French block airlift of British troops to Basra

[chasqui]

French block airlift of British troops to Basra
By Henry Samuel and Michael Smith
(Filed: 16/09/2003)

The French government has told an airline that it is not to ferry British troops to Basra, a ban that will be seen as reflecting Paris's opposition to the occupation of Iraq.
Corsair, which has been chartered numerous times to transport UK forces around the world, pulled out of a contract to fly reinforcements to Basra at the weekend.
About 1,400 more troops are being sent to Basra as part of an attempt to prevent the "strategic failure" predicted by Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, with a similar number expected to be announced within weeks.
A Corsair Airbus A330 was chartered to fly troops of the Royal Green Jackets from Brize Norton, Oxon, but at the last moment the French transport ministry grounded the aircraft citing safety concerns.
Transport ministry officials were reported yesterday as saying the move had nothing to do with safety but was a result of the intervention of the foreign ministry.
....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/09/16/wcors16.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/09/16/ixnewstop.html

[mmm]

1. excellent work by the French

I hope to see much more of the same from other countries

[donsu]

27. agree - excellent work by the French

nt

[Myra]

33. Oui!

Je salue les Français!

[rjbcar27]

2. Thank you France, NOT!

The troops being airlifted into Basra include many Army engineers being sent to help with the infrastructure rebuilding effort and also many military police to help with the training of Iraqis. Frances move is just prolonging the 'occupation.'

[IndianaGreen]

6. Our being in Iraq is what is prolonging the Occupation

I feel bad for the British troops that were put in harm's way by Tony Blair. Unlike those jingoists among US troops that went to Iraq to "avenge 9/11" while singing "Onward Christian Soldiers," the British soldiers are totally blameless for the mess that their government got them into.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

8. That is the point....

Frances move is just prolonging the 'occupation.'

Exactly. While the US refuses to play by international rules, US forces need to be tied up in order to prevent any further 'adventures'.

As long as they are bogged down in Iraq, they can't invade Iran, Syria or North Korea, can they?

On top of that, by prolonging the occupation, they force Bush to reconsider his stance on the UN. It is known that the US can't maintain its force structures in Iraq for long - it just doesn't have enough troops. Eventually, Bush will be forced to accept UN control of Iraq, if only because he can't maintain control himself.

[donsu]

28. Iraqi people are capable of doing the rebuilding, they don't need UK or

anybody elses military engineers nor do they need military police.
the bloody hands bushgang won't let them do it. they have tried bidding on contracts and the gang won't let them. The Iraqi bid on one bridge to reconstruct (they had reconstructed it after the first attack). the gang took Halliburton's bid which was more then twice the amount of money.

Iraq is a business deal. forget anything else.

[rjbcar27]

29. I disagree

and it's not as if Iraqi workers are not involved, they are.

Iraq has no money to pay for the reconstruction, it's up to us.

[Paschall]

36. Oh, because we *have* the money?!?

Ya seen it lately? All I see is a $600 billion black hole getting bigger.

[shugah]

44. iraq doesn't have the money

but why does the US want to pay an american company $1.2 million for a bridge when a perfectly capable and experienced iraqi company can do it for $362,000? :shrug:

(and wouldn't that put some much needed money into the iraq economy?)

[Paschall]

35. Sheesh

You'd think France had declared an air blockade of Iraq.

So rent a plan from British Airways. What's the big deal?

Oh, it's the conservative Telegraph.

[termo]

40. start the infrastructure rebuilding effort in London first !!!

I cannot have a good presure with the hot water in a London posh area. We had a huge electricity failure few weeks ago and a train derailled today close to King X station. These engineers should start there work here first !!!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3112426.stm

by the way, the occupation shouldn't have started, the infrastructure shouldn't have been destroyed by crusaders and the RAF should have some planes left to transport some grunts there.

since the situation is fucked up, it is better to have US & UK trapped in Iraq... than to have them starting new wars all over the globe.

I am waiting for 2004 election or even better... some resignations :o)

a froggy in London

[Paschall]

47. Bienvenu, termo

"Froggies" are always welcome at DU! On a plusieurs membres (Français et Amérloques) dans le Hexagone.

Hope you enjoy it around here. :hi:

[Tacitean]

3. You know, I can understand opposing the war.....

but actively preventing others from trying to rebuild Iraq is absolutely inexcusable in my book.

