Another diplomatic masterpiece by Chickenhawks Inc.

[ZeeGerman]

Pentagon Bars Three Nations From Iraq Bids (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/10/international/middleeast/10DIPL.html?hp)

Just the right way to gain international support, isn't it?

Zee

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by ZeeGerman
Pentagon Bars Three Nations From Iraq Bids (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/10/international/middleeast/10DIPL.html?hp)

Just the right way to gain international support, isn't it?

Zee

Couple of things besides "So what?" Those three countries can go f themself, Russia is lucky Iraq decided to honer their order for Russian made Volga Taxis. Also, last time I check there are other countries in the world besides those three so I'm not worried about any bias just yet.

[ZeeGerman]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Couple of things besides "So what?" Those three countries can go f themself, Russia is lucky Iraq decided to honer their order for Russian made Volga Taxis. Also, last time I check there are other countries in the world besides those three so I'm not worried about any bias just yet.

You are right about the "So what?" part of course. After all, it's your government that is acting like a bunch of sulking preschoolers. If it doesn't bother you, why should it bother me?

Were I an US tax payer, I would appreciate my money being given to the companies which seem most fit to the task regardless of their country of origin.

As to the "go f themself", am I detecting a slighly latent resentfulness on your side?

Zee

[Ion]

Originally posted by ZeeGerman

...
As to the "go f themself", am I detecting a slighly latent resentfulness on your side?

Zee
I detect resentfulness on Gramma' side too.

As for Bush' U.S. banning countries from bidding for contracts of reconstruction in Iraq, that must be the last bullets of this U.S. made of clowns like Bush, Wolfowitz, Perle, Rove, and -I should add our forum resident clown- Gramma:

the U.S. elections in 2004 will change this regime nonsense that started in the year 2000.

[tedly]

by the bye, it's not just those three. You notice that only the 61 countries in the 'coalition of the willing' are in. This wil bar the USA's largest trading partner and major energy source.

[Skeptic]

The USA has learned, it seems, that "international support" and "the goodwill of the world", together with $0.60, will get you a cup of coffee.

But I guess you're right: the USA will have to fight its future wars without the support of France... which is a bit like having to go hunt deer without your accordion.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Skeptic

...
But I guess you're right: the USA will have to fight its future wars without the support of France...
What "...its future wars..." are you talking about?

U.S. (not me, U.S. only) is painfully learning from the world to not go to war like Bush just did.

But I guess, even in backward U.S. you are more backward, as in being left behind in this learning.

[Thanz]

A Canadian perspective: http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2003/12/10/283088-cp.html

Of course, the contract ban completely ignores the fact that the countries who objected, who thought that there was no immediate threat from Iraq on the WMD front, were correct.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Skeptic
the USA will have to fight its future wars without the support of France... which is a bit like having to go hunt deer without your accordion. I'd rather Germany and Russia be for us rather than against us. Granted, they aren't the Nazi's and the USSR anymore, but those are two wars (okay, one actual war and one pseudo-war) I'd rather not go through again, especially simultaneously.

This course of action is insane, considering the global climate. The Bush administration should be working on bring countries together rather than ripping them apart.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Thanz
A Canadian perspective: http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2003/12/10/283088-cp.html We've barred Canadian bids too?!? WTF is going through that man's head?

[Ed]

Originally posted by Ion

I detect resentfulness on Gramma' side too.

As for Bush' U.S. banning countries from bidding for contracts of reconstruction in Iraq, that must be the last bullets of this U.S. made of clowns like Bush, Wolfowitz, Perle, Rove, and -I should add our forum resident clown- Gramma:

the U.S. elections in 2004 will change this regime nonsense that started in the year 2000.

Not with Dean, unfortunately.

[Ion]

I read the Canadian perspective in the link above.

It seems to me that Bush's U.S. is in trouble again, like when backing down recently from wanting to keep tariffs on imported steel following a E.U. threat to impose tariffs on imported goods from the U.S..

Bush is only a brain dead clown with a crooked nose and white hair.

He is not a president.

[Ed]

Originally posted by ZeeGerman


You are right about the "So what?" part of course. After all, it's your government that is acting like a bunch of sulking preschoolers. If it doesn't bother you, why should it bother me?

Were I an US tax payer, I would appreciate my money being given to the companies which seem most fit to the task regardless of their country of origin.

As to the "go f themself", am I detecting a slighly latent resentfulness on your side?

Zee

France wasn't sulking?

[Chaos]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I'd rather Germany and Russia be for us rather than against us.

We are for you.

Constructive criticism (as in: "Don´t do this, it will backfire.") is help, not hatred.

But some people will never get that. (Or will you, Skeptic?)

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Chaos


We are for you.Yeah, now maybe. What happens if the US continues to snub and insult countries who are friendly to us and suddenly we really need their help? I can't believe the White House is going out of its way be this incredibly stupid.

