France and Germany seek full UN control over Iraq

The Guardian ^ | 9/10/03 | Patrick Wintour

[AntiGuv]

I don't see why not. What do they have to lose? The French and Germans know we can wrap this up now or wrap this up later when the situation gets worse. Don't forget the Russians as well,; the French and Germans wouldn't be doing this without tacit Russian agreement. All of their statements seem rather conclusive so far as I can tell and they've not given much evidence of backing down from anything - even when the stakes were much higher in March.

[Michael81Dus]

WRONG, a WWII relic, not a cold war relic. The UN need a reform - the sooner the better.

[Michael81Dus]

Hey, we could expect a more differentiated comment from you.

[bushfamfan]

Well, Chirac and Shroeder are encouraged because all President Bush does is give them pats on the back and praise them. All's well with France, with Germany. They have been emboldened by our soft tone with them.

[snooker]

whatever ... it was set up specifically to control the security council during the cold war.

Like I said, cold war relic

[WOSG]

Simple. Our troops are spread thin in the world as a result of being thin spread in Iraq. "

Wrong. As Bush said, Iraq is now the main front in the war on terror.

Our troops are spread thin because they are spread thin - in over 100 countries from Bosnia to Liberia to the horn of Africa to Germany to Okinawa.

"Hence, even a brash fellow like Rumsfeld is forced to go begging to the UN for more troops."

Actually, the action is completely unnecessary. If we cut other much less usful commitments and assignments, we'd have more than enough.

France and Germany are wrong to demand UN soveriegnty in Iraq. Our post-war efforts in Iraq have been far more successful than any UN "nation-building" attempt. Letting those who were wrong on Iraq before meddle and be wrong again is a big mistake. We can use more multi-national forces, but the price France is asking for is too high.

[Michael81Dus]

But who has the veto power? Correct, the five winners of WWII, and noone else. If it were just for the Cold War, two veto powers would have been enough (US, USSR). That´s a kindergarten-debate. ;-)

[WOSG]

UN fixes needed:
India and Japan should be permanent members of secty council.
Taiwan should be accepted as a legitimate country.
No non-democratic/Communist/dictatorship/basic-human-rights-violating Govt can sit on the security council or chair any
board. that means syria, lybia, cuba, etc. quit having a voice for dictators.

I'd even take away Cuba's vote in the genl assembly.

Unless China reforms, kick it off the security council. they represent a cabal, not a people.

And France, fugedabout it. Turn France's seat into a roving EU seat ... and give it to Poland, Italy or Spain "for the duration" of the war on terror (& germany once it's safely back in non-Socialist hands).

Oh, and the veto. Give it to the US only. not useful/needed for any other country. some frenchie's called US a "hyperpower" might as well have the UN reflect the reality. :-)

[WOSG]

"If it were just for the Cold War, two veto powers would have been enough (US, USSR)."

that is correct, and since the US won the Cold War, the only country needing/deserving the UN veto is the US.

:-)

[rrrod]

again and again france and germany have proven they arent our friends...we need to look at them as enemies....time will prove this out..in the mean time let us hope bush takes after them soon with the law concerning their helping saddam....

[snooker]

History lesson needed.

[Publius6961]

I say give it to them if they shoulder all the costs.
It's only fair. After all, we did it for the surrender monkeys in Viet Nam.

[GraniteStateConservative]

Wrong. As Bush said, Iraq is now the main front in the war on terror.

Our troops are spread thin because they are spread thin - in over 100 countries from Bosnia to Liberia to the horn of Africa to Germany to Okinawa.

Actually, the action is completely unnecessary. If we cut other much less usful commitments and assignments, we'd have more than enough.

We have 130K combat troops in Iraq. 75% of the Army is in Afghanistan or Iraq/Persian Gulf. By the end of 2004, even supplemented by Army National Guard units, only 38-64K U.S. combat troops will be available for deployment in Iraq. The only way to make the numbers work is to extend deployment to more than a year-- how will that be for morale?

You can't just stick our 480K-member Army into Iraq and just leave them there forever-- you have rotations for rest and training. We have to use some forces for Afghanistan, NK, the Balkans, etc. We can't just pull them out.

[WOSG]

I see absolutely no reason for US troops to remain in the balkans or for that matter Germany.

[WOSG]

Another point - by the end of 2004, we will only need 65K troops at most in Iraq.

Even *today* a US Genl in Iraq said that a single battalion strength was enough to handle the level of attacks.

We dont have a war in Iraq as much as we have remnants, thugs and terrorists - it's as much a police problem as a military one. Which will get fixed once Iraqi security forces are trained and operating with our help.

[Michael81Dus]

Explain that please.

[Michael81Dus]

Enemies guarding your bases in Germany, helping you in Afghanistan??

[rrrod]

you are 100% right time to move the troops out og the balkans and germany..and sell the base back to germany..if they dont pay..destroy the bases

[Michael81Dus]

all your bases here are belong to us!

[rrrod]

wonder who paid for them...???