France, Germany, Russia - you lose.

get ready to hear a lot of crying from over there

First France and Germany get stuck holding a handful of worthless oil contracts - deals made with a now-defunct Iraqi government - THEN they miss out on the opportunity to get their hands on billions of dollars worth of US-funded reconstruction projects.

Just more examples of why America is and continues to be #1...while France and Germany continue to struggle holding onto the #31 and #56 positions, respectively.

It's looking more and more like US funded reconstruction is going to supply a rather small amount of the total needed to get Iraq back on it's feet again. Maybe the Europans will exclude US companies from tendering for contracts paid for by UN and EU money, eh? Also with globalisation being what it is this is a non starter from the word go. Can't get a tender in from Paris? Hell, do it from London.

Spliffy, you're losing it.

That is the first (short) phase of reconstruction -- the one that the US actually pays for.

The second one that goes beyond the first elementary repairs will be paid for by someone else. I think the EU will take part in that by supplying funds. And if the EU supplies funds, European countries will earn their share.

After all, the US bombs, the UN reconstructs, and the EU pays.

I was never prouder to be a Minnesotan.

And...?

Is this some kind of sports game?

Is this supposed to make them any worse to live in?

Well, the funny thing is that all the contracts were closed before the War started and that one of the companies getting the most out of those contracts is Cheneys former company. Made me think why this War is going on. And i think after the War the US will come crawling to the UN for support since they need money to cover the expenses of having 250000 soldier inside Iraq for years to come and the facilities to rebuild Iraq. Powell already made the first step still walking straight but soon he will get down on his hands and kness kissing some feet.

Yes...yes...yes...i am provokating!

ha ha. Actually, it is the Europeans who are insisting on UN involvement. Secretary Powell told them the other day that we don't want the UN in Iraq. That drove the European foreign ministers crazy, and it was beautiful reverse psychology:

Europeans: It's your war, you pay for it. We will not legitimize it by allowing the UN to take over (I'm paraphrasing De Villepin).

Americans: We will not allow the UN to take over. (Powell).

Europeans: You must! We will not allow the US to exclude the UN!!

So IIRC the reconstruction or Iraq is gonna be funded by Iraq's oil right, which belongs to the Iraqui people. So the money the Iraquis get from their oil belongs to them as well right. So how could an amendment in the US be applied to a 'sovereign' country like Iraq is supposed to become, since the US is 'not interested' in occupying the country.
Am i missing something here? Are the US gonna decide what the Iraquis do with their money they get from their oil?

villa

yes.

That is an extreme oversimplification of what really happened.

Not really.

Yes, really.

It seems like it, at least for the start, until a provisional government can be put into place pending elections.

This is actually little different from the current situation, where Saddam Hussein "administers" the UN oil-for-food program. This is perhaps the biggest cause of all those deaths supposedly caused by the embargoes. Plenty of money was flowing into Iraq, most of it earmarked for humanitarian aid, but it never got where it was supposed to go. Instead, Saddam used it in several different ways, chief among them being to buy loyalty from his staff and to increase his personal wealth. This is, frankly, why Iraq shouldn't have been allowed to administer that program, and is also why when talks came of altering the program, they got really indignant.

At least the US will actually use the money for its intended purpose. It's not like they have much choice in the matter; the international community will be watching them like hawks.

No, not really.

April 3

April 4

"Look Ma! I met the president!"

I think the UN should just let the Americans do what they want to do in Iraq, since it seems like hitting one's head against a brick wall otherwise. No payments, no support. Let the Americans pay for it. Let the Americans cope with suicide bombers and urban terrorists. Why should we have to pay for this war that the Americans started?

Yeah, you are right and after about 6 month Powell will crawl!

And if it doesn't go as badly as you hope?

What a pathetic reply.

Really? One thing that absolutely stuns me is the extent to which there is a palpable desire in some quarters for the war to go badly. Obviously, if things go badly it gives ammunition to those who would prefer to say "see, I told you so." The problem is that if things do go badly, a lot of people suffer.

Keeping the UN out would make things more difficult for the Iraqi people in that the amount of assistance they would receive would be more limited. Isolating the US and the UK and keeping the international community divided will also make it more likely that the Middle East path to a new and hopefully less violent future will be harder. At the very least, it will make the transition from the Saddam regime to a new and hopefully more democratic regime more difficult because that government will need to be recognized and given help if it is to survive its first few tentative years. That recognition and help needs to be from all democratic countries, not just the ones in the coalition of the willing.

It's absolutely crazy and selfish to wish that process harm and to take steps to make a bad result more likely solely for the purpose of spite against the US. How can such a thing be justified?

Yes, really. No where did I read hope that the wor goes bad. To misrepresent other posts to make it look like is pathetic. And you know that.
I agree with you here, and I assume most reasonable people would. But the original poster of this thread didn't. "France, you lose!"
To answer to such a post with "If you want to do it alone, you're welcome, but then also take all the consequences yourself", is neither crazy nor selfish.

Oh, I have no idea where I could have gotten that idea.




No hope for things going badly here. Nosiree!

careful there Simey...

peaceniks bite when you corner 'em.

Well, here is some good news. These guys (taking the airport) are in MOPP 2. Earlier in the week the pictures I saw had them in a higher MOPP level - wearing the rubber boots as well. Presumably the chemical threat has been downgraded a bit.

you know any darker skinned coalition soldiers over there have had to worry so much more than lighter skinned ones. just because of how the iraqi's bought some US uniforms or whatever. i bet they have had to take a lot of double takes just to make sure that is a US soldier at and distance

Ah Spliff - you crack me up. You make it sound like some great new news but if you actually think about it America never intended on sharing the oil and restructure spoils - not even with the other 2 members of the fighting coalition. And that became obvious the day the contracts got handed out. The Brits must be pi$$ed with the Americans.


I've been thinking that if George W can persuade the American people so easily to invade Iraq and so easily win the battle I am betting that within 5 years America invades Iran or Syria or some other oil rich country.


Sort of a game of monopoly - instead of buying all the railway stations the USA is going for the utilities.

Don't be silly. Troops in infantry units know each other very well. I used to be able to recognize everyone in my platoon dressed in full chemical suits just by the way they walked. Friendly fire can happen, but skin color is the least likely reason I can think of why it would happen.

For example, so what if they bought wear a US uniform. It's highly unlikely that a person who isn't a member of the US Armed Forces could pass themselves off as one. Just because someone puts a uniform on doesn't mean they know how to wear it properly. There are all kinds of subtle cues that would make an imposter obvious. That's why soldiers find war movies so annoying. There are always little things that stick out that an outsider wouldn't notice. And in contrast, if you see someone who looks instinctively right, you would know that they are friendly.

It goes beyond the uniform to the way troops move and interact with one another. That is a product of training. US troops move a certain way, carry their weapons a certain way, signal to one another a certain way. None of this is designed for identification, but it would stand out a mile if someone dressed in BDUs, but who hasn't been trained in the same army were to try to infiltrate.