Postwar Iraq

[primetime]

now, i have largely kept my opinion to myself about the war in Iraq. why? because it would only lead to fighting and bickering. why should we see that kind of stuff on a "tickling board"? anyway, i read something crazy in the newspaper yesterday (4/9/03). it is about "postwar" Iraq. i just have to say my opinion now.

it seems that France, Germany and Russia are having a "meeting" to discuss their role in rebuilding Iraq. now, what i am about to say may offend some, but oh well. those 3 nations should shut the hell up. why should they even discuss their "role" in Iraq? they have NO ROLE in postwar Iraq. how many troops did they send? ZERO. how much financial aid did they send? ZERO. did they even participate in the war? HELL NO. why should they have any role at all? since they had big mouths about the US and Britian going to war against Iraq, then they can still "look the other way" in the rebuilding in Iraq. ESPECIALLY France. all they ever did was cry and moan about this whole Iraq thing, and they should have a role? if i was George Bush, i would flip off French President Chirac. he was the MAIN one running off at the mouth. why should they get a piece of the pie? damn vultures. it was the blood of Americans, British and the other allies that Iraq was "liberated". to the victors go the spoils. i still cant believe they have the balls to even consider they should have some kind of say in postwar Iraq.....

say what you want about whether it was right or not for the US and Britian to go into Iraq, but c'mon, should France, Germany and Russia get a piece of the Iraqi "pie"?? HELL NO.

those are my two cents.

 

[TKpervert]

Hey Primetime, in your rantings, you overlooked the Democrats.

 

[milagros317]

Well said, Primetime.😀
It is long past time to see that the French are not our allies any longer. We should recognize that they are a sovereign nation which will pursue its own interests. We should expect no favors from them, and most certainly should grant them none.

In particular, all contracts that the French government has with the now defunct regime of Saddam should be decared null and void. The French should now be about as welcome in Iraq as the Germans were in France in 1945.

 

[Marauder]

As far as I could follow this news bit, said nations are discussing their role in rebuilding Iraq because they are called upon to pay for part of it. Us Germans can count on a tax raise for just this occasion. Believe you me, if it were for me (an lots of others) to decide, we'd gladly stay out of it.

 

[milagros317]

If any nation is contributing money to rebuilding Iraq, then they should have a say in how their own money is spent, that is, on which humanitarian projects.

I maintain that France (and Russia and Germany) should have no say in how a postwar Iraqi government is formed, and no role in any transitional government.

Thanks for your clarification, Marauder, and I can only wish that the German government shared your attitude about staying out of it. Do be sure to vote in the next election there.

 

[TicklingDuo]

Based on the general view of the US in these countries, I guess the main reason they want a role is to be sure we don't go too far. I'd like nothing better than to have us pull out as soon as we're sure the bastards who've made life miserable for the Iraqi people are gone. However...if we do that, it will be the same as in many other places over the years. We go in as the great liberators, wipe out those seen as the enemy and then leave the rest to fight over control...with the result being that they end up right back where they were.

I don't believe that WE (the coalition) should be even a temp. gov't. The danger of that is nothing short of WW3 (or 4 if you agree that the cold war was WW3). It simply wouldn't be accepted. But, we should stay for a short time to see that a balanced gov't is established and well seated before we leave. Maybe that would help others understand what we're really doing there too?

Ann

 

[grippedchimp]

Let's hope Iraq gets a stable government, unlike Afghanisthan. That said, a fully US-governed Iraq in the long run would be wrong. Best leave it to the UN.

 

[RichardAuc]

Coalition's future

At first, the participation of France (and other nations that obstructed our war efforts) reminded me of a story from my childhood: someone was making pies, and asked for help from many people during the baking without getting it. Only after the pies were baked did the baker get approached, for those from whom she sought help all wanted pie. They didn't get any.

Upon further consideration, I decided that this wasn't a good analogy for our current situation. The coalition won't make a profit from making Iraq into a democracy; that will cost billions of dollars. Bad enough that 96 Americans and 60 Brits have died (at last count as of this writing), at a cost of billions of dollars, for these leeches; must we pay for reconstruction too?

No, let the UN who would not support our effort pay for this--completely. The coalition has suffered enough. What was the point of our ancestors' sacrifices that benefitted the world if we may only defend the fruits of them against mad dictators with other countries' permission?

Uganda has a seat on the human rights council on the UN. America doesn't, because it hasn't outlawed capital punishment despite its high murder rate. What good is being the most powerful nation in history if we're not even safe in our own homes?

The UN has made its opinion of America plain. The UN wants our troops and our money at its disposal, but doesn't want us to have any control of their use. This kind of taxation without representation and conscription is precisely what we rebelled against when our country was founded.

I see many reasons why the UN needs America, but none why America needs the UN. Couldn't the coalition serve as a civilized alternative to the UN, where control of its funds and forces is shared in direct proportion to its voluntary contributions?