Iraqi official says limited German, French help won't be forgotten

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
May 8, 2002
4,729
0
0
48
#1
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/10/23/sprj.irq.main/index.html
Iraqi official says limited German, French help won't be forgotten
U.S. soldier killed in northern Iraq
Thursday, October 23, 2003 Posted: 6:02 PM EDT (2202 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MADRID, Spain (CNN) -- A top Iraqi official attending an international conference on raising funds to rebuild Iraq warned Thursday that France and Germany's limited donations would not be forgotten.

Ayad Allawi, the current head of Iraq's U.S.-appointed governing council, said he hoped German and French officials would reconsider their decision not to boost their contributions beyond funds already pledged through the European Union.

"As far as Germany and France are concerned, really, this was a regrettable position they had," Allawi said. "I don't think the Iraqis are going to forget easily that in the hour of need, those countries wanted to neglect Iraq."

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan -- also attending the conference -- urged the international community to give billions of dollars to rebuild the nation, saying reconstruction cannot wait until a sovereign Iraqi government is established.

"The people of Iraq have a hard road ahead of them, filled with both risk and opportunity," Annan said at the opening of the donors' conference for Iraq in Madrid, Spain. "Let us not leave them to travel that road alone." (Full story; Facts: Iraq's needs and donors)

Some countries have balked at funding programs in post-war Iraq, citing the go-it-alone approach taken by the United States and Britain ahead of the conflict.

Germany, France and Russia -- the chief opponents of war before the U.S. invasion -- sent lower level officials to the conference. Those countries have been opposed to what they see as too much U.S. control of the reconstruction process.

The United States has committed $20 billion to the effort. Spanish Economy Minister Rodrigo Rato said last Friday he hoped $15 billion to $20 billion would be raised, but Foreign Minister Ana Palacio told CNN last week that as little as $6 billion could be raised for a trust fund that the World Bank, United Nations and Iraqi authorities would manage.


U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell and L. Paul Bremer, the U.S. civilian administrator for Iraq, talk at a session of the International Donors' Conference in Madrid on Thursday.
 
N

NOSTRIL KING

Guest
#3
^^ If a secular democracy takes root and becomes a "little sister" of the United States just like Japan or Israel, wouldn't the war be justified in that case?
 
Apr 25, 2002
4,446
494
83
#7
shut up. Fucking communists.

What this article basically aserts is that the United Nations and Europe are IRRELEVENT in foreign politics.

The United Nations structure is fucked up beyond repair, Security Counsel members, one of the most important elements in the UN, is limited to 5 members, and any 1 NATION can veto a bill and its over. Not to mention the fact that nearly 1/2 of the nations in the United Nations are DICTATORSHIPS, thats right, countries controlled by a corrupt military or otherwise leader that doesnt hold free elections, doesnt allow freedom of speech, and executes those with dissenting opinions. Iraq was once on the Human rights commission. Unfourtunately, the United Nations was made to keep Peace and not to spread democracy.

Europe, and exuse me if any Europeans are offended, because my beef is with your leaders, not your people, are just being pussies about the whole thing. Europe is the Second richest area in the world and their contributions should be MONUMENTAL. "Do on to others as others would to for you," or something to that note, is a wise lesson that most Europeans have forgotton. Europe was basically bailed out by America in World War II and most of it nearly restored because of American Aid. Nations like France itself were able to exist and not fall to Communist aggression because of the money from another country.
Now they are faced with the chance to help rebuild a country dominated by dictatorship.They chose not to contribute to military Operations, which is understandable (I was against the war myself). But now AID going strickly to Iraqi people is being cut off.

Basically, the world has become a US police zone and will continue to be a US police zone for the next few centuries. We are the only ones with the balls to say something is wrong, and more importantly fight against something that is wrong to return something that is right. Then, we are the only people who give countries a loan to stabilize their democracy and rebuild...

By the way, the US have troops in 91 countries.

My 2 Cents.
 
N

NOSTRIL KING

Guest
#8
A long time ago, the United States invaded a theocracy containing millions of fanatics in brainwashed masses upon masses...it took almost 30 years, but invading that country, tearing down it's government, and educating it's population on the principles of liberty and democracy gave us a solid ally in the world's worst Lion's Den. That country was Japan.

Now this time around, it's the same with Iraq. Even though Iraq posed no threat whatsoever, conservatives argue the war was justified with setting up a modern day Japan...i.e. a stepping stone, a homebase in the new age's lion's den.

Wouldn't you agree that having a new ally in the region is a good thing?
 
Apr 11, 2003
1,575
0
0
gooeygraphics.com
#9
no. because to me it seems more countries and people are anti-US now.


Basically, the world has become a US police zone and will continue to be a US police zone for the next few centuries. We are the only ones with the balls to say something is wrong, and more importantly fight against something that is wrong to return something that is right. Then, we are the only people who give countries a loan to stabilize their democracy and rebuild...

By the way, the US have troops in 91 countries.

balls? until people realize the US isn't GOD or King of the World, then problems like this will never go away. why do you think the US has the right to say how another country should be ran? who gave the US the authority to say when something is "right" or "wrong"? why should it be applauded because we continue to butt into other countries' affairs? and the bottom line is we still had no right to go into iraq. but we did, and now a lot of people/countries have good reason to hate us. so ofcourse someone will retaliate now. and then you are going to say they were wrong, right? why not just admit the US should control the world and stop bringing up arguments how we are better than everyone else, since that is your position?
 
N

NOSTRIL KING

Guest
#10
who gave the US the authority to say when something is "right" or "wrong"
If a country like Iraq is not abiding by the principles of democracy, liberty, and the freedom to pursue whatever makes you happy - isn't that "wrong?"

If a country does not allow certain books to be published and jails it's sellers based on political or religious bias - isn't this a violation of their freedom? Isn't this wrong?

If a country does not allow a free press, isn't this a violation of liberty and freedom, isn't this wrong?
 
Apr 11, 2003
1,575
0
0
gooeygraphics.com
#11
NOSTRIL KING said:
If a country like Iraq is not abiding by the principles of democracy, liberty, and the freedom to pursue whatever makes you happy - isn't that "wrong?"
no. why is it wrong? just because you don't live that way doesn't mean its wrong. and why should the US be able to force its views on other countries? just because you go to church on sundays and i don't go to church at all, am i wrong? no, ofcourse not. i'm not saying i agree with everything all the other countries do, but i don't agree with everything our gov. does either. however, i still don't feel it would be right if another country tried to come and take over the US. if that happened i would feel like they were out of line and should mind their own business. i'm pretty sure that's how a lot of people feel about the US too.


If a country does not allow certain books to be published and jails it's sellers based on political or religious bias - isn't this a violation of their freedom? Isn't this wrong?

the US has banned things such as books and music even though we have a right to free speech. the US has also jailed and punished people based on the color of their skin and because those people decided to stand up and say it wasn't right. so are you saying some other country should come to the US and takeover? believe it or not, the US had/has unfair policies too. should we be taken over by another country that wouldn't agree with those policies?


If a country does not allow a free press, isn't this a violation of liberty and freedom, isn't this wrong?
yes. and good ol' US has also done this. but you would think it was wrong if some other country came in here and decided to force their views on us right? well, thats the same thing the US is doing.
 
N

NOSTRIL KING

Guest
#12
You're avoiding the question.

If a country is oppressing it's people by eliminating free press, free speech lets say, forcing people to go to church or be punished by law (freedom of religion)...shouldn't someone step in to liberate them if they can't liberate themselves?
 
N

NOSTRIL KING

Guest
#15
We're talking hypothetically now, we're not talking about Iraq...

If there was a country which had an oppressive theocratic regime, and it was a breeding ground for terrorists, the vast majority of whom wanted to see the USA in flames, what's wrong with being proactive? Changing it to a breeding ground of democracy instead of a breeding ground of suicide bombers?
 
N

NOSTRIL KING

Guest
#17
a) The FBI does an all right job catching the redneck wahoos who blow shit up here. It's under control as much as it really can be, although nut jobs occasionally do blow shit up. We can barely keep up with Al Qaeda however. They're a constant threat that need to be dealt with. Why not deal with them?

b) Why should anyone be pro active against freedom? Is there any other nation in the world where people would want to live MORE than the USA?
 
Apr 25, 2002
4,692
2,577
113
44
Houston
#18
NOSTRIL KING said:
You're avoiding the question.

If a country is oppressing it's people by eliminating free press, free speech lets say, forcing people to go to church or be punished by law (freedom of religion)...shouldn't someone step in to liberate them if they can't liberate themselves?
I think so, but I think that we should stop picking on the little countries if we are going to do that. For example, I think we should have stepped in and stopped Stalin from killing his own people. But we didn't because if we went to war a lot of our soldiers would have been killed because their military could rival ours. It would be embarrassing for the "world's strongest" military to lose. That's why we didn't go into North Korea, because they might rival us on the battlefield. Now it's too late because our soldiers our spread out everywhere. But either way, we're fighting the terrorists on their ground and not ours, which is good. Anyways, North Korea won't do anything because there are more countries willing to step in and fight. Unlike the Middle East, where we are pretty much the only country that gets attacked and we are pretty much the only ones willing to go in there and do something about it.