Hi Hawkmoon; Hey, I showed you a newer link than yours, one that proved that the French were agreeing to reduce Iraq's debts, and this is all you can come up with? That the French aren't doing it "unilaterally"?
What you've come up with is a single UN program, UNDP, with barely two dozen countries listed as donors. Why don't you try and name the other 100 countries not on your list?
And by the way, maybe you forgot to read this line in your link:
EU - EU and member states pledged a total of $826 million for rebuilding in 2004. Of that, European Commission making 200 million euros available from EU budget. Total pledges from EU community budget and member states until 2007 stand at $1.53 billion. EU also giving $858.9 million humanitarian aid to end 2004.
unol.org
Here's a more complete list of France's Iraq contributions, including the general EU contribution to the UNDP, and some others that weren't associated with UNDP, the only organization you apparently looked in:
info-france-usa.org
But all this begs the real question. You're so supposedly so damned sure that we're going to win in Iraq, so why do you even care what the French think, LOL.
Re: "So where are the official French relief agencies in Iraq?"
It was widely believed in France that an invasion of Iraq would result in a country that would be in a near state of civil war, and consequently too dangerous for relief agencies. Time proved them right, and the UN fled the country after their leader was killed in a suicide bomb attack. What are you doing, faulting the French for not being stupid? They'll go back in Iraq after it calms down, after we leave, after they can deal with the Iraqis directly. And with the popularity of France in Iraq, they'll get good deals.
Here, let me remind you of why it is that the French aren't giving us a big hand in Iraq:
Bilow, February 15, 2003
We once led a full and united NATO. Now Bush's insane foreign policy screwups are breaking NATO in two. This is not an improvement in our diplomatic, military or economic situation. It's a f'ing disaster. This is amateur hour at the White House. #reply-18584363
What do you think you can do? Run through town, waving a gun, trying to get everybody riled up about a threat that didn't actually exist, and then have the people who you called cowards come out and pull your ass out of a fight that you were all hot to start but can't finish? You're in dreamland if you think the people you guys called "cheese eating surrender monkeys" are going to send their soldiers to die (or even just their money to be spent) just to allow to Bush postpone the inevitable exit from Iraq with his tail between his legs.
I say we're damned lucky that more modern antiaircraft weapons haven't leaked into Iraq yet, at least in substantial quantities, particularly from Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia.
-- Carl
P.S. Way back in August, after the UN mission got blown up, you were already a bit paranoid about the French:
Hawkmoon, August 20, 2003
I may be mistaken, but it would seem that the UN, in order to preserve its tattered integrity, will need to press UNSC members to become involved in Iraq. If the UN is being targeted by Islamic militants, then they have just as much at stake in this as the US (and the Iraqis). And after all, they WERE seeking to gain all out control over the Iraqi post-war operation. That means France, Germany, and other members will be pressed to participate, and on terms favorable to the current US leadership role. Of course, I'm sure we'll see many of those countries try and claim the US conducted the attack for just this very purpose. And then again, France, Russia, and Germany would have a rationale for supporting such an attack, since they've been looking for a way to "swallow their pride" and become participants in Iraq. #reply-19227356
Bilow, in reply: #reply-19227737 |