Incidently, where are you from, Chaos?

[bjornart]

Norway is on the list of the 63 countries who will be allowed to bid on contracts in Iraq. This was also confirmed by a spokesperson in the Pentagon. The statement caused renewed debate about Norway's role in Iraq.

-We register that Norway is on the list, says spokeswoman Cathrine Andersen from the Foreign Office.

-Does the fact that Norway is among the countries who are rewarded with contract opportunities in Iraq because the US considers Norway part of the coalition, while Norway doesn't see it that way, cause any concern?

-What is important to us is that we're in Iraq with a UN-mandate and contribute to the stabilisation of Iraq. And this list really has no relevance on that issue the way we see it, she says.

From Norwegian Aftenposten (http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/uriks/article.jhtml?articleID=688483), any oddities can be assumed to be due to my lack of translation skills.

Heh! All we had to do for Bush to forget he's pissed at us was send 150 mine disposal experts, and they don't even have to do any dangerous mine disposal work cause the Brits won't let 'em. :D Now what is Bush thinking, first he removes the steel tariffs to avoid trade war, and then he does this?

[ZeeGerman]

Originally posted by Ed


France wasn't sulking?

Whatever. I got the impression that the international relationships were on a healthy way back to normal in a sort of "We disagree on certain points but let's not talk about that and rather move on now"-manner. So I don't see what the US administration is trying to acomplish with this deliberate slap in the face.

Zee

[Tmy]

Shoudlnt the lowest bid win. Country of origin be damned. this crap costs enough already.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Thanz
A Canadian perspective: http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2003/12/10/283088-cp.html

Of course, the contract ban completely ignores the fact that the countries who objected, who thought that there was no immediate threat from Iraq on the WMD front, were correct.

The right are wrong, and the wrong are right. It is a topsy turvy world.

[Chaos]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Yeah, now maybe.


Not "maybe".

Our (speaking for perhaps 99% of the people I know) problems are not with ordinary Americans - unless you count the rabidly patriotic, perpetually flagwaving, "freedom fries", "America right or wrong" crowd as ordinary.
Our problems are with the Bush administration and their "solution" for the terrorist problem.

Incidently, where are you from, Chaos?

Germany. Right from the heart of Old Europe, from the Axis of Weasle, and other assorted neat stuff like that :(

[Ion]

Originally posted by bjornart

...
Now what is Bush thinking, first he removes the steel tariffs to avoid trade war, and then he does this?
Bush -the idiot from U.S.- is in trouble again trade war style.

How many times can he cause trouble to the world in just four years of presidency?

France is studying the legality of this ban.

The relationship between Bush's U.S. and the world exacerbates.

[Earthborn]

What I don't get is: why are free market companies punished for what the decisions of governments of the countries they happen to be based in? And why does that not bother an advocate of free market trade like Grammatron?

And what about companies that were taken over by other companies from a different country. Suppose there is some flying around to do. Can the KLM (Royal Dutch Airlines) bid for it because at the start of the war they were a purely Dutch company (and the Netherlands is in the coalition of the Poodles) or is it banned because it has been taken over by AirFrance?What happens if the US continues to snub and insult countries who are friendly to us and suddenly we really need their help?Hey, don't be so pessimistic about those PNAC plans. It makes perfect sense: use military force to institute America friendly governments all over the world even if it means pissing off a few governments that are already friendly to America. You can't make the whole world friendly to you without making a few enemies...

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Chaos

Our (speaking for perhaps 99% of the people I know) problems are not with ordinary Americans - unless you count the rabidly patriotic, perpetually flagwaving, "freedom fries", "America right or wrong" crowd as ordinary.
Our problems are with the Bush administration and their "solution" for the terrorist problem. Well, thank goodness 99% of the Germans you know are being more sensible about all this than 99% of the Americans I know. American politics are so polarized right now that I don't know that anyone over here is thinking too straight.

I had a customer in Germany a few years back and had a chance to visit. Absolutely beautiful mountains you have there.

[ZeeGerman]

Originally posted by Earthborn
And what about companies that were taken over by other companies from a different country.

Hey, that means Chrysler cannot sell any vehicles in Iraq because of Daimler's hostile (at least Kerkorian claims so) takeover, so it's basically a German company now. It's gettin better all the time :D

Zee

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Earthborn
What I don't get is: why are free market companies punished for what the decisions of governments of the countries they happen to be based in? And why does that not bother an advocate of free market trade like Grammatron?

And what about companies that were taken over by other companies from a different country. Suppose there is some flying around to do. Can the KLM (Royal Dutch Airlines) bid for it because at the start of the war they were a purely Dutch company (and the Netherlands is in the coalition of the Poodles) or is it banned because it has been taken over by AirFrance?Hey, don't be so pessimistic about those PNAC plans. It makes perfect sense: use military force to institute America friendly governments all over the world even if it means pissing off a few governments that are already friendly to America. You can't make the whole world friendly to you without making a few enemies...

