Once again, Chirac leads, Bush has a tantrum

[BurtWorm]

Chirac is absolutely right about moving Iraqi sovereignty to the front burner. The way to get US troops out is to give Iraqis control as soon as possible and the UN control of the transition there.

PS: What good reason is there not to follow the Chirac timetable?

[Tripper11]

1. Because it's not *'s agenda....

and Chirac is persona non grata in the eyes of the administration. France was right about not going to war. Can you imagine if they were to be right about this now?
Which I think it should start asap as well.

[rwork]

2. Headline news

last night bottom screen crawler. "Slick maneuver."US to take bids on Iraqi rebuilding.On everything except OIL.

[alfredo]

3. that was the plan from the start. Iraq

bill be the blueprint for the neo cons globalization plans, total corporate control of the earth's resources.

[BurtWorm]

4. You'd think this would be obvious to anyone with half a brain.

Have the Bushists made any attempt to explain why the US should be holding onto Iraq? Has it dawned on the American people yet that their greedy government is making them pay with lives and tax dollars so their government's corporate sponsors can have first dibs on Iraq's underdeveloped markets when they get in a position of being developed again? Have the Democrats made any attempt to ask these questions loud and clear in the marketplace of American "ideas," such as they are?

[rwork]

5. They are certaintly

not saving it for the 301 ( The oil) troops who lost their lives, but unlike the oil companies, they did'nt put him in office.

[izzie]

6. Not all troops are Am are they?

Guess it is ok to use them as Corp. army. That air plane with all the corp, ads on it is really what the fighting is all about, as they can not vote.

[zbdent]

7. Question: Didn't one of the chickenhawks claim that the UN

opposition had the exact same information as we did (we being the Bush defenders)?

And now the lies are unraveling about the information that Bush and company used to try to justify the invasion.

Seems like Bush has yet to prove France and Germany wrong.

France says "Return control to the Iraqi people."

Bush says "Everything but the oil." - We know where his priority lies.

[uptohere]

8. two problems

First is that Bush has always indicated that he wants the Iraqis to resume control of their country as quickly as possible. You can believe it or not as you wish but that is his public statement on the subject.

Second, it would not seem likely that Iraq could be expected to get its act together in a couple of months. They have not settled on what the government will look like much less getting it started. To throw something together just to satisfy a deadline will have the effect of insuring chaos. Is this desireable ?

I don't think it takes an abacus to figure out that 2-3 months is not realistic. Six months might be possible given their current rate of progress but a half to a third of that ? I don't think so.

[BurtWorm]

9. Chirac's position,

I believe, is to make an immediate commitment to giving control of the transition to post-Saddam Iraq to the Iraqi governing council, then create a timeline to ensure that they take real control, preferably within six months to a year. The object is to get the occupation army out as soon as possible, to get the Americans out of charge of the transition, because the Americans can't help but put their own interests above that of the Iraqi people.

[uptohere]

10. OK fair enough

but that differs little over the stated aims of our government.

I'm given to understand that the present council was to be considered an interrim one responsible for crafting the one that will be. Forcing them to undertake supervisory roles insted of finishing the work of negotiating the finsl shape of things would not seem to me the most productive path. Time tables are helpful so long as they are not considered to be cast in stone. To wit, shit happens and it happens a lot there.

I'm thinking that those are the two significant differences and I think that a path could be found through that.

[BurtWorm]

11. Shit would happen less to us if we let our grip of Iraq go

The Bushists may seriously be thinking of getting the fuck out of there, but they keep sending signals that, where Iraq is concerned, US interests come first--meaning corporate and Republican interests come first. The difference between Bush and Chirac is the amount of emphasis on Iraqi control. To Bush it's secondary; to Chirac, it's primary. Or at least this is how it appears to be, and appearance in this situation counts for a LOT.

[RichM]

12. When Chirac says he wants "Iraqi control," that's code language. It

just means he does NOT want the US to have the whole pie. He doesn't want to see a phony "Iraqi" govt of American-controlled puppets installed, because that gives the US the whole pie. Chirac doesn't give a fig about Iraqi control, really. In fact, he sees the situation EXACTLY like Bush does, with the one exception that he is looking out for French corporate interests, instead of US-Republican.

Neither one of them gives a damn about Iraqis or their country at all. Chirac didn't really oppose the war, either -- except insofar as it was going to lead to the US getting the whole pie. In this situation, it was to his advantage to talk about the UN, multilateralism, peaceful conflict resolution, etc. But that's only because he was holding a hand that was in no position to impose ITS OWN unilateral aggressive solution. If he thought he had any chance of stealing all of Iraq for TOTAL-Fina-Elf, he'd have been happy to do it.

[BurtWorm]

13. Interesting opinion.

Thanks for sharing.

[uptohere]

15. yes thats true except its France's oil dependence

at least as much in play as corporate.

France's concern in Iraq has never been more than money. They benefit form an American puppet government simply by being a significant corporate player. They will get a piece of the pie, they're just trying to negotiate the dimentions of the slice.

But never forget that they require the oil, they don't just want it. And they really miss the sweetheart deal they had before the power shift.

[BurtWorm]

17. So are you saying you support Bush's agenda in Iraq

because you trust Chirac's agenda less?

[RichM]

18. (S)He didn't say that at all.

[BurtWorm]

21. You're right. I reread it.

He/she is saying that Chirac is only appearing to make the case for Iraqi control so France can get a bigger share of the Iraqi slop when the pigs divvy it up.

I'd like to know how he or she knows what Chirac is up to.

[gulliver]

14. Keep Iraq out of European hands.

If Bush let Iraq go "on its own," it would probably immediately dump U.S. political interests and business contracts. Then the Europeans would be standing by to take over the unofficial reigns of power. If Bush let's Iraq go independant, Iraq goes European.

My take.

[BurtWorm]

16. So better Iraq is owned by Texas than by the EU.

Is that your opinion?

[gulliver]

19. No. My post title should have been clearer.

I think Bush would rather Iraq be owned by Texas than the EU. Bush won't let Iraq go independant until it is stabilized in a U.S. political and business orbit. He doesn't want the Iraqis independant now while a bunch of them hate us.

The Europeans don't need to ask for control of Iraq. They just need to ask for "Iraqi independance," and a European Iraq will follow naturally.

[DemVet]

20. True. The Europeans.....

....just want the contracts and business Bush got his cronies. Sad, but true. Nobody really gives a damn about that place in a humanitarian way. That's the bottom line. I'm not defending Bush here, so don't go there, either. Iraq is for the Iraqis, not the Americans or Europeans.

[BurtWorm]

22. Not to sound naive, but why are the French then arguing for a

quicker resumption of Iraqi control over their government? Let's say France succeeds and Iraqis reward them with the contracts to rebuild the industry that the US is rewarding Halliburton with now. How are these equivalent? In the one instance, the occupier divvies up the spoils among its own pigs. In the other, it's the Iraqis who get to decide who gets what. It seems to me the French solution still winds up benefitting the Iraqis more than the US solution.

What am I missing?