Payback - French, Germans and Russians barred from Iraq contracts

[Dry]

Originally posted by Ned


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.

Underline the words '40 nations' and the words 'France's agreement'.

Either Ned thinks France is composed of 40 nations, or he has very strange (and insulting for others) filtering glasses to see only France among 40 other nations.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Dry


the strength of the french diplomacy.

I refrain from mentionning diplomacy when discussing with Americans; I am not sure they know what it is.

j/k

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ned
Boris, I think Bush said the opposite.

You're right, my mistake.

However, he has criticized opponents of the war in the past as "risking lives." So it wasn't that far off.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Ned


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.

1. That is not a matter of numbers only; the 19 in Nato outweigh by far the 40, and Nato results from an international treaty.

2. The decision to wage war was made first and the coalition later. BTW anyone knows the written common commitments made when the coalition was created?

[Bereta_Eder]

Just for history's sake, the EU states that appear on that list:

Denmark
Holland
Italy
Portugal
Spain
UK

[Bereta_Eder]

And thanks to Q for the list

[Ned]

Originally posted by Dry


Underline the words '40 nations' and the words 'France's agreement'.

Either Ned thinks France is composed of 40 nations, or he has very strange (and insulting for others) filtering glasses to see only France among 40 other nations.

Dry, I have no idea why you are trying to miss the point.

[Oerdin]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
Kosovo was a Nato affair; you cannot find more multilateral.

Davout: I believe he was talking about how the French government had no problem with starting a war in Kosovo (and Bosnia) even though no UN resolution was ever written. Ergo, at some level UN authorization is not needed and Chirac's claim that wars without UN authorization are illegal is false.

[Ned]

Originally posted by DAVOUT


1. That is not a matter of numbers only; the 19 in Nato outweigh by far the 40, and Nato results from an international treaty.

2. The decision to wage war was made first and the coalition later. BTW anyone knows the written common commitments made when the coalition was created?

Davout, these are distinctions, indeed. But, it is not true that the decision preceeded the coalition.

But the salient point here is that Kosovo and Iraq were BOTH interventions by international coalitions. They were BOTH lead by the United States. The ONLY distinguishing factor of importance was the position of France.

France agreed with one and not the other.

So, the French point of view reduces to the following:

It is legal only if France agrees with it.

[Bereta_Eder]

Now, You had that coming France



Although I admit that the fact that there was no UN resolution for Serbia bombing was largely due to Russia's and then other countries opposition like Greece etc.But isn't it a fact?


The without UN resolution to bomb Serbia is a bad precedent that comes back to haunt.

[MrFun]

At least France did one thing right -- they did not put armpit hair on the Statue of Liberty.

[Imran Siddiqui]

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.

Apparently, it was supposed to be quiet (I've been hearing). Wolfy wasn't supposed to release it.

[Bereta_Eder]

They wont back down anyway.
They have their own ways to go to iraq and do business

[our_man]

Could someone please explain to me why the hell Ireland is not being allowed to bid for contracts in Iraq.

Let's see, our government provided the use of landing facilities at Shannon for almost all US planes on transit across the Atlantic; despite widespread unrest from the population over this the government stuck to their guns.

And this is worth what!? Nothing. De nada. Not a cent. Well Mr. Bush, you sure do know how to repay your friends.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by our_man
Could someone please explain to me why the hell Ireland is not being allowed to bid for contracts in Iraq.

Beats me. Sounds like whoever came up with that list needs to be fired.

[Oerdin]

To be fair this only covers certain recontrustion contracts and doesn't cover subcontracts. That means the French, Germans, Russians and all will still get a healthy boost out of this.

Our Man: I believe the cut off was countries which provided ground troops. Personally, I would have made allowances for countries which supported the end of Saddam's regime but didn't actually fight.

[Bereta_Eder]

our_man,
you were not in the "coalition of the willing"

[our_man]

Take a look at the list of eligible countries Paiktis. Do you really think that Tonga and Micronesia did more to support the US war effort than Ireland?

Was it a matter of just placing countries names in a hat and drawing them at random? Because that's the only way it makes sense as to how they came up with this.

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by our_man
Take a look at the list of eligible countries Paiktis. Do you really think that Tonga and Micronesia did more to support the US war effort than Ireland?

I said that in my previous posts.


edit: BTW a question: is Ireland in NATO?

[our_man]

Hmm... You're right. Looking back over the thread, I can see that I am not the only one who can appreciate the absurdity of the situation.

