USA and France to reconcile? - Page 2

Alexander's Horse · December 15, 2003, 03:12

so did your country

Imran Siddiqui · December 15, 2003, 03:14

Quote:

I think its just a little bit hypocritical for a lot of these supposed "free market" conservatives saying France and Germany shouldn't be involved in reconstruction. Is some silly grudge more important than possibly wasting tax payer dollars with Halliburton? I guess it's obvious where the administration's loyalties are. The "free market" ideology takes a backseat to political kickbacks and no-bid contracts.

How is giving government contracts AT ALL 'free market'?

Alexander's Horse · December 15, 2003, 03:22

christ you're dumb

DinoDoc · December 15, 2003, 03:25

Pot meet kettle.

Imran Siddiqui · December 15, 2003, 03:25

Yes I realize Christ is dumb, what is your problem now?

Alexander's Horse · December 15, 2003, 03:26

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Pot meet kettle.

I didn't know you and Imran had met

MrFun · December 15, 2003, 10:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
The ones most likely to do that are the very ones least likely to know who built it.

Yeah -- maybe it's best that those Americans crazy enough to do this, do not know this was a gift from France.

Q Classic · December 15, 2003, 10:42

well, remember, it was the french terrorist group silhouette that demolished the statue of liberty. it's a nice monument now, especially with the military bases nearby.

Patroklos · December 15, 2003, 10:58

Hey,

Sorry, but unless the Iraqis collected all the fragmenst and reconstructed the bombs we droped from 91-03, America did not give any arms to Saddam's regime during this period.

I do not hold France in any disregard for arming Iraq before 91, nore do I look down on us (America) for doing so either. We had a much larger game going on at that time, and Saddam was nessecary then, and we needed him armed. Things change, and so does the necesity of Saddam. I think the benefit of collapsing the Soviet Union to the cost of either France or America arming Saddam was a good trade. Ask Eastern Europe.

We don't hold Frace resposible for all the British sailors killed and ships sunk in the Falklands (or for the Stark) for good reason, why should we hold America resposible for pre war Iraq?

-Pat

Spiffor · December 15, 2003, 11:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Q Cubed
well, remember, it was the french terrorist group silhouette that demolished the statue of liberty. it's a nice monument now, especially with the military bases nearby.

I still can't believe a rag-tag terrorist group lying in the catacombs could do this

Q Classic · December 15, 2003, 11:14

oh, it was some big conspiracy. go ask tracer tong, he's in hong kong.

GhengisFarb™ · December 15, 2003, 16:54

Quote:

Originally posted by MrFun
I'm surprised other Americans have not demolished the Statue of Liberty yet.

We're working on it. Damn fundraisers keep repairing it though..............

lord of the mark · December 15, 2003, 17:54

Quote:

Originally posted by MrFun
I'm surprised other Americans have not demolished the Statue of Liberty yet.

The ability to change govt types in just one turn is way to valuable. The UN wonder doesnt seem to be working correctly though .......

GhengisFarb™ · December 15, 2003, 18:00

Quote:

Originally posted by lord of the mark
The UN wonder doesnt seem to be working correctly though .......

The UN anything doesn't seem to be working correctly............

Oerdin · December 15, 2003, 18:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
OTOH, if the US agrees to give us some reconstruction contracts, and oil-exploitation contracts, it is very possible we send troops there. But that's my old theory of "give us some loot and we'll come".

I think that describes 9/10 of the countries out there. The 1/10 who don't care about money are either so rich money doesn't matter or so poor that they couldn't help even if they wanted to.

Lefty Scaevola · December 15, 2003, 18:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor

To "discover" the deals between France and Saddam's Iraq will be about as interesting as to "discover" that Rumsie went all smiles to Saddam some 15 years ago. .

WRONG, there were not international sactions 15 years ago. Since Gulf war I, it has been illegal to sell almost all military goods and services, and many industrial one to Iraq. And you an bet that one of the negotiating points Backer with have with several countries, is what the USA does with captured evidence of sanctions violations.

Spiffor · December 15, 2003, 18:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola
And you an bet that one of the negotiating points Backer with have with several countries, is what the USA does with captured evidence of sanctions violations.

Indeed, but don't consider the weight of this negociating item too highly. The worst thing that can happen to the countries whose deals with Saddam will be unveiled (France, Germany and Russia... for some reason, any country involved in the conquest of Iraq will be strangely innocent

) is a very bad PR.

AFAIK, there are no planned sanctions towards those who disrespected the sanctions. Besides, it is difficult to start commercial sanctions on France and Germany, because these countries are more important to international trade as Serbia or Iraq, and because it would open a commercial conflict with the EU as a whole (the EU is one economic zone, it's pretty hard to target only one country in it).

It's surely well known for a long time, in diplomatic spheres, who dealt with Saddam during the sanctions. What the evidence will bring is a more precise account of what has been traded. Not much of a value for a diplomat. The only real threat is to make it public, and to give a PR hit.

