Full Version: International Community have any excuse...
Now that the elections have come and gone with little incident, a new day has dawn in Iraq.
World Leaders Welcome High Turnout in Iraq
Questions for Debate:
1) Do nations who once opposed the war (France, Germany, Russia) have any excuse not to help out in Iraq if a democratically elected government requests it?
2) If the new elected Iraqi government asks for more international aid and these nations refuse, should the US go foward with some sort of economic or political reprisal?
World Leaders Welcome High Turnout in Iraq
QUOTE(NY Times)
French President Jacques Chirac spoke with President Bush by telephone, saying he was satisfied by the ``participation rate and the good technical organization.''
QUOTE(NY Times)
``The conditions for holding the elections were quite difficult, to put it mildly,'' Putin said after meeting in the Kremlin with Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas. ``At the same time, I must say that the very fact of it is an important event, maybe a historic event, for the Iraqi people because it is undoubtedly a step toward democratization of the country.''
QUOTE(NY Times)
In Brussels, Belgium, the European Union's foreign policy chief said Iraq's move toward democracy would pay off in the provision of more aid.
``They are going to find the support of the European Union, no doubt about that, in order to see this process move on in the right direction,'' Javier Solana told The Associated Press.
``They are going to find the support of the European Union, no doubt about that, in order to see this process move on in the right direction,'' Javier Solana told The Associated Press.
Questions for Debate:
1) Do nations who once opposed the war (France, Germany, Russia) have any excuse not to help out in Iraq if a democratically elected government requests it?
2) If the new elected Iraqi government asks for more international aid and these nations refuse, should the US go foward with some sort of economic or political reprisal?
1) Do nations who once opposed the war (France, Germany, Russia) have any excuse not to help out in Iraq if a democratically elected government requests it?
2) If the new elected Iraqi government asks for more international aid and these nations refuse, should the US go foward with some sort of economic or political reprisal?
In all fairness, the European nations cited have helped out Iraq by forgiving a portion of the debt that Saddam ran up on them.
From MSNBC.....
So, it's not like they've been staying on the sidelines through all of this. It seems to me that the elections in Iraq offer both the US and our European allies a chance to mend some fences and move forward from where we are. I expect that is going to happen.
2) If the new elected Iraqi government asks for more international aid and these nations refuse, should the US go foward with some sort of economic or political reprisal?
In all fairness, the European nations cited have helped out Iraq by forgiving a portion of the debt that Saddam ran up on them.
From MSNBC.....
QUOTE
In agreeing to forgive all of the debt Iraq owes it, the United States is going beyond the 80 percent reduction of $38.9 billion in debt agreed to by the Paris Club of international lenders in November.
The Paris Club includes European countries, the United States, Japan, Russia, Canada and Australia. Iraq owes another $80 billion to various Arab governments, mainly Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.
The Paris Club includes European countries, the United States, Japan, Russia, Canada and Australia. Iraq owes another $80 billion to various Arab governments, mainly Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.
So, it's not like they've been staying on the sidelines through all of this. It seems to me that the elections in Iraq offer both the US and our European allies a chance to mend some fences and move forward from where we are. I expect that is going to happen.
I think when the Iraqi's become more and more a component of the political process in Iraq we will see other nation's change their approach. I think this is not only because of the importance of having the Iraqis themselves guiding and forming their government but I believe in order for this process to progresses the violence will have to be brought under control. I feel just the fact that Iraq is still a very violent country hampers international efforts for financial assistance tremendously.
Aquilla you forget to mention that the debt forgiven by the Paris Club was a major diplomatic triumph for the US (and James Baker). France and Russia were very much and openly so opposed to this and it took a lot of effort from the Bush admin. to bring these nations to agree to our demands. Which shows what we can accomplish when we want to.
I feel such international cooperation must be seen jointly not independently..you can't demand "Europe" to do their part when in Europe's eyes America still has not fulfilled her own part. I just don't really see much gesturing from the Bush admin that they are ready to invite the world into their little renovation in the Middle East just yet..I think this is good and bad. The WEF is a perfect example of this still very standoffish stance the Bush admin is taking...one of the priorities of Davos was the Middle East and yet the Bush admin only sent a trade official to the forum.
You can't just crash the party you have to be invited.
Aquilla you forget to mention that the debt forgiven by the Paris Club was a major diplomatic triumph for the US (and James Baker). France and Russia were very much and openly so opposed to this and it took a lot of effort from the Bush admin. to bring these nations to agree to our demands. Which shows what we can accomplish when we want to.
I feel such international cooperation must be seen jointly not independently..you can't demand "Europe" to do their part when in Europe's eyes America still has not fulfilled her own part. I just don't really see much gesturing from the Bush admin that they are ready to invite the world into their little renovation in the Middle East just yet..I think this is good and bad. The WEF is a perfect example of this still very standoffish stance the Bush admin is taking...one of the priorities of Davos was the Middle East and yet the Bush admin only sent a trade official to the forum.
You can't just crash the party you have to be invited.
QUOTE(lederuvdapac @ Jan 31 2005, 02:36 PM)
Now that the elections have come and gone with little incident, a new day has dawn in Iraq.
Questions for Debate:
1) Do nations who once opposed the war (France, Germany, Russia) have any excuse not to help out in Iraq if a democratically elected government requests it?
2) If the new elected Iraqi government asks for more international aid and these nations refuse, should the US go foward with some sort of economic or political reprisal?
Questions for Debate:
1) Do nations who once opposed the war (France, Germany, Russia) have any excuse not to help out in Iraq if a democratically elected government requests it?
2) If the new elected Iraqi government asks for more international aid and these nations refuse, should the US go foward with some sort of economic or political reprisal?
Holy Hyperbole! Jeez, lederuvdapac, how loaded do you want your questions to be?
"A new day has dawned in Iraq?" Yeah, I guess so, but I must have missed the TV reports of the insurgents laying down their arms and pledging allegiance to the new Iraq, brought to you by the Bush Adminstration and paid for by the American People.
Does the election in Iraq means the $280 billion America has spent there was well worth every dollar spent ? Does the election mean that the thousands of Americans and Iraqis that were killed, wounded or maimed should feel their pain and suffering was worth it? Does the election mean that Congress should turn down Bush's request for another $80 billion to be poured down that Middle East rathole?
France, Germany and Russia may feel they can put money into a new Iraq when something resembling stability takes hold there. The insurgency is not over and most investors don't like putting their money in places where it will only get blown up.
Economic reprisals against other nations if they don't cough up the cash for Iraq? What kind of club do you think the U.S. wields in international trade, leder? Last time I looked the U.S. was running a $164.7 billion trade deficit. Last week U.S. Treasury Secretary said the G8 nations had to do more to help with the trade deficit. The G8 consists of the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, Italy, Canada and...our old buddies, France, Germany and Russia. Over half of the U.S. debt is owned by foreign countriesas Reuters reporterd last August 2004:
Data showing foreigners own half the U.S. debt has raised concerns about a possible tipping point for America's reliance on foreign capital, though the U.S. Treasury Department sees little risk from the holdings.
A graph in a Treasury Department report this week on borrowing needs showed foreign holdings made up 50 percent of total privately held U.S. public debt, which excludes Federal Reserve holdings, as of May 31.
Charles Lieberman, chief economist at Advisors Financial, said the current foreign holdings level had ignited debate over how large the portion could become.
"I don't think it matters if it's at 50 or 45 or 55. But there are are longer-term trends here that are unsustainable," Lieberman said.
"You can't continue to sell your bonds to foreign investors at a higher and higher rate, because at some point they'll own 100 percent. Obviously that's a constraint," he said.
Wonder if any French, German or Russian bankers and investors own any of that U.S. debt? What happens if they all start demanding Uncle Sam put away his platinum Visa card and start paying up what he owes? Who's going to write off America's debt?
Or in other words, leder, you can't threaten the other guy with a club when he's got a club too.
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Jan 31 2005, 08:32 PM)
Holy Hyperbole! Jeez, lederuvdapac, how loaded do you want your questions to be?