No, Ireland is not in NATO, we are officially a neutral country, which is why the populace got so mad when the Taoiseach agreed to allow US warplanes refuel at Shannon.

[Nubclear]

No.

And this list was a really REALLY stupid idea. Not much good has come out of it and it's deteriorated relations with many nations.
Bush in 04!

[Bereta_Eder]

Not with Micronesia though.

[November Adam]

Well I was originally a little ticked at this, but now I realize. The money being poured in to rebuilding really is mostly american tax payers money. So it's really up to them to decide who gets to bid. If the republicans want to be petty than its there call.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Ned


Davout, these are distinctions, indeed. But, it is not true that the decision preceeded the coalition.

But the salient point here is that Kosovo and Iraq were BOTH interventions by international coalitions. They were BOTH lead by the United States. The ONLY distinguishing factor of importance was the position of France.

France agreed with one and not the other.

So, the French point of view reduces to the following:

It is legal only if France agrees with it.

Interesting dialectic trap. Let us see in detail.

In order to understand why Kosovo was a Nato intervention, we have to remind that Bosnia was a UN intervention in which the military was bind by a silly chain of command. France learn that the hard way, suffering the greatest casualties of the coalition (8O). Therefore, after the refusal of Russia on the Kosovo operation, it was not traumatic to use Nato which was supposed to be more appropriate on a military standpoint, and is a permanent organization of 19 nations.

But, although the chain of command was likely better than the UN, the subtleties of 19 associates waging war together proved to be hard to bear for the General commanding the US Air Force who was desperate to the point of thinking about resignation.

This is why, for the sake of the efficiency of military operations, France would not have been opposed to the war in Irak being under US command.

The real difference between the two operations is not in the French attitude but lies in the threat justifying a preventive war which was proven in one case (Kosovo) and hypothetical (fake would be more accurate) in the other (Irak).

[PLATO]

Davout,

I have to disagree that the threat was hypothetical in Iraq. There may have not been any WMD (or there may yet be some), but the threat to all the west from an unbridled and defiant Iraq was definate.

[Ramo]

I believe the cut off was countries which provided ground troops. Personally, I would have made allowances for countries which supported the end of Saddam's regime but didn't actually fight.

Why should my tax dollars be used to short-change the Iraq people and fatten the pockets of KBR execs? Betchtel's CEO certainly didn't fight.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Ned


But, it is not true that the decision preceeded the coalition.

I remember in november 2002 (not sure of the date), there were doubts about the participation of the UK, and D. Rumsfeld said that they will adjust their plans accordingly, but that would not stop the offensive.

I understand that the decision was made and the coalition not established, unless you bring evidence of the contrary.

I reiterate my request of the formal document presumably signed by the members of the coalition.

[Ned]

Davout, the command structure is one thing and the French "concern about the legality of interventionism" is another. In your closing paragraph, you said that Iraq was not justified because the threat was not proven. Again, this simply is another way of saying that France did not agree with the coalition on the issue of justification, not that intervention by a coaltion is never justified or justifiable because even France agrees that such intervention is justified at times when the UN cannot act due to a veto threat.

An intervention by a coalition, especially to enforce UN resolutions that the UNSC found 15-0 to be in breach, does not become "illlegal" simply because France disagrees with it.

Frankly, it is time for France to move on. Meet with Baker and let's see if we can work out a deal.

[Pekka]

Coalition of the Willing list is BS. We DID promise our humanitarian aid even before the freaking war. We did promise help possibly in reconstruction. We did say we'd think about possible peacekeepers when the time comes. Our PM said we are in the Coalition of the Willing.

Read carefully: This caused a big discussion here, that are we now supporting this war or not. Are we in the actual coalition or not. This also came to play, when our first female prime minister had to step down from that job, because she was kind of spying on the former PMs talks with president Bush. It all indicated, that we are not supporting miltiary (as it is impossible for us) but other kinds of supports and aid is what we can give.

This also made a new discussion, that why did our PM promise aid without consulting more people. But he did. Bush was pleased. We were invited to the meetings of this Coalition of the Willing, and we had our people there sitting on the same tables. We discussed, that this is important to us, even if we don't send soldiers.

We never denied possibility of sending peacekeepers after the rumble is over, and it will likely happen that we send some.

Now, why we aren't listed in the coalition of the willing? Like I said, this is BS!

[Bereta_Eder]

Glory and Honour to the Finnish Commie Resistance (as demonstrated by not being in the list)