Lefty Scaevola · December 15, 2003, 19:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
... for some reason, any country involved in the conquest of Iraq will be strangely innocent .

The reason being that they have control of the evidence, something some other nations, deed in the cesspool, should have thought of.

Spiffor · December 15, 2003, 19:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola
The reason being that they have control of the evidence, something some other nations, deed in the cesspool, should have thought of.

Glad to know we see eye to eye on this one

Patroklos · December 15, 2003, 19:15

The obvios reason why the members of the coalition will not be implicated is because they were not involved, besides of cours ENFORCING the precious santions prewar. Odd how the ones who yelled so long for continueing that ineffective mess were, as was noted above, the ones everybody knew were violating them.

-Pat

Oncle Boris · December 15, 2003, 19:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor

Of course we dealt with him. We're the world's third weapon exporter after the US and Russia. It's obvious we have clients scattered around the world, and it's obvious we don't only have the nice kids on the block in our shop.

And you know what more incredible? You too!
Your country too had deals with the Saddam regime, if only because you cannot exactly act as if a 30 million inhab country didn't exist for 12 years, especially when it sits on a sea of oil.

To "discover" the deals between France and Saddam's Iraq will be about as interesting as to "discover" that Rumsie went all smiles to Saddam some 15 years ago. It feels dirty, but the whole international diplomacy is dirty.

One of the many reasons France rejected war so adamantly was that the Saddam regime had a huge debt towards us, and we feared his toppling would cancel the debt. In all their postwar handlings with France on the issue, the US and the Iraqi council raised the debt issue, threatening or announcing to cancel it.
There's a very simple reason why this debt is important (even for France, who cancelled many debts in the past). That's because the debt is huge. Before GulfWar1, we sold throngs of missiles and chemicals to Saddam, and even a nuclear reactor! Of course we want the money.

Is it dirty? Definitely, that's clearly nothing to be proud of. But then again, past the moralizing PR, nobody can be proud of anything in Iternational Relations.

Well said Spiffor. I can't agree more. Basically, as pointed out by Hobbes and repeatedly mentioned by international relations gurus, diplomacy obeys to absolutely no morale.

(BTW, how come your English is so good?)

Spiffor · December 15, 2003, 19:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Patroklos
The obvios reason why the members of the coalition will not be implicated is because they were not involved

Aaaah, the naïveté of youth, when you think the word divides clearly between good and evil.

I take it you are still watching Candy-Candy?

(sorry, but I always think of Candy-Candy's opening theme in these times, that features "In Candy's land, like in all other lands, there are villains and nice guys")

Spiffor · December 15, 2003, 19:48

Quote:

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
(BTW, how come your English is so good?)

Videogames for years
Apolyton for two years

Oerdin · December 15, 2003, 19:48

Because he is secretly an accountant from Reading who simply pretends to be French.

Patroklos · December 15, 2003, 19:55

heh,

The naïveté of a person that doesn't want to bare the burden of guilt alone, or is that desperation?

Is that what passes for cartoons over there?

-PAt

Spiffor · December 15, 2003, 20:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Patroklos
The naïveté of a person that doesn't want to bare the burden of guilt alone, or is that desperation?

I admit.
The fact that I don't hold the US or any other of its ad-hoc allies for Saints has only one reason.
That's because I'm despaired. yes sir

Quote:

Is that what passes for cartoons over there?

It did about 20 years ago. But I am still shocked by the atrocious good/bad propaganda this theme blatently spewed to children. When I tried to explain my little cousin that good vs evil was much more complex than that, she simply didn't understand at 7

GePap · December 15, 2003, 20:15

The French ahd lucrative contracts through the Oil for food program-interestingly, Haliburton under Cheney had some contracts in Iraq.

Zippo evidence yet that French companies sold any contraband to Iraq-so i don;t know what all the francophobes are talking about.

As for France and the US reconciling? Not until this admin leaves, cause the fact is, its this admins. way or the highway.

Patroklos · December 15, 2003, 20:15

Perhaps if you would have shown her a classic like old school GI Joe, then she could learn from the interesting dynamic between Flint and Lady Jay, and their interaction with Cobra Master.

Oh yeah and it will also teach her the USA is always right

So out of curiosity, how did all those US weapons make it into Iraq after 91? bieng I was on one of the warships watching European flaged ships enter Iraqi ports, but no American ones.

The answer is we airdropped them of course, unfortunetly they all exploded on top of French equipment upon delivery. Damn shame.

-Pat

Patroklos · December 15, 2003, 20:16

Yeah, the French admin is pretty stubborn.

GePap · December 15, 2003, 20:17

The US did not seel significant arms to Iraq even before 1981 becuase of pro-Israel sentiment against arming Arab states. The US did nothing to persduade toehrs not to arm Iraq and did seel dual use materials.

Again, the assertion that France sold wepaons to Iraq is withou foundation right now. NOw, arms dealers selling European and Eastern Block made weapons? Perhaps.