Yes they are loaded
QUOTE(nighttimer)
"A new day has dawned in Iraq?" Yeah, I guess so, but I must have missed the TV reports of the insurgents laying down their arms and pledging allegiance to the new Iraq, brought to you by the Bush Adminstration and paid for by the American People.
But did you miss the part of the iraqis celebrating and proclaiming that the terrorists lost on Jan.30th?
QUOTE(nighttimer)
Does the election in Iraq means the $280 billion America has spent there was well worth every dollar spent ? Does the election mean that the thousands of Americans and Iraqis that were killed, wounded or maimed should feel their pain and suffering was worth it? Does the election mean that Congress should turn down Bush's request for another $80 billion to be poured down that Middle East rathole?
Well this is all in the eye of the beholder...namely the American voter. And i think many iraqis are grateful for the American sacrifice. Something good happened on the 30th something that hopefully will become a stepping stone towards peace and freedom.
QUOTE(nighttimer)
France, Germany and Russia may feel they can put money into a new Iraq when something resembling stability takes hold there. The insurgency is not over and most investors don't like putting their money in places where it will only get blown up.
The point of my question...was if the Iraqi gov't requested support (troop training, troops for security, investments, financial aid, advisors, exc...) would the opposing nations have any justification? It is the same quagmire that Zarqawi himself proclaimed. The terrorists cannot justify attacking an iraqi elected government when they are "supposed" to be helping the people from the evil occupiers.
The fact is that in just a few days we will know the elected officials of government and iraq will be a democratic republic. If those iraqis ask for assistance to help build up their country...how could France and Germany deny their request? I mean many criticize Bush for not getting the international community (basically just france, germany, and russia because there is nobody else) involved in iraq. Yet if they are asked and STILL decline...wouldnt that say a lot?
QUOTE(nighttimer)
Economic reprisals against other nations if they don't cough up the cash for Iraq? What kind of club do you think the U.S. wields in international trade, leder? Last time I looked the U.S. was running a $164.7 billion trade deficit. Last week U.S. Treasury Secretary said the G8 nations had to do more to help with the trade deficit. The G8 consists of the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, Italy, Canada and...our old buddies, France, Germany and Russia. Over half of the U.S. debt is owned by foreign countriesas Reuters reporterd last August 2004:
ok so maybe economic reprisal wasn't the right thing to ask. What i meant basically is what should we do if these nations continue to undermine our efforts to help the iraqi people? The war is over, the elections have occurred, and any opposition saying "we shouldnt have gone in" is quelled because we are there and iraq is no free.
While by most standards, the elections were a success leder, I'd temper the cheerleading with a sober "wait and see" attitude. Let's not forget the constraints that this vote took place under with American troops literally defending Iraqis as they went to the polls.
I don't want to come off as sour grapes because nobody benefits but the insurgents if what Bush is trying to do in Iraq crashes and burns. Personally, I'd like to declare the election a roaring success and start pulling our troops out yesterday, but that's not going to happen---though it should if the election meant all that its supporters say it does.
Bush is trying to build a lighthouse of freedom and democracy in a land where it has never existed before. Right now it's still a house of cards and until Iraq is run by Iraqis and not Americans, I don't think the change in that place today is all that dramatic from what it was last week.
I don't want to come off as sour grapes because nobody benefits but the insurgents if what Bush is trying to do in Iraq crashes and burns. Personally, I'd like to declare the election a roaring success and start pulling our troops out yesterday, but that's not going to happen---though it should if the election meant all that its supporters say it does.
Bush is trying to build a lighthouse of freedom and democracy in a land where it has never existed before. Right now it's still a house of cards and until Iraq is run by Iraqis and not Americans, I don't think the change in that place today is all that dramatic from what it was last week.
1) Do nations who once opposed the war (France, Germany, Russia) have any excuse not to help out in Iraq if a democratically elected government requests it?
Yes, it's called Sovereignty.
Quite frankly, they have the right to do whatever they choose when it comes to their foreign policy. We may not agree with them, but it is their right. The reverse is also true. We too have a right to approach foreign policy as we see fit. They are not required to agree.
Now, if the disagreement is critical enough, then war can result (as can be seen in any history text).
2) If the new elected Iraqi government asks for more international aid and these nations refuse, should the US go forward with some sort of economic or political reprisal?
We can choose to approach this foreign policy issue that way. However, we should expect to be on the receiving end of similar economic and political reprisals / sanctions if we do.
Considering how much money is made in the USA by companies selling goods and services to these countries I think we would end up the worse for wear.
Choosing to apply this school yard approach to foreign policy will be of no benefit to the bully if the party doing the bullying has more to loose then the bullied if/when the bullied decide to fight back.
Yes, it's called Sovereignty.
Quite frankly, they have the right to do whatever they choose when it comes to their foreign policy. We may not agree with them, but it is their right. The reverse is also true. We too have a right to approach foreign policy as we see fit. They are not required to agree.
Now, if the disagreement is critical enough, then war can result (as can be seen in any history text).
2) If the new elected Iraqi government asks for more international aid and these nations refuse, should the US go forward with some sort of economic or political reprisal?
We can choose to approach this foreign policy issue that way. However, we should expect to be on the receiving end of similar economic and political reprisals / sanctions if we do.
Considering how much money is made in the USA by companies selling goods and services to these countries I think we would end up the worse for wear.
Choosing to apply this school yard approach to foreign policy will be of no benefit to the bully if the party doing the bullying has more to loose then the bullied if/when the bullied decide to fight back.
QUOTE
The terrorists cannot justify attacking an iraqi elected government when they are "supposed" to be helping the people from the evil occupiers.
The "terrorists" are way ahead of you on this one. Al-Zarquawi's pledge to fight democracy (which he announced last week) as patently un-muslim is one that DOES resonate for a lot of people in the Middle East. While the election certainly went off better than I expected, I would wait longer than 12 hours before declaring Iraqi independence a fait accompli.
QUOTE
1) Do nations who once opposed the war (France, Germany, Russia) have any excuse not to help out in Iraq if a democratically elected government requests it?
I can't help but notice that you continue referring to these same three countries, over and over again. Could it be because they all have certain links to Iraq which you insist implies a causative connection. Could it also be because if you listed the other 150 odd countries that opposed the war, it might lessen your credibility on that front?
Moving right along... They have plenty of excuse... if their general populace is against participating, then it would be entirely inappropriate for their governments to simply go ahead and do it. Sovereignty and legitimacy count in other democracies too you know.
QUOTE
2) If the new elected Iraqi government asks for more international aid and these nations refuse, should the US go forward with some sort of economic or political reprisal?
I don't entirely understand this question at all. The "mandate" system of governance is long dead and gone. America isn't Iraq's formal patron state. For the U.S. to do so would pretty much demonstrate a profound misunderstanding of those tenets of International Relations that Bush hasn't already torn up; and I think even he appreciates that at a certain point you can't keep disregarding the rules and insist on playing the game.
1) Do nations who once opposed the war (France, Germany, Russia) have any excuse not to help out in Iraq if a democratically elected government requests it?
Of course they do. No nation is bound to help another unless it agree's to do so.
2) If the new elected Iraqi government asks for more international aid and these nations refuse, should the US go foward with some sort of economic or political reprisal?
Such as?
What kind of questions are these? You seem to be under the illusion that France and Germany are politically opposed to Iraq.
That these European nations have not been helping in Iraq at all.
And that the USA is some sort of super national entity that controls and decides which nations shuld recieve aid and help from third party nations.
Perhaps you are not aware of the fact that whilst Iraq might be a huge bill board sized agenda in your media landscape, compared to a good many other nations in the world, it is in fact in pretty good shape, all things considered and there are people a LOT worse off than the Iraqis'. Such countries are supported to the tune of billions in aid by such nations as Germany and France.
If I were you I'd wait and see what happens before I started asking about reprisals against France and Germany for something which is probably never going to happen.
Of course they do. No nation is bound to help another unless it agree's to do so.
2) If the new elected Iraqi government asks for more international aid and these nations refuse, should the US go foward with some sort of economic or political reprisal?
Such as?
What kind of questions are these? You seem to be under the illusion that France and Germany are politically opposed to Iraq.
That these European nations have not been helping in Iraq at all.
And that the USA is some sort of super national entity that controls and decides which nations shuld recieve aid and help from third party nations.
Perhaps you are not aware of the fact that whilst Iraq might be a huge bill board sized agenda in your media landscape, compared to a good many other nations in the world, it is in fact in pretty good shape, all things considered and there are people a LOT worse off than the Iraqis'. Such countries are supported to the tune of billions in aid by such nations as Germany and France.
If I were you I'd wait and see what happens before I started asking about reprisals against France and Germany for something which is probably never going to happen.
nighttimer
Could you please provide a source for this?
I am really confused by your comments..and you apparent belief that America is somehow not a economic superpower. Are you saying the US is weak financially in comparison to other European nations? And are you also claiming that America's twin deficit is only her weakness to bear?
In regards to this club you make mention of...what exactly is France or Germany or even Russia's club? And when hasn't America been using the "club" lately? The US has been very aggressive in the economic realms.
One of the main obstacles in the US sustaining a full blown financial recovery has been Foreign investments. This is not something we should be concerned about happening..more like not happening. I don't know why so many here think that banks and investors act like politicians...because they don't. Their business is not politics..they don't play politics..they only react to it and play off it. Their job is to make money..regardless what money..Euros, Dollars, Yen. The bankers and investors are all one..they don't allow nationality to inhibit their performances. And they all know what hurts or harms one can easily hurt or harm us all. Davos this year was real proof of this new conscience..and I know I quoted him before but I really feel he summed it up best..when Mr. Tony Blair said... "it is based on enlightened self-interest"
Claiming that French, German and Russian bankers and investors will one day join efforts in some bizarre sense of national duty and command the current world's single superpower to heel to their demands is outright laughable.
QUOTE
Last week U.S. Treasury Secretary said the G8 nations had to do more to help with the trade deficit.
Could you please provide a source for this?
QUOTE
Over half of the U.S. debt is owned by foreign countriesas Reuters reporterd last August 2004:
Data showing foreigners own half the U.S. debt has raised concerns about a possible tipping point for America's reliance on foreign capital, though the U.S. Treasury Department sees little risk from the holdings.
A graph in a Treasury Department report this week on borrowing needs showed foreign holdings made up 50 percent of total privately held U.S. public debt, which excludes Federal Reserve holdings, as of May 31.
Charles Lieberman, chief economist at Advisors Financial, said the current foreign holdings level had ignited debate over how large the portion could become.
"I don't think it matters if it's at 50 or 45 or 55. But there are are longer-term trends here that are unsustainable," Lieberman said.
"You can't continue to sell your bonds to foreign investors at a higher and higher rate, because at some point they'll own 100 percent. Obviously that's a constraint," he said.
Wonder if any French, German or Russian bankers and investors own any of that U.S. debt? What happens if they all start demanding Uncle Sam put away his platinum Visa card and start paying up what he owes? Who's going to write off America's debt?
Or in other words, leder, you can't threaten the other guy with a club when he's got a club too.
Data showing foreigners own half the U.S. debt has raised concerns about a possible tipping point for America's reliance on foreign capital, though the U.S. Treasury Department sees little risk from the holdings.
A graph in a Treasury Department report this week on borrowing needs showed foreign holdings made up 50 percent of total privately held U.S. public debt, which excludes Federal Reserve holdings, as of May 31.
Charles Lieberman, chief economist at Advisors Financial, said the current foreign holdings level had ignited debate over how large the portion could become.
"I don't think it matters if it's at 50 or 45 or 55. But there are are longer-term trends here that are unsustainable," Lieberman said.
"You can't continue to sell your bonds to foreign investors at a higher and higher rate, because at some point they'll own 100 percent. Obviously that's a constraint," he said.
