France and Russia

[Reeka]

At the outset, I want to apologize for half-hearing this. I heard this morning that the US is asking France and Russia to "forgive" the massiave debt that Iraw has with each country. Does anyone know any details?

What do you think about it? They said that if France and Russia did this, it would go a long way toward helping Iraq to get back on its feet.

I thought it was interesting, in light of the fact that they were both so opposed to the war.

[Seraph]

I personally think the US is just trying to punish the countries that didn't agree with it. With all that oil its not like Iraq is going to have any sort of problem paying off its debts. I don't have a lot of sympathy for France (They could afford it withot a huge problem), however Russia is a different story.

Russia pays a lot of money to pay off debts that it accumulated before its change. When Russia is paying a lot of money to repay old Soviet debts, the US is asking them to just forget about Iraqs debts. It personally makes me sick.

[wellard]

And the US leads the way by cancelling all the debts owed to itself and it's share of the world bank by the poorest 50 countries in the world HA!

C'mon be serious, a properly run Iraq that does not waste it's money on arms, wars and coruption would easily pay off it's debts to the world, and afford a reasonable lifestyle to it's people.

[ 04-20-2003, 11:22 PM: Message edited by: wellard ]

Originally posted by Seraph: I personally think the US is just trying to punish the countries that didn't agree with it. With all that oil its not like Iraq is going to have any sort of problem paying off its debts. I don't have a lot of sympathy for France (They could afford it withot a huge problem), however Russia is a different story. Russia pays a lot of money to pay off debts that it accumulated before its change. When Russia is paying a lot of money to repay old Soviet debts, the US is asking them to just forget about Iraqs debts. It personally makes me sick.

Seraph, want to go over the economics of the issue that could back you up? Your opinion just doesnt match up to the numbers that I have seen.

While not conclusive proof, the Amounts of money that Iraq will owe to Russia and France are enourmous and point to a very possibly real motive behid them opposing any kind of move on Iraq in the UN. Those amounts will go a long way toward helping the country get back on its feet.

Edit: It is still quite possible that while trying to get Russia and France to help Iraq out, to also get a slap at them at the same time.

[ 04-21-2003, 08:30 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[Ar-Cunin]

IIRC Iraq's main creditors are the Gulf states - mainly Saudi-Arabia and Kuwait (from the Iran-Iraq war). Perhaps they should start with them?

[Reeka]

Magik, that is why I was wanting to confirm what I heard. I thought the same thing that perhaps that was a motivation for France and Russia so adamantly opposing the war in the UN.

[Ramon de Ramon y Ramon]

Originally posted by MagiK: quote: Originally posted by Seraph: I personally think the US is just trying to punish the countries that didn't agree with it. With all that oil its not like Iraq is going to have any sort of problem paying off its debts. I don't have a lot of sympathy for France (They could afford it withot a huge problem), however Russia is a different story. Russia pays a lot of money to pay off debts that it accumulated before its change. When Russia is paying a lot of money to repay old Soviet debts, the US is asking them to just forget about Iraqs debts. It personally makes me sick.

Seraph, want to go over the economics of the issue that could back you up? Your opinion just doesnt match up to the numbers that I have seen.

While not conclusive proof, the Amounts of money that Iraq will owe to Russia and France are enourmous and point to a very possibly real motive behid them opposing any kind of move on Iraq in the UN. Those amounts will go a long way toward helping the country get back on its feet.


Edit: It is still quite possible that while trying to get Russia and France to help Iraq out, to also get a slap at them at the same time. [/QUOTE]If Iraq's debts to those countries has infact been the main motive for France's and Russia's opposition against the coalition's invasion of Iraq, why didn't the coalition simply win them over by offering them reassurance that any postwar government they would install would honour those debts ?

[Grojlach]

Originally posted by Reeka: Magik, that is why I was wanting to confirm what I heard. I thought the same thing that perhaps that was a motivation for France and Russia so adamantly opposing the war in the UN.

*sigh*
Why do people keep looking for reasons why "the other side" did or didn't join in with a war? Both sides claim to have acted following the higher moral ground, and both sides keep looking for reasons which could make it look like that the other side only acted out of self-interest.
I personally think it's a lot more complex than that. Just as I don't think the US was only going to war for oil, I doubt France and Russia will regard these debts as the main reason; it's, as they will all probably claim, secondary to Their Moral Duty, or at least how they regard it - and heck, we all know there were secondary factors playing along which weren't so valiant at all, both at the side of the coalition and the one of the war opposers. Every single nation taking a side in this war was probably acting out of a combination of moral judgement and self-preservation or self-interest, but I suppose that's only to be expected; especially in these days of recession.

But in what way do any of these "secondary reasons" influence my own views on the war? Actually not that much at all. Look, I don't care if in secret the US only went to war because Saddam had kidnapped and tortured Cheney's pet turtle, and I don't care if France only opposed a war because they had just placed a brand new toilet paper factory near Basra. When I have to take a side of my own, I'm in the happy position of blissful ignorance that I don't have to consider elements like obtaining future votes for the next elections, having to divert the attention of the main public from more urgent national problems, conflicts of interest because of secret agreements, preserving existing trading positions or attempting to sever the old ones and reshape the entire trading cycle in your own advantage... Or whatever reproaches and accusations have been made in the direction of the major players in this matter so far. I could ignore all of these shady secondary reasons and conflicts of interest; and only base my position on this war on my personal moral judgement, on what I think is just.

You could dig up all kinds of dirt on France and Russia (and in return, we could dig up all kinds of dirt on the US), but that still won't change my (or most likely your) personal opinions on the war; I based my position on what I think is morally right, not because I feel the need of supporting a certain country's actions at all times. I may end up having second thoughts about those countries, but whatever reasons they may have had for opposing the war, I'm still glad that they did; if only for giving myself an extra "voice" (as my own country practically followed the US by default, despite the fact 89%-ish of the population opposed a War) and evening the odds a bit.

[ 04-25-2003, 06:22 AM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

[Grojlach]

(Bah... Could someone please re-activate the edit-function or change the elapsion time for editing to half an hour or so? It's rather annoying to notice a few stylistic errors and typo's, as well as a few omissions causing certain choice of words to be explanable in more than one way (for example in the last sentence, "second thoughts about these countries" instead of the more logical and fairer "second thoughts about the motives of these countries' Governments"), and not being able to change them. If I have to put up extra posts every time to explain my intended changes, that's only going to end up in more bandwidth costs and a bit of a chaotic posting style.)

[ 04-25-2003, 06:45 AM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

[Luvian]

Originally posted by Grojlach: (Bah... Could someone please re-activate the edit-function or change the elapsion time for editing to half an hour or so? It's rather annoying to notice a few stylistic errors and typo's, as well as a few omissions causing certain choice of words to be explanable in more than one way (for example in the last sentence, "second thoughts about these countries" instead of the more logical and fairer "second thoughts about the motives of these countries' Governments"), and not being able to change them. If I have to put up extra posts every time to explain my intended changes, that's only going to end up in more bandwidth costs and a bit of a chaotic posting style.)

I didn't have any problem understanding your first post.

By the way, Ziroc is considering raising the timer to 30 mins.