Skip to comments.
France and Germany seek full UN control over Iraq
The Guardian ^
| 9/10/03
| Patrick Wintour
Posted on 09/10/2003 5:50:29 AM PDT by truthandlife
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-87 next last
To: truthandlife
Can anyone of our Freepers please explain to me how France and Germany can strong arm the peace process? I just do not understand it. Thank you.
2
posted on
09/10/2003 5:55:01 AM PDT
by
smiley
To: truthandlife
France and Germany will back the new UN resolution on Iraq sought by President George Bush only if the proposal gives the UN full political rule over the country.DOA
3
posted on
09/10/2003 5:57:28 AM PDT
by
facedown
(Armed in the Heartland)
To: truthandlife
they just want to return a "friendly" Iraqi dictator to power to turn back on the
oil for food skim money
4
posted on
09/10/2003 5:57:57 AM PDT
by
joesnuffy
(Moderate Islam Is For Dilettantes)
To: smiley
Sure the Frenchies have a veto over anything else. Cold war relic.
5
posted on
09/10/2003 5:57:58 AM PDT
by
snooker
To: smiley
Because the active-duty Army cannot maintain an occupation force above 60,000 beyond March - according to the Congressional Budgeting Office... We don't have enough soldiers..
6
posted on
09/10/2003 6:08:06 AM PDT
by
AntiGuv
(™)
To: facedown
DOADon't bet on it. GWB wants to get reelected more than he wants political control over Iraq.....
7
posted on
09/10/2003 6:09:29 AM PDT
by
AntiGuv
(™)
To: AntiGuv
Bingo. I've heard specualtion that part of the $87 billion Bush is asking for would go to re-activate a couple of Army divisions, and maybe a few AF fighter wings. Have you heard anything that coroborates this? I hope it's true...that's something Bush should have pushed for starting on 9-12.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
8
posted on
09/10/2003 6:14:44 AM PDT
by
wku man
(Buccaneers 17, Eagles 0!!!! What do you have to say now, Stallone and Madden?)
To: wku man
I haven't heard anything along those lines, but I sure wouldn't be surprised if that's the case. We need at least a couple more Army divisions to deal with our current commitments and have the manpower to confront potential threats [North Korea, Iran].
9
posted on
09/10/2003 6:26:36 AM PDT
by
AntiGuv
(™)
To: smiley
They still have a veto despite the fact that they aren't qualified to.
To: smiley
F*ck France and Germany.
11
posted on
09/10/2003 6:37:54 AM PDT
by
ohioman
To: smiley
Simple. Our troops are spread thin in the world as a result of being thin spread in Iraq. Hence, even a brash fellow like Rumsfeld is forced to go begging to the UN for more troops. The problem of world policing overextension was made repeatedly by antiwar freepers in their predictions before the war, of course.
To: wku man
re-activate a couple of Army divisionsToday Iraq, tomorrow France.
To: facedown
Don't be surprised if you're wrong. Bush has already accepted the fact that we need more multinational support there (which is completely impossible without a SC resolution). Now, the UN is in the driver seat of the negotiations.
To: smiley
Because we are desperate. It's quite reasonable. If you are a crack dealer and a crack whore comes to you for a fix, the crack whore doesn't have much leverage in negotiations.
We need help. We can't get help without UN suppport (because that's what India and Pakistan and Turkey require). Therefore, we do what we must for UN support.
We have plenty of resources to defeat armies. We don't to occupy nations. It is absolutely a failure that we didn't line up help from other nations to support us in the occupation before the war. It's harder now to get help (with the affirmation that these foreign troops would be in harm's way) than before when such a notion was just speculation and not a fact. We've also hurt our military, too. Don't be surprised to see recruiters having to work harder to meet their quotas-- particularly for the National Guard.
To: joesnuffy
Part of it is that they think this is hilarious and they don't want the sitcom to end, and with it their viewing pleasure. Part of it is they seriously hate us and want us to fail. Part of it is shattered ego-- and they want the US to boost their self-esteem.
To: AntiGuv
JR, do you still see a full capitulation regarding demands for UN political control of Iraq-- replacing Bremmer?
To: truthandlife
It shoulod be very obvious that the Democrats are no longer the party of the American working man or the balcks or the Jews or the other smalle groups. The Democratic Party is now the party of France and the Europeans. They have thrown away completly American values and are luoudly proclaiming the goodness of Euro thought.
A much better name for the party is euroRats.
18
posted on
09/10/2003 7:00:02 AM PDT
by
bert
(Don't Panic!)
To: ohioman
We're about to go for some butt love ourselves at the UN.
To: AntiGuv
Because the active-duty Army cannot maintain an occupation force above 60,000 beyond March
Why not? Don't tell me clintack did SO much damage?
20
posted on
09/10/2003 7:10:29 AM PDT
by
Cronos
('slam and sanity don't mix, ask your Imam.....)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-87 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson