France wants control of Iraqi funds after war is over.

[Arc]

According to several T.V. news reporters (MSNBC/FOX) France plans to Veto U.S. resolution to U.N. to use $41Billion in the Iraqi food for oil fund to help the humanitarian efforts in Iraq after the war. France says it will Veto the Resolution unless they are included as controlers of the funds.

*** is up with France?!? They Veto us when we move to take out an evil dictator then they Veto us when we go to help it's people? Man Jach Strap has got some Huge Balls.

[Nightwalker83]

The way things are going France better watch out America might attack them next.

[Sastraxi]

I wasn't so much against it when France tried to veto the war, but this takes the cake :mad:

[Suzzi]

Really?

America has said that if it sponsors rebuilding in Iraq, it will make sure that no money goes to France..... I don't blame them for not wanting America to hold the purse strings.

What are you all complaining about. They're not stopping the money, they just say that they want to have a say in how it is spent.

[Memnoch1207]

yeah, like being reimbursed for all the WMD's they sold to iraq that we are going to destroy.

[Suzzi]

Originally posted by Memnoch1207
yeah, like being reimbursed for all the WMD's they sold to iraq that we are going to destroy.

Funny, I could have sworn that it was the States who provided them with Nerve gas?

What exactly where the Frenchies selling them?

[Pc_Madness]

Maybe France doesn't want itself to appear selfcentreed by not being active in helping the rebuilding of iraq? :confused:

Thats the best I can think of.

[Wally Pipp]

From the BBC :


French President Jacques Chirac has warned he will not accept any UN resolution allowing the United States and Britain to administer post-war Iraq.
Speaking at the end of a European Union summit in Brussels, Mr Chirac said France would reject any moves that "would legitimise the military intervention and would give the belligerents the powers to administer Iraq".

"That would justify the war after the event," he said, describing the US-led invasion of Iraq as a tragic moment that would be likely to have unforeseen consequences.

President Chirac was speaking after the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, urged the EU to support a new UN resolution setting up a post-Saddam Hussein "civil authority in Iraq".

The BBC's Patrick Bartlett in Brussels says the French leader - who had earlier said he would veto any UN resolution authorising the use of force in Iraq - has made clear the battles in the UN over Iraq are far from over.

Outright rejection

Jacques Chirac and Tony Blair held talks just before the end of the summit in an effort to clear the air after a week of bitter diplomatic exchanges over Iraq.

Mr Blair's official spokesman described the atmosphere as "good" and said the two leaders had agreed they needed to work together to overcome their differences.

But at a news conference after Mr Blair had left, the French president said the US and Britain had placed themselves outside international legality over Iraq.

President Chirac rejected outright the "post-Saddam" proposal by the British leader.

Our correspondent says that Mr Chirac was also decidedly cool on Mr Blair's assertion that Europe should play an important role in reconstruction after the Iraqi conflict was over.

President Chirac said the cost of rebuilding Iraq was not an issue that could be discussed now as the destruction was still going on.

War over words

Mr Blair and President Chirac had earlier spent an hour, with the 13 other EU leaders, wrangling over the wording of a joint declaration on Iraq.

At the summit, France, Germany and Belgium criticised the US-led war, but Britain and five other nations - Spain, Italy, Portugal, Denmark and the Netherlands - supported it.

The UK agreed a French move to drop a paragraph from the new EU declaration expressing regret that Iraq had not used UN resolution 1441's opportunity to disarm, "and that a peaceful resolution of the Iraqi crisis was not achieved".

But Mr Blair refused when Mr Chirac tried to remove a paragraph reaffirming that the EU's objective remained Iraq's "full and effective" disarmament.

Backed by Spain and Austria, Mr Blair insisted the words stay in - although they were moved further down the text.

It called on the EU "to explore means by which the EU might help the Iraqi people to achieve the objectives of living in freedom, dignity and prosperity under a representative government".


It seems to me that there's an argy bargy over the wording of the text. Nothing diplomacy can't solve it seems to me.

[Maven]

Originally posted by Arc
According to several T.V. news reporters (MSNBC/FOX) France plans to Veto U.S. resolution to U.N. to use $41Billion in the Iraqi food for oil fund to help the humanitarian efforts in Iraq after the war. France says it will Veto the Resolution unless they are included as controlers of the funds.

*** is up with France?!? They Veto us when we move to take out an evil dictator then they Veto us when we go to help it's people? Man Jach Strap has got some Huge Balls.

I agree that is complete bull****!

[snakeeyes1000]

personally, if the US is going to unilateral, it should CEASE TO BE IN THE UN. that would solve all of this pointless debating, and be much better for everyone. then no more US/Euro/France/etc. bashing would have to take place~

[Maven]

Originally posted by snakeeyes1000
personally, if the US is going to unilateral, it should CEASE TO BE IN THE UN. that would solve all of this pointless debating, and be much better for everyone. then no more US/Euro/France/etc. bashing would have to take place~

If we quit the UN it would cease to exist.

[Futt Bucker]

Originally posted by snakeeyes1000
personally, if the US is going to unilateral, it should CEASE TO BE IN THE UN. that would solve all of this pointless debating, and be much better for everyone. then no more US/Euro/France/etc. bashing would have to take place~

No matter how much tempers get frayed here, the UN is one of the greatest steps forwards.

I agree that Britain, the US and France have all acted disgustingly in the last few months (within the UN) and I for one would be inclined to seeing a change of structure (remove the veto's for instance, and more explicit wording of resolutions). However all the countries mentioned above have benefitted from UN membership and destroying it now would be a retrograde step in Human Civilisation. I am not prepared to let the actions of three small men (Bush, Blair and Chirac) jeaporise my families chance for a better future.

[Futt Bucker]

Originally posted by Maven
If we quit the UN it would cease to exist.

:rolleyes:

[Memnoch1207]

How can you say it's unilateral? There are more than 40 countries supporting this in one way or another. even France is in it's own little insignificant way.

I beg to differ with you Suzzi, the US has never sold any weapons to Iraq. Let alone nerve agent.

And BTW the builders of one of Iraqs largest chemical plants was the UK.

[Futt Bucker]

Originally posted by Memnoch1207
How can you say it's unilateral? There are more than 40 countries supporting this in one way or another. even France is in it's own little insignificant way.


No, it's not unilateral, but the list of the countries involved is pretty insignificant. There's a few of the big nations in there, but there's a lot of "Albania, Mascadonia etc." type nations. But, by the simple fact that the "Allies" wouldn't put the motion before the UN means that however you look at it, this is not a UN approved war.

So, we are no better than any other rouge nation who decides to attack a neighbour. As I've said before, I had always hoped that we were maybe above that and would set an example for the rest of the world, but no, apparently we are not.


I beg to differ with you Suzzi, the US has never sold any weapons to Iraq. Let alone nerve agent.

And BTW the builders of one of Iraqs largest chemical plants was the UK. [/B]
As far as I know this is true (apart from the nerve gas bit - they did supply a number of chemicals, plus Anthrax etc to the Iraqi's during the Iran-Iraq war). But they did however provide massive funding for the Iraqi's to buy their weapons, and supplied them with constant inteliigence updates on the Iranian troop movements despite the knowledge that the Iraqi's were using gas against them. So, the US's hands are hardly clean in the whole affair. (Didn't Reagan sign an order authorising the US to do everything legaly possible to stop Iraq losing the Iraq Iran war.... I'm sure I read that somewhere.)

[run_GMoney]

Originally posted by Memnoch1207
How can you say it's unilateral? There are more than 40 countries supporting this in one way or another.

Actually it's over 50 now...but who's counting?

[Wally Pipp]

They are supporting you politically, that is their government is saying they support it. Have you polled the people in those countries ? You'll find little support amongst the population.
e.g. a majority of the Polish population is against, Spaniards, Italians, even Bulgarians are in majority against.

Ever stopped and wondered why they support you politically? Because they seek to get investments and economical gains.

[kleptos]

France can go straight to hell. They have been agains the US from the start of this. Hell, France helped Iraq build most of their chemical weapons plants and other such building and items. Maybe Iraq owe's them money and they wanna collect. I say a big F.U. to France. If they weren't in this from the start, then they should have entirely no say in the matter.

Just my 2 cents.