While I have no problems with Germany, France and Russia should be banned. They had billion dollar contracts with Sadam to exploit the oil field, those contracts could only come in effect with lifted sanctions which they fought for. They (France and Russia) wanted to avoid the war because they wanted oil regardless of how many Iraqi have to die from Sadam's regime.

As far as free trade is concerned, I don't see how disallowing Socialist countries like Russian and France from working there contradicts free trade. Which is also why you can ban some French/Russian companies since they are state-run.

[Otther]

Grrr. Bush should have limited the bidders to American countrys or not at all. He should at least be honest about why he is doing this.

Were I an US tax payer, I would appreciate my money being given to the companies which seem most fit to the task regardless of their country of origin.
But the average US taxpayer would probably prefer to have as many of the contracts as possible go to companys that will help our economy, no?

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by Grammatron
Socialist countries like Russian and France (snip) French/Russian companies since they are state-run.Bwahahahahaha... Wahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah... With all due respect Grammatron, but... Bwgahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha ha
... without kidding now...
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahaha... :D

I'm sorry I can't keep a straight face when someone shows such little understanding of what goes on in other countries. :D :D

:D

... Socialist countries like Russia and France... Hahahaha... :D Socialist countries... Man, you crack me up! 'State run' Pffffft :D :D

So if France and Russia are 'socialist' :D what about Germany? What about German companies? Or is Germany socialist as well?

Is Chrysler now run by a socialist state? :D :D

And all those other 'socialist states' that are in the coalition of the Willing?

[Ion]

Originally posted by Grammatron

...
They (France and Russia) wanted to avoid the war because they wanted oil regardless of how many Iraqi have to die from Sadam's regime.
...

Well, Bush's U.S. (including Gramma) wanted the war because Bush wants oil regardless of how many Iraqi have to die from Bush's desire.

Which is worse than the actions of France, Germany and Russia.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Bwahahahahaha... Wahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah... With all due respect Grammatron, but... Bwgahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha ha
... without kidding now...
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahaha... :D

I'm sorry I can't keep a straight face when someone shows such little understanding of what goes on in other countries. :D :D

:D

... Socialist countries like Russia and France... Hahahaha... :D Socialist countries... Man, you crack me up! 'State run' Pffffft :D :D

So if France and Russia are 'socialist' :D what about Germany? What about German companies? Or is Germany socialist as well?

Is Chrysler now run by a socialist state?

And all those other 'socialist states' that are in the coalition of the Willing?

No, France and Russia are bastions of capitalism :rolleyes:

[ZeeGerman]

Originally posted by Otther
Grrr. Bush should have limited the bidders to American countrys or not at all. He should at least be honest about why he is doing this.


But the average US taxpayer would probably prefer to have as many of the contracts as possible go to companys that will help our economy, no?

You are right of course. I'm not really concerned about the business thing but about the blunt way it is delivered. Heck, if they only wanted to protect US economy's interests, there might have been more subtle ways. So why this affront?

What's the TV echo about this in the US, how do they deliver it to the average guy?

Zee

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Ion

Well, Bush's U.S. (including Gramma) wanted the war because Bush wanted oil regardless of how many Iraqi have to die from Bush' desires.

Which is worse than the actions of France, Germany and Russia.

OMG you are so right. And by right I mean you are the most retarded person on this forum who doesn't know what fact or truth are. Keep it up though, I'm sure the conspiracy theory industry relies on people like you for their livelihood.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Grammatron

...
And by right I mean you are the most retarded person on this forum...
More retarded than you?

That cannot be!

I guess is part of your limitation not seeing it.

Do you mange to see two meters straight in front of you?

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by Grammatron
No, France and Russia are bastions of capitalism :rolleyes: Without kidding now: last time I checked they were, actually.

Do you have any evidence of a revolution that I may have missed?

[ZeeGerman]

Originally posted by Grammatron


No, France and Russia are bastions of capitalism :rolleyes:

Well, I checked to make sure that the term socialist means the same in US English and the e.g. german understanding. According to Webster's it is. So concerning France you are simply wrong.

Again, it's not about the money. 18 billions? Compared to the amount of money that is going to have to be spent in Iraq to build the shiny example of a model nation? - It's a joke.

Zee

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Without kidding now: last time I checked they were, actually.

Do you have any evidence of a revolution that I may have missed?

Well when an oil company and some other major industries are run by the state(France), I count them as socialist. And Mr. Webster seems to have that definition as well: 1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.

[Luke T.]

Some people don't have an online NYT account. So here are the first few paragraphs from the story linked in the opening post for anyone who might want to catch up.


The Pentagon has barred French, German and Russian companies from competing for $18.6 billion in contracts for the reconstruction of