[whirlygigspin]

5. Oh my G*d!

I agree with Shlomo Leiberman!

This story is too bizarre. Something isn't KoCher, Sunny.

[IndianaGreen]

7. Had the US accepted France's Security Council proposal

US troops would be home by Thanksgiving, with the UN assuming total control over Iraq within 30 days after the UN voted for the French proposal to establish UN mandate.

Blame the neocons, and the prowar Democrats, for prolonging this debacle!

[Devils Advocate NZ]

9. They are NOT rebuilding Iraq...

They are RAPING it. The ONLY rebuilding going on is the oil infrastructure, and the stated US intention is to privatise that by giving it to corporations - most likely US corporations.

The Bush cabal has no intention of rebuilding Iraq into a prosperous self-reliant nation, because the oil fields would be re-nationalised and the US would lose control once again.

Remember, this war was about control of the oil. The US can't keep control of the oil without keeping control of the government, and it can't keep control of the government if it rebuilds Iraq.

It's that simple.

[Ergotron]

24. Dude, you need to watch something besides X-files!

Ease off on the conspriacy theorie books too. It'll just bring your blood pressure up.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

30. Dude, you need to quit believing everything Rumsfeld and Bush tell you...

Cause this ain't no conspiracy theory. All you have to do is read true unbiased (ie not American) media reports and you will see the truth too.

[el_gato]

10. sham

This occupation is not about "rebuilding iraq" it's about
abstraction of resources and the establishing of a bulkhead
for middle east domination. Your silly notion that we are
doing anything for the iragis is misguided.

Liberation or democratization (or whatever else false reason) does
not come in the form of depleted uranium.

The occupation needs to end.

[rjbcar27]

11. When did the last DU round get fired?

Weeks and weeks ago.

The task at hand now for the British forces at least, is one of re-building the shattered infrastructure without which the Iraqis can hardly live.

Be against the war all you want but the fact remains we are there and to pull out now would be massively irresponsible. There's a lot to do and these British troops destined to try and help the Iraqis have now been delayed for absolutely no reason.

[Aidoneus]

13. so you support the occupation?

why bother opposing the war, then?

[rjbcar27]

14. Did I say that?

No I didn't.

[Aidoneus]

15. actually, you did.

Be against the war all you want but the fact remains we are there and to pull out now would be massively irresponsible. There's a lot to do and these British troops destined to try and help the Iraqis have now been delayed for absolutely no reason.

If I'm wrong, how was that to be taken? "The occupation should remain" seemed the obvious interpretation, how else could it be read? It takes a real colossal naivety to still seriously suggest that the sadistic murderers who spent over a decade systematically destroying Iraq (yes, that includes Blair) would then suddenly have Iraqis' interests in mind and a soft heart to play doctor on their stabbing victim.

[rjbcar27]

17. OK

I am of the opinion that we should have never been there in the first place, but that doesn't change the fact that we are there now. And as I said before, to pull out now would be a massive mistake. That doesn't mean I support the occupation of Iraq, it means that I realise that if the US and UK pulled out, the people of Iraq would be in an even worse position.

I want the troops and engineers to restore the vital infrastructure, train the police and army while the UN oversees the hand over of political power to the Iraqi people and then I want our troops to get the hell out of there.

[Spentastic]

19. Why not

A totally U.N sanctioned force? The U.S and the U.K have no right to be there.

I agree that pulling out without an alternative would be bad but by staying the U.K is adding a veneer of respectability to Bush's crusade.

[BonjourUSA]

20. It's beautiful...

A little bit naive but beautiful.

[rjbcar27]

21. thanks but...

I think it's naive to think we should just pack up and go.

[BonjourUSA]

22. It's impossible

But I think that an acceptable compromise for UN should quickly be found. If not, this war for oil will finish in "bloodpudding juce" for every one.

[rjbcar27]

23. I totally agree. n/t

[study_war_no_more]

48. 37.000 dead civilians?

A three year old killed today? The Iraq's are very clear they do not want us there.

[Ergotron]

25. We contributed to the mess and we have responsibilities.

To leave now would be irresponsible and wrong. We created the mess, now we have to help clean it up. Of course it would be much easier if people quit destroying the things we are repairing.

[Jacobin]

42. Let me guess

You aren't old enough to remember how we insisted we had to stay in Vietnam to "help" them.

Iraq was invaded illegally and they will run us out. The only question is, how many will die in the process. Think fancy smart bombs and computer guided tanks will change that? Hell no. It's a guerilla war.

Rebuild? Why not read something other than the propaganda. You might learn some factual data which would make conclusions you embrace more connected to reality.

[lumpy]

31. The 'coallition' was irresponsible going in

so why not irresponsible going out ?

[Paschall]

38. And if it's so god-awful important those British troops get there

I suppose the Royal Air Force might be able to help out, no? Or, hey, what about the US Air Force? Nah, too simple, huh?

[Sterling]

41. Have you been watching or reading the news?

DU rounds are fired quite often and will be for some time to come. Unless you think we are throwing rocks at the Iraqis on maneuvers.

[hussar]

12. Bravo

I agree with you fully......am ex Brit forces too

:toast:

[markses]

18. We know what Tacitus would say

Through the agency of Calgaco:

Auferre trucidare rapere falsis nominibus imperium atque ubi solitudinem faciunt pacem appellant.

Reconstruction, indeed....:eyes:

[Paschall]

37. Actively prevent others...???

That's a big stretch (though it is what the inflammatory headline on this article implies). It is, however, completely off base.

Like I said above, let 'em go rent an British Airways plane. Ya think the French would stop 'em? Shoot the flight out of the air? Really?

[R Hickey]

4. French ticklers will now be called 'Freedom Ticklers' in US porno

shops, from sea to shining sea. Those darn surrender-monkeys, we'll get them with the 'Freedom Ticklers' thing.

[Jacobin]

43. It's already happened believe it or not

Just when I think this country can't become more idiotic or deluded......I'm standing in a men's room in a service station, staring up at the condom machine on the wall.... and YUP. There it is FREEDOM ticklers.

[Mika]

16. citing safety concerns

A Corsair Airbus A330 was chartered to fly troops of the Royal Green Jackets from Brize Norton, Oxon, but at the last moment the French transport ministry grounded the aircraft citing safety concerns.

Hey.. they had to inspect the rudder assembly on all airbusses after the AA flt 587 "crash" in NY. I guess they just got around to this airbus.

[jacksonian]

26. AKA

how to strengthen the French hand before they sell out.

And maybe people here will finally appreciate the quagmire - we can't pull out, and staying only makes it worse. The UN can't save it but only take heat off Bush by bestowing legitimacy. It's all leading to proxy government, eternal unrest, and a hugely unsuccesful attempt to right the US economy with oil funds. Shit creek, in other words.

[toopers]

32. Everyone is clling this a war for oil . . .

but would it have been cheaper and more profitable for Administration and his corporate cronies to sign contracts with Sadaam as opposed to spending all this war money to try and overthrow him?

[shirlden]

34. Hi Toopers and welcome

Think maybe you came in at halftime on this war game. It was and is about oil. But not because we (the US) is in need of it. If we control Iraq, we can use that as a base to control all the ME oil, which is needed by many of the European countries and we control Opec and the supply and price of oil. The BFEE are after much bigger loot and power than just a few barrels of the goo.

:hi:

[teryang]

39. No kidding

But the oil cartel views Iraqi oil as their oil. The same way they view Libyan oil, Iranian oil and Sudanese oil. Your oil is mine. Why should they have to pay for it when they can take it by force?

[bvar22]

45. Actually, No.

The war isn't costing bush* and his friends anything. The $Billions for the war are mostly going for new armaments (Carlyle), rebuilding contracts (Bechtel & Brown n Root), housing and maintenance of military personnel (Halliburton), rebuilding oil infrastructure (Halliburton), housing of prisoners (Dynacorp). A very, very small percentage of the billions will go to pay our soldiers.

The American Taxpayers will pay this bill (probably for several generations). This majority of this money will go to bush/republican friends in no bid, no cap, no oversight contracts. These are the ONLY people who benefit from this quagmire....and they benefit to the tune of $Billions.

[chasqui]

46. In my opinion

This is completely par for the course. About 5 years ago, during Clinton's presidency, I read somewhere that Clinton was going on a tour through Africa, choosing the countries he visited in such a way as to undermine french influence in that continent. I thought to myself, then that the US and France are engaged in some low level cold war.
This is just another instance of that happening.