Wonder if any French, German or Russian bankers and investors own any of that U.S. debt? What happens if they all start demanding Uncle Sam put away his platinum Visa card and start paying up what he owes? Who's going to write off America's debt?
Or in other words, leder, you can't threaten the other guy with a club when he's got a club too.
I am really confused by your comments..and you apparent belief that America is somehow not a economic superpower. Are you saying the US is weak financially in comparison to other European nations? And are you also claiming that America's twin deficit is only her weakness to bear?
In regards to this club you make mention of...what exactly is France or Germany or even Russia's club? And when hasn't America been using the "club" lately? The US has been very aggressive in the economic realms.
One of the main obstacles in the US sustaining a full blown financial recovery has been Foreign investments. This is not something we should be concerned about happening..more like not happening. I don't know why so many here think that banks and investors act like politicians...because they don't. Their business is not politics..they don't play politics..they only react to it and play off it. Their job is to make money..regardless what money..Euros, Dollars, Yen. The bankers and investors are all one..they don't allow nationality to inhibit their performances. And they all know what hurts or harms one can easily hurt or harm us all. Davos this year was real proof of this new conscience..and I know I quoted him before but I really feel he summed it up best..when Mr. Tony Blair said... "it is based on enlightened self-interest"
Claiming that French, German and Russian bankers and investors will one day join efforts in some bizarre sense of national duty and command the current world's single superpower to heel to their demands is outright laughable.
QUOTE
1) Do nations who once opposed the war (France, Germany, Russia) have any excuse not to help out in Iraq if a democratically elected government requests it?
Yes...It may not be in their interest, their citizens are not for it, etc. etc. I don't agree with their decision, but with the exception of the country's that you listed, I can respect it.QUOTE
2) If the new elected Iraqi government asks for more international aid and these nations refuse, should the US go foward with some sort of economic or political reprisal?
No! That would be a massive insult to another country's sovereignty. If a country disagrees with us, that's fine, but who are we to punish them for it?CP
QUOTE(lederuvdapac @ Feb 1 2005, 03:36 AM)
Questions for Debate:
1) Do nations who once opposed the war (France, Germany, Russia) have any excuse not to help out in Iraq if a democratically elected government requests it?
2) If the new elected Iraqi government asks for more international aid and these nations refuse, should the US go foward with some sort of economic or political reprisal?
1) Do nations who once opposed the war (France, Germany, Russia) have any excuse not to help out in Iraq if a democratically elected government requests it?
2) If the new elected Iraqi government asks for more international aid and these nations refuse, should the US go foward with some sort of economic or political reprisal?
1. Of course. One can always find an excuse if one needs one.
Was Arafat and Abbas not democratically elected? Well, they wanted and right of return and what does the US say? Let me quote a fella on this forum, Mr. L., "Who cares!"
To think that any government is doing what it is doing because of some grand and noble ideal is, well, somewhat naive.
2. As if giving the bulk of the Iraqi reconstruction contract to Halle Burton is not enough, what other reprisal do you have in mind?
1) Do nations who once opposed the war (France, Germany, Russia) have any excuse not to help out in Iraq if a democratically elected government requests it?
As far as we French are concerned, we ARE helping. The debt of Iraq has been almost wiped out of our slate, after the US asked us to make a significant gesture to help. We will help with Iraq's reconstruction too, especially when it comes to training the Iraqi police... but only outside of Iraq.
2) If the new elected Iraqi government asks for more international aid and these nations refuse, should the US go foward with some sort of economic or political reprisal?
Hmm... the new elected government has been elected by Iraqi voters, not Americans, right? Therefore, why would America interfere with the business of Iraq???
As far as we French are concerned, we ARE helping. The debt of Iraq has been almost wiped out of our slate, after the US asked us to make a significant gesture to help. We will help with Iraq's reconstruction too, especially when it comes to training the Iraqi police... but only outside of Iraq.
2) If the new elected Iraqi government asks for more international aid and these nations refuse, should the US go foward with some sort of economic or political reprisal?
Hmm... the new elected government has been elected by Iraqi voters, not Americans, right? Therefore, why would America interfere with the business of Iraq???
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.