The France/Syria/China Connection.....

[Byock]

This is not flame bait, but simple curiosity. Where did the resentment towards US from the French stem from? I have heard for as long as I can remember, that France does not treat US tourists well. What caused this? Being from the US maybe I am missing something.

[RedRed]

I think what the problem is here - and I agree with Brian is that the 'fact' as percieved by others is, in fact just a reporters take on this.

I would suggest that it would be more appropriate for the other countries to be be pissed with the US mainly because the US has already invited tenders for the rebuilding of Iraq - BUT ONLY TO US COMPANIES.... This is seen by some as simply an attempt by the US to leverage itsself out of recession on 2 fronts - Mill expenditure (MASSIVE expenditure) and though COMMERCIAL reconstruction after the event. It happened before with the recalling of debts to Britian after WWII. The US used enonomic warefare upon europe to 1 stabalise germany and 2 build its self into the economic powerhouse it became (at the expense of Britian).
The sources, if you want them are the diaries of the British Special Ambassidor to the US after WWII (Lord Keynes - the economist) - declassified records under the 50 year rule.... They knew that they were being shafted by US set intrest rates on reconstruction loans - but had no choice. This went against the promises made duriong the war years (where a grant had been discussed)....

Thats just an editorial too..... though you can at least look to a history book for the sources....

RedRed

[RedRed]

France doesnt treat ANY tourists well - you just get touchy about it

[Byock]

Ahhh, that makes sense, I guess.

[RedRed]

The WTO might be a sticking point too.....

[HomeBrewer]

Originally posted by ex RedRed
.......SNIP I would suggest that it would be more appropriate for the other countries to be be pissed with the US mainly because the US has already invited tenders for the rebuilding of Iraq - BUT ONLY TO US COMPANIES....
RedRed

I believe you are refering to some $900M for immediate reconstruction of hospitals, schools, power , water and other vital infrastructure. This money is from the US treasury. It is quite appropriate for the financer to dictate whom gets the money. In fact I am quite sure thye US congress would throw quite a fit if US companies were not given preference.

It would be an entirely different matter if the money came from other sources, such as the UN or even Iraq itself. The the propriety would then indeed be suspect. At this juncture that is not the case.

[GNEP]

/*was trying to resist posting...oh well*/

Iraq already has: hospitals, schools, power, water, etc. It is a developed nation. The president is a bit nasty though.

The important thing to watch (if there is a war, and if there is a US-led governor) is who gets the oil production & exploration contracts. Big big money there.

[Joel]

The important thing to watch (if there is a war, and if there is a US-led governor) is who gets the oil production & exploration contracts. Big big money there.

I guess since we are usually the ones who supply most of the forces, the equipment, the logistics and what not that should also go without saying. I would say though that US control of it would defintely put a big hurting on the current OPEC cartel. Maybe we could finally see gas prices come down for once.

Joel

[High_Jumbllama]

Then it would just confirm world supicions that this is just about oil. Though I agree we should get a significant percentage, getting an overly dominant role in the oil matter would be an enourmous mistake. Nothing ever works out simply or right.

[Pace]

Originally posted by Dr Mordrid
Just reporting current events, which should be OK if people stay mature.

We tried that. Everyone knows it did not work. All Soap posts regarding world politics basically turned into blind patriotism, where everyone posts negative stuff about other countries, and defends their own country and beliefs blindly.

Congratulations on this thread. Why was the Lounge created?

Yup, if we went into this completely selflessly and gave oil rights evenly across the many developing countries...the world would have been done a big favour.

EU sucks. US sucks. Go whine...

There's a thought...how long do you think a thread would last where you are only allowed to post negatively about your own country, and positively about others? Sure it would be a learning experience for those who start inflammatory postings...(and I do not mean knowledge of current affairs, or general knowledge...)

[Joel]

Then it would just confirm world supicions that this is just about oil.

What do you mean supicions?? Most of the world believes that as it is. Won't matter how many weapons we find or that may get used in the process of the war some will still say it was all about the oil. We should have some way of finally paying ourselves back for all we have done throughout the world all these many years including the liberation of France during and the rebuilding of Europe after WWII.

Joel

[K6-III]

We paid ourselves back quite well for the Marshall Plan with the economic boom that it stimulated in the US with the Europeans buying American goods in considerable volume...

[Wombat]

Originally posted by K6-III
We paid ourselves back quite well for the Marshall Plan with the economic boom that it stimulated in the US with the Europeans buying American goods in considerable volume...

No, actually, we didn't. All those war bonds and whatnot, we still lost money on WWII. WWII cost the US $2 trillion in 2003 dollars. We sure didn't make all that back.

[SpiralDragon]

Originally posted by Joel
I guess since we are usually the ones who supply most of the forces, the equipment, the logistics and what not that should also go without saying. I would say though that US control of it would defintely put a big hurting on the current OPEC cartel. Maybe we could finally see gas prices come down for once.

Joel

aye.. but not cleaner energy sources that they have been siting on..... to the victor goes the spoils i gues.... but i still find that inapropriate especialy since the US is claiming that this is a war about morality, demorcatization and the iradication of "evil"......

[RedRed]

No, actually, we didn't. All those war bonds and whatnot, we still lost money on WWII. WWII cost the US $2 trillion in 2003 dollars. We sure didn't make all that back.

Actually Wombat the US DID make most of it back. And then some. Europe was devistated by the war. The reconstruction funds were passed not on humanitarian grounds or anything like that. They were passed because without them, the US would not have had ANY significant trading partners in ANYTHING.

Without the reconstruction (MOSTLY LOANS) the us would have declined faster than the UK stock exchange!

Lord Keynes had arranged for a reconstruction grant (or loan sans interest) for the UK as part of the 'special relationship'. When that wasnt forthcomming after the war, it had to borrow massively from the US at (then) high rates of interest... One of the reasons India and Palestine were abandoned was that the UK couldnt afford to support it and its self. This was an intentional move by the US to leverage itsself into the dominant economic force in the world. These are fully documented, as stated before, but you can also get more info from the biography of Churchill.....

This is the main reason why the US had its 'happy time' in the 1950's, where the UK was still rationing clothes.....

On another note:

Apparently Exxon has already been in negotions re the management ond replacement of Iraqi Oil supplies & equipment.
The US has always wanted to have an infulence on the OPEC board. This is how it will get it.

RedRed