This proposal focuses on several key points to reunite the SC and exert maximum pressure on Iraq.

I guess a couple of hundred thousand troops are good for something, but exactly what part of the military build up are the nations proposing this course going to participate in? While speaking to the press after the February 14 SC meeting, the French Foreign Minister acknowledged the importance of the military build up in getting the Iraqis to cooperate thus far, but when asked if France would send troops to the buildup he said he didn't think they were needed. ;)

They aren't actually needed militarily, but if military pressure is important to the peaceful resolution of the conflict, wouldn't it make a strong statement to Iraq if France fielded these "pressure" troops? Of course it would, but it's obviously not the message the French government wants to send to Iraq, and it certainly isn't the message they want to send to the French people.

It must be nice for Chirac's government to be able to claim credit for leading the peace movement while blocking the US on the issue all the while using the US troops in the field as a bargaining chip against Iraq despite the fact that he doesn't want those troops used. Seems like a no lose situation.

BTW, if the military buildup is so important, and if the inspectors are given more time, and if those nations who make this proposal aren't willing to send their own troops, exactly how long does the Coalition of the Willing keep those troops in the field and who pays the bill? Surely France, Russia, and Germany are willing to help pay for this important aspect of their proposal.... ;) [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 02-27-2003, 09:34 AM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

<font color=orange>Excellent point Ronn! I was wondering much the same myself. Are all those nations, who just now started supporting a military build-up on the pretext of supporting the inspectors and putting pressure on Iraq, willing to pony up to the table and help foot the bill or will they talk a good game and leave us holding the bag? We are talking close to 60 billion dollars here! Not a small sum at all.</font>

I agree, those forces are going to chew through tax dollars - shooting or not (certainly moreso when shooting tho [img]smile.gif[/img] ). I don't think anyone would argue that they're not the reason for the little bit of cooperation we've seen out of Iraq, so perhaps those against the war should put they're money where their mouth is. Personally I agree with their reasoning regarding giving the inspectors more time, but I also think there's a limit to US ability/willingness to pay for a large force that's sitting in the sand doing nothing.

So we're in a quandry... we need those forces menacing Iraq to get them to do ANYTHING, yet we can't afford to leave them there indefinitely (especially considering that going to war and getting it over with in a month or two would probably be much cheaper than waiting months then possibly having to go to war anyway)

[ 02-27-2003, 12:53 PM: Message edited by: Thoran ]

Hey - It's a US-show - so the US should pick up the tap ;)

It is unlikely that it will be like '91 where Kuwait and Saudi-Arabia footed most of the bill (later getting some of the money back from Iraq in war-reparations)

Shush! Don't tell the French government it's a US show. ;) :D

Seriously, if the US acquiesces to those in the UN who oppose action "at this time", and the inspectors are given as much time as those who propose more time want, shouldn't all the nations of the UN share the bill? Even the proposal offered this week for more time says military pressure is one of the keys, and it's certainly the most expensive key.

I know this is an unlikely scenario, but bear with me on it. Under that situation shouldn't those who have proposed more time be as financially responsible for the military pressure as the US. Shouldn't they also send troops?

[ 02-27-2003, 06:26 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

Although I'd like to see an UN army there in Kuwait, I don't think Saddam would feel very threatened by it. The US Army though is a different matter.

But interesting point, if Saddam does disarm totally and sanctions are lifted and everyone breathes a sigh of relief with no war, will the US be compensated?

I would certainly hope so as a US taxpayer :)

[ 02-28-2003, 05:30 AM: Message edited by: Wutang ]

Ronn, you can't have both the butter and the money to buy it ! ;)

You are asking for money to pay for something you decided to do on your own ?

Nah, nations should be asked to pay for what they decide to do, or for what the UN decides they must do - thus nations who ask for the continuation of inspections should pay for the inspection work. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Despite the fact that they see the military pressure as a key ingredient? That doesn't seem quite right, does it? ;)

It seems to me it's those who oppose military action but actually use the threat of military action to further their cause are the ones who want the butter and the money. [img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 02-28-2003, 08:37 AM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

Exactly! Since the inspections could not have restarted at all without a military threat, and since their continuation requires military pressure, they should pay for whatever it takes to cause inspections to continue if they believe continuing inspections is the answer. ;)

Yes, Ronn - for what the UN decides they have to pay. ;)

[ 02-28-2003, 08:56 AM: Message edited by: Moiraine ]