our soldiers blood being spilled, yet bush will go to the un
Moderator: S2k Moderators
-
rainstorm
our soldiers blood being spilled, yet bush will go to the un
for a resolution to allow us to be in charge in iraq after the war? i really dont get it?? reported on fox that bush has decided to run back to the un the day the war is over. our soldiers blood is being spilled. british blood has been spilled. why will bush run back to the un and allow them to run iraq?. please dont do this mr bush!! the french hate us!!!! i will gag if after we win the war we will give the spoils of the victory to the un. read history mr bush!! we need to in iraq what we did in post war japan.
0 likes
-
rainstorm
back stabbing france
Chirac to resist control of postwar Iraq by US allies
By George Parker, Krishna Guha and Judy Dempsey in Brussels
Published: March 21 2003 22:21 | Last Updated: March 21 2003 22:21
Jacques Chirac, French president, on Friday ended the fragile truce at the European Union summit in Brussels with a strong attack on the "illegal" US-British attack on Iraq.
Mr Chirac signalled that France would campaign through the United Nations to keep any American or British involvement in the running of postwar Iraq to a minimum.
Just hours after Tony Blair, British prime minister, called for a new UN resolution on the reconstruction of Iraq, Mr Chirac said France would not accept a dominant US and British role in such efforts.
"France will not accept a resolution that would legitimise military intervention and give the US and British the powers of administration in Iraq," he said.
Mr Chirac, in his end-of-summit press conference, also toughened his rhetoric against the war allies, claiming their action "breached international legality".
His words reflect a French determination that having failed to stop the war, it will attempt to set the terms of the peace through the UN.
However, British officials played down the significance of Mr Chirac's rhetoric, insisting the French president was prepared to look beyond the crisis towards the postwar future of Iraq.
All 15 EU leaders agreed a communique on Friday calling for the UN to have "a central role" once the war ends, a view endorsed by the British prime minister.
British officials said Mr Chirac's words left "plenty of room for negotiation" over the precise roles for the UN, the US and other countries in administering Iraq.
Speaking in Brussels at his first press conference since the outbreak of war, Mr Blair said Britain and the US were discussing with each other and other EU states "exactly how that process takes place."
But he added: "There is a common view now, not just among the Europeans but with the US, that we have a new UN resolution that authorises, that governs, not merely the humanitarian situation but also the post- Saddam civil authority in Iraq."
Britain will "continue to press the case for further Security Council resolutions, first on the continuation of the oil-for-food programme . . . and secondly on the establishment of a post-Saddam administration".
Mr Blair's remarks are likely to cause consternation among those US hawks who do not want Iraq under UN administration.
Given the divisions over the war, Mr Blair said the summit communique on Iraq was "a good deal more positive than might have been expected".
Mr Chirac had earlier spoken privately to Mr Blair for 10 minutes, expressing his displeasure at recent attacks by British ministers on France.
By George Parker, Krishna Guha and Judy Dempsey in Brussels
Published: March 21 2003 22:21 | Last Updated: March 21 2003 22:21
Jacques Chirac, French president, on Friday ended the fragile truce at the European Union summit in Brussels with a strong attack on the "illegal" US-British attack on Iraq.
Mr Chirac signalled that France would campaign through the United Nations to keep any American or British involvement in the running of postwar Iraq to a minimum.
Just hours after Tony Blair, British prime minister, called for a new UN resolution on the reconstruction of Iraq, Mr Chirac said France would not accept a dominant US and British role in such efforts.
"France will not accept a resolution that would legitimise military intervention and give the US and British the powers of administration in Iraq," he said.
Mr Chirac, in his end-of-summit press conference, also toughened his rhetoric against the war allies, claiming their action "breached international legality".
His words reflect a French determination that having failed to stop the war, it will attempt to set the terms of the peace through the UN.
However, British officials played down the significance of Mr Chirac's rhetoric, insisting the French president was prepared to look beyond the crisis towards the postwar future of Iraq.
All 15 EU leaders agreed a communique on Friday calling for the UN to have "a central role" once the war ends, a view endorsed by the British prime minister.
British officials said Mr Chirac's words left "plenty of room for negotiation" over the precise roles for the UN, the US and other countries in administering Iraq.
Speaking in Brussels at his first press conference since the outbreak of war, Mr Blair said Britain and the US were discussing with each other and other EU states "exactly how that process takes place."
But he added: "There is a common view now, not just among the Europeans but with the US, that we have a new UN resolution that authorises, that governs, not merely the humanitarian situation but also the post- Saddam civil authority in Iraq."
Britain will "continue to press the case for further Security Council resolutions, first on the continuation of the oil-for-food programme . . . and secondly on the establishment of a post-Saddam administration".
Mr Blair's remarks are likely to cause consternation among those US hawks who do not want Iraq under UN administration.
Given the divisions over the war, Mr Blair said the summit communique on Iraq was "a good deal more positive than might have been expected".
Mr Chirac had earlier spoken privately to Mr Blair for 10 minutes, expressing his displeasure at recent attacks by British ministers on France.
0 likes
-
Derek Ortt
-
sunny shine
- Category 2
- Posts: 533
- Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:16 pm
- Location: Destin, FL.
I guess the United States and Britain have told the French fool that France will play NO role in the rebuilding of Iraq. So now he is throwing his temper tantrum. He is trying to make people believe France is a superpower, when in fact Chirac has a super inflated head and ego. Also, if the United States takes control of Iraq, WE will not have to honor any DEALS that were made between France And Iraq during the tyrants regime. So that means..... back to the old drawing board Chirac. 
0 likes
-
mf_dolphin
- Category 5
- Posts: 17758
- Age: 68
- Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2002 2:05 pm
- Location: St Petersburg, FL
- Contact:
-
streetsoldier
- Retired Staff
- Posts: 9705
- Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 11:33 pm
- Location: Under the rainbow
Jacques Chirac has been acting as Saddam's "lawyer" for years...they have a personal friendship dating back to 1974, and there's no doubt that Chirac and Saddam have enriched each other's pockets during that span, as well.
The opinions I've seen is that France does not want the U.S. and U.K. to be present fior the mop-up and administration, due to the possibility that we will discover substantial evidence of French double-dealings that could topple Chirac's government IF FOUND...not to mention the WMD that France has insisted do not exist.
The opinions I've seen is that France does not want the U.S. and U.K. to be present fior the mop-up and administration, due to the possibility that we will discover substantial evidence of French double-dealings that could topple Chirac's government IF FOUND...not to mention the WMD that France has insisted do not exist.
0 likes
-
sunny shine
- Category 2
- Posts: 533
- Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:16 pm
- Location: Destin, FL.
streetsoldier wrote:Jacques Chirac has been acting as Saddam's "lawyer" for years...they have a personal friendship dating back to 1974, and there's no doubt that Chirac and Saddam have enriched each other's pockets during that span, as well.
The opinions I've seen is that France does not want the U.S. and U.K. to be present fior the mop-up and administration, due to the possibility that we will discover substantial evidence of French double-dealings that could topple Chirac's government IF FOUND...not to mention the WMD that France has insisted do not exist.
I agree and have stated this very same logic in another post. Glad I am not alone in my thinking.
0 likes
-
mf_dolphin
- Category 5
- Posts: 17758
- Age: 68
- Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2002 2:05 pm
- Location: St Petersburg, FL
- Contact:
-
sunny shine
- Category 2
- Posts: 533
- Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:16 pm
- Location: Destin, FL.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests