France, Germany won't be swayed by Kerry

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-23-2004
France, Germany won't be swayed by Kerry
9
Mon, 09-27-2004 - 2:11pm
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/36048bf8-0ff7-11d9-ba62-00000e2511c8.html

No French or German turn on Iraq

By Jo Johnson in Paris, Betrand Benoit in Berlin and James Harding in Washington

Published: September 26 2004 21:13 | Last updated: September 26 2004 21:13

French and German government officials say they will not significantly increase military assistance in Iraq even if John Kerry, the Democratic presidential challenger, is elected on November 2.

Mr Kerry, who has attacked President George W. Bush for failing to broaden the US-led alliance in Iraq, has pledged to improve relations with European allies and increase international military assistance in Iraq.

"I cannot imagine that there will be any change in our decision not to send troops, whoever becomes president," Gert Weisskirchen, member of parliament and foreign policy expert for Germany's ruling Social Democratic Party, said in an interview.

"That said, Mr Kerry seems genuinely committed to multilateralism and as president he would find it easier than Mr Bush to secure the German government's backing in other matters."

Even though Nato last week overcame members' long-running reservations about a training mission to Iraq and agreed to set up an academy there for 300 soldiers, neither Paris nor Berlin will participate.

Michel Barnier, the French foreign minister, said last week that France, which has tense relations with interim prime minister Iyad Allawi, had no plans to send troops "either now or later".

That view reflects the concerns of many EU and Nato officials, who say the dangers in Iraq and the difficulty of extricating troops already there could make European governments reluctant to send personnel, regardless of the outcome of the US election.

A French government official said: "People don't expect that much would change under a Kerry administration, even if things can only get better. We do not anticipate a sudden honeymoon in the event Kerry replaces Bush.

"A lot depends on who is in power in both Washington and Baghdad. If there's change in both countries then it's possible we would re-examine our position, but I don't expect a massive change either way."

A German government spokesman declined to comment on the outcome of the US presidential election. But the feeling in Chancellor Gerhard Schröder's office is that, if anything, Berlin is growing less rather than more likely to change its mind as security conditions deteriorate in Iraq.

Mr Schröder would also be unlikely to renege on his 2002 electoral commitment not to send troops as a new general election looms in 2006.

There is no sign that the German public, which loathes the US president, would accept risking German lives to salvage what is widely seen as Mr Bush's botched war.

In fact, high-ranking German officials are privately concerned at the prospect of Mr Kerry becoming president, arguing it would not change US demands but make it more difficult to reject them.

Both France and Germany, however, have said they would contribute to the reduction of Iraq's debt and participate in economic and environmental development programmes. Berlin already trains Iraqi security forces outside Iraq and France has said it would do so.

Mr Kerry is expected to make Mr Bush's record of alienating foreign capitals and undermining US credibility in the world one of the chief arguments on Thursday night when he confronts the president in the first presidential debate.

The televised debate, which is expected to be watched by more than the 46.6m people who watched the debate in 2000, will focus on foreign policy and national security.

In a speech hammering Mr Bush for his decision to lead the US into Iraq, Mr Kerry said last week that in Afghanistan "I will lead our allies to share the burden."

He continued: "the Bush administration would have you believe that when it comes to our allies, it won't make a difference who is president. They say the Europeans won't help us, no matter what. But I have news for President Bush: just because you can't do something, doesn't mean it can't be done."

The German government continues to oppose sending troops to Iraq under any circumstance.

Berlin was one of Europe's most vocal opponents of the invasion of Iraq and, with sizeable forces in the Balkan and Afghanistan, it has also argued its troops are overstretched.

Although the government did not oppose Nato's decision to start training inside Iraq, it still thinks the deployment is counter- productive.

"Nato personnel will become targets for attacks," one official said on Sunday..

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
Mon, 09-27-2004 - 5:33pm
So, ah...well, what's Kerry's Plan B?

Renee ~~~

Renee ~~~

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-23-2004
Mon, 09-27-2004 - 8:14pm


I was wondering that myself, since his claim that he will somehow convince them to share the troop burden in Iraq is the only substantial difference between his plan and the president's (this week anyway).

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Tue, 09-28-2004 - 12:51pm
To fight a more sensitive war.

I guess that means a pillow fight?

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-20-2003
Tue, 09-28-2004 - 4:58pm
Gee hasn't Bush done a great job in furthering America's image?

Traditional allies have said Bush has stunk so bad that even a new face in the Whitehouse in itself won't be enough to undo the damage Bush has done to American diplomacy.

Changes in policy like opening the reconstruction projects to non-American companies and including novel things like bids will help make Iraq more of a priority for countries like France and Germany.

As the article pointed out, much of the rest of the world sees Iraq as Bush's failure.

Kerry will have a tough job ahead of him changing world perceptions.

Bush won't admit there's a problem.

Bush has zero chance at turning those perceptions around.



iVillage Member
Registered: 02-23-2004
Tue, 09-28-2004 - 7:12pm


By "traditional allies" I assume you mean France, Germany and Russia, all of whom were making millions stealing food from Iraqi children and one of whom was illegally selling weapons to Saddam. Sorry, I don't put much creedence in their view of American diplomacy.



Perhaps you didn't read the article. France and Germany are not interested in making Iraq a military priority. So you're saying we ought to allow them to participate in the money making ventures without assuming any of the risk? Good thinking.

The bids of which you speak have been investigated and declared perfectly legitimate-the no bid contracts were awarded because there were no other companies qualified and willing to do the job, despite the slanted, blind to the facts Micheal Moore assertions that the whole war was about making money for Halliburton. By the way, Halliburton's profits are down since taking on the Iraqi contracts. They are extremely expensive and risky opportunities that few companies are interested in or prepared security wise to pursue.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-20-2003
Tue, 09-28-2004 - 7:43pm
>>By "traditional allies" I assume you mean France, Germany and Russia,<<

I mean those countries and many, many more. Most of the world in fact.

Keep in mind that although Bush put together a coalition of sorts, the majority of citizens in those countries oppose Bush's failure in Iraq as well.

>>Perhaps you didn't read the article. France and Germany are not interested in making Iraq a military priority.<<

I assure you I read the article.

France and Germany, among numerous other allies, aren't interested at the moment the way things are.

That's precisley why changes in policy are vital to turning things around in Iraq.

>>So you're saying we ought to allow them to participate in the money making ventures without assuming any of the risk? Good thinking.<<

I say to hell with the sense of American propriety to market share in Iraq.

Iraq belongs to Iraqis.

All decisions should be based first and formost with whats best for the people of Iraq.


>>By the way, Halliburton's profits are down since taking on the Iraqi contracts.<<

By the way, the government is withholding millions because Haliburton can't verify services were provided.

That's gotta eat into the profits huh?

Haliburton is also under other investigations, including actions taken while Cheney was CEO.

















Edited 9/28/2004 7:47 pm ET ET by blueishxx

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-23-2004
Tue, 09-28-2004 - 11:14pm

All decisions should be based first and formost with whats best for the people of Iraq. >

I agree. So what does that have to do with France and Germany? What's best for Iraq is if they decided to pony up and help share the burden of stabilizing Iraq and fighting against the animals who are slaughtering civilians in an attempt to destabilize the country. They're saying Kerry or no Kerry they have no intention of doing that. So my point is, now that the major piece of Kerry's so-called "plan" is not going to happen, what does he plan to do for the Iraqis? Telling the world we plan to cut and run certainly isn't going to help them. So how's he going to help them? I'm interested in hearing. And you're saying, "Let's let France and Germany make lots of money in Iraq, without having to share any of the burden, in the hopes that might make them want to help the Iraqis." Doesn't that sound the least bit contradictory to you?


That's gotta eat into the profits huh?

Haliburton is also under other investigations, including actions taken while Cheney was CEO. >

Your news is a bit behind the times-guess you're still getting it from Fahrenheit 911. Halliburton has admitted some errors and has repaid the government, while other investigations have cleared them of any wrongdoing. What the heck do actions taken while Cheney was CEO have to do with anything? If you have ANY evidence that Cheney being a former CEO has anything to do with the current war in Iraq, let's have it. It's all been thoroughly investigated and debunked. It's one of the main reasons Moore's film has been deonounced by liberals and conservatives alike as factually incorrect. It's nothing more than a meaningless slogan with no factual basis-"Halliburton! Cheney! No-bid contracts!" There's nothing there, which is why it has NEVER become an issue with voters.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-20-2003
Tue, 09-28-2004 - 11:28pm
Your strawmen arguments don't fly.

>>I agree. So what does that have to do with France and Germany?<<

Forget France and Germany.

I'm talking about almost every other nation on the face of the earth.

I said as much in my previous post.

>>What's best for Iraq is if they decided to pony up and help share the burden of stabilizing Iraq and fighting against the animals who are slaughtering civilians in an attempt to destabilize the country.<<

Pony up as in forget Bush has been absolutely incorrect in his analysis of Iraq pre-invasion and refuses to see what's going on there now?

"Let's let France and Germany make lots of money in Iraq, without having to share any of the burden, in the hopes that might make them want to help the Iraqis."

I'm saying nothing of the sort.

I'm saying an American sense of owning the action in Iraq since their army is in charge is exactly the wrong attitude to get Iraq back on its feet asap.

And forget the Moore nonsensical distraction tactic.

I've not seen F911.

And we still get back to the bottom line.

Kerry will have a tough time turning world opinion around so the US regains credibility.

Bush, like you, sees no problem.

Recipe for quagmire.



iVillage Member
Registered: 02-23-2004
Tue, 09-28-2004 - 11:54pm

I'm talking about almost every other nation on the face of the earth.

I said as much in my previous post.>

Such as whom? Russia?



No, pony up as in realizing that a stable democratic Iraq is in the PLANET'S best interest, not just the US's and not just Iraq's. Bush doesn't refuse to see what's going on there now, he knows it's been more difficult than he realized,he's admitted that, he just refuses to cash in his chips and declare it a "failure" as Kerry and some of our so-called "allies" would like him to do. Thank God. We must prevail in Iraq, whatever it takes. That's something that's crystal clear to me, about which I truly can't understand why anyone could disagree.


I think the world is well aware that we welcome their assistance in providing security to Iraq. But I don't see why we, or the Iraqis, ought to welcome the profiteering of those who WON'T assist in securing the country.


Bush, like you, sees no problem.

Recipe for quagmire.>

Kerry will not be able to turn world opinion around, because world opinion was formed long before George W. Bush ever became president. We heard the same kind of worldwide America bashing before Reagan won the cold war. Yes, we enjoyed a short-lived honeymoon fom it after 9/11, so what? I'm glad we have a president who doesn't make national security decisions based on whether a few self serving countries like us or not.



Bush and I both see problems, we just don't, like you and Kerry, see failure. But only time will tell.