NATO says pleas for postwar Iraq role too early

[Nambe]

NATO said on Wednesday there was no prospect of the alliance taking a leading role in postwar Iraq any time soon despite growing calls from U.S. senators alarmed by the string of deadly attacks on American troops.

''There haven't been any formal talks and nor has there been any kind of formal request put forward to NATO for a bigger role in Iraq,'' a NATO official said. ''I think it's a bit early.''
U.S. newspaper the Baltimore Sun reported earlier that with U.S. costs and casualties mounting in Iraq, the Bush administration was showing new interest in putting NATO in charge of the occupation. It said a handover might be formally discussed by the autumn.
''There is no U.S. request to NATO to take on a wider role in Iraq nor is one imminent,'' another alliance official said. ''But it's fair to say that the U.S. and a number of other allies have said that NATO should be open to a wider role in the future.'' --

[fertilizeonarbusto]

1. HAHAHAHAHA

But I thought NATO was SO Old Europe and just not kool enough.....

[LauraK]

2. The occupiers have the contracts now.

So let the anti-war folks pay the bills. Fat chance.

[LauraK]

12. France and Germany have already said they will only go in....

under the UN, which would require a mandate that dimson would never agree to. Dimson must go.

[Mithras61]

3. Don't Germany & France hold

veto power in NATO as well as in the UN? If not, I bet they can significantly influence the activities of NATO. Perhaps *&Co. ought to be altering their thinking on their "strategery" regarding France & Germany (oopsy!!! said the "T" word!)

[NNN0LHI]

8. Germany & France are the ones with the troops we need so badly n/t

[AnnabelLee]

4. "It said a handover might be formally discussed by the autumn."

That's how long it will take for the deals on the bribes to be hammered out. Then NATO countries will send their citizens to die for the BFEE.:grr:Sorry if I sound cynical, but the leaders of other countries are only interested in what's in it for them, seems to me.

[MidwestTransplant]

5. They probably want to wait till the 2004 elections shake out.

n/t

[Larkspur]

6. Do you get the feeling that our allies are doing this

to tilt the 2004 election against Bush?

I feel sorry for our troops, but don't blame these countries for not wanting to put their troops in a mess Bush created.

[It was not a pretzel]

11. why would they do that?

How about German's or French not wanting their troops killed in a war that the US and Britain wanted and they opposed? Makes sense to me.

I'm sorry for the US troops, but "you" wanted the war. I dont want F or D troops killed clearing up the US and UK's mess because your government can't handle the casualties politically.

[hatrack]

7. In other words . . .

"Here's a mallet, there's a sandpile. Go and pound some up your ass."

We made the mess and now they're supposed to clean it up. "Ach, mein Herr, you make a leetle joke, I sink!"

[NNN0LHI]

9. But which Nato members side would they be on? The USA or Turkey? n/t

[ze_dscherman]

10. Only under UN, reply France and Germany

France and Germany have rejected a suggestion from U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld that Europe's opponents of the recent war in Iraq should contribute troops for Iraq's post-war stabilisation. French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin and the German Defence Ministry said a clear UN mandate was needed first.


http://www.dw-world.de/english/0,3367,4789_W_916737,00.html

Just had posted that here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=6287&mesg_id=6287&page=