifted.

So, rather than complicating Baker's mission, this seems to be planned to give him negotiating leverage.

Bereta_Eder · December 12, 2003, 14:09

The list is not important. However, I doubt wether this is really based on who actually helped and how much.

For example, let's take the most striking examples. You have on that list Albania and the former yugoslav republic of macedonia.

What did those countries actually do?

You don't have for example Greece, whose base on suda, crete is where many of your planes got refueled and armed from, under the NATO conventional obligations.

Once again, it simply doesn't make any sense at all.

Bereta_Eder · December 12, 2003, 14:16

And Canada is excluded where I think IIRC they actually offered help.

As said it's your money, and certaintly Albania and what have you need it more than Canada, but it still doesn't make sense IMHO.

lord of the mark · December 12, 2003, 14:16

im skipping the rest of this long thread to make a few points about the topic - pardon if theyve already been made

1. Including Canada in the list of nations to be excluded was flat out stupid. A. Canada offered more reconstruction money at Madrid then France, Germany and Russia combined - alot more. They may not have troops on the ground, but short of that they are really contributing. B. Canada has a new PM coming in the first new leader of a major western nation since the war. He looks to be friendlier to the US than his predecessor. Greeting him this way is idiotic.

2. Grouping Germany in with France and Russia seems less than wise. Germany has offered at least some help with reconstruction, unlike France and Russia. And Germany has gradually been moving away from the French position, and seems amenable to compromise on the political future, role of the UN, etc.

3. This need not have been done so publicly - we could easily have allowed all nations to bid, and quietly steered biz away from the non-contributors - a public slap only distracts from more important issues. Also by making it public it makes it HARDER for the French and Germans to back down - thats the advantage to quiet diplomacy.

4. This need not have been done NOW - would make more sense to wait untill after Baker has started negotiations on debt relief, and till after Dec. 15 deadline for Iraqi election plans.

Ned · December 12, 2003, 14:17

paiktis, if they were part of the coalition, they are automatically on the list. It is just that simple.

Bush said in a cabinet meeting that a country can still get on the list if it begins to cooperate - such as providing a significant reduction of debt.

DAVOUT · December 12, 2003, 14:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
Davout, Unilateral preventative war unacceptable to France?

Explain Kosovo.

Kosovo was a Nato affair; you cannot find more multilateral.

Bereta_Eder · December 12, 2003, 14:21

Ned, do you, or anyone else, have that list? So that we can compare it with this one?

I find interesting that all one country had to do is say "we support the war on iraq" and then do nothing else whereas countries like Canada which actually helped are not on the list.

Q Classic · December 12, 2003, 14:28

no good deed goes unpunished. canada was against the war because they didn't think it was a good idea. after the war happened, they were like most liberals in the us: we told you it was a bad idea, but we're here to help anyway.

'course, conservatives don't give most liberals that credit, and the bush admin doesn't give it to canada, either.

Boris Godunov · December 12, 2003, 14:29

In the Cabinet meeting, Bush said that it was right to exclude countries who "put lives at risk."

What a ****ing snake.

Lives killed by U.S. bombing: est. 3,000+ (minimum)
Lives killed by French/German bombing: 0

It's pretty neat how he's responsible for the deaths of thousands and can say something like that with a straight face.

Dry · December 12, 2003, 14:33

Quote:

Originally posted by DAVOUT

You apparently did not get my point : the fact that we are still here shows that the defeats were not important, and that the victories were decisive.

;p

It shows also something else: the strength of the french diplomacy.
A victory on the battlefield is one kind of victory. There are other ways to win.

Ned · December 12, 2003, 14:35

Quote:

Originally posted by DAVOUT

Kosovo was a Nato affair; you cannot find more multilateral.

Davout, the coalition that took on Iraq was nearly 40 nations, larger than NATO.

The only major distinguishing factor between the two is France's agreement with the intervention in Kosovo but not in Iraq.

Q Classic · December 12, 2003, 14:36

many of those countries in the coalition are incapable of sending any real monetary or military aid.

or are we to assume tonga's mighty army is going to stop terrorism?

Ned · December 12, 2003, 14:37

Quote:

Originally posted by paiktis22
Ned, do you, or anyone else, have that list? So that we can compare it with this one?

I find interesting that all one country had to do is say "we support the war on iraq" and then do nothing else whereas countries like Canada which actually helped are not on the list.

I think you can get the list on the State Dept. site. I'll look for it you cannot find it.

Q Classic · December 12, 2003, 14:38

the coalition of the willing

Ned · December 12, 2003, 14:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
In the Cabinet meeting, Bush said that it was right to exclude countries who "put lives at risk."

What a ****ing snake.

Lives killed by U.S. bombing: est. 3,000+ (minimum)
Lives killed by French/German bombing: 0

It's pretty neat how he's responsible for the deaths of thousands and can say something like that with a straight face.

Boris, I think Bush said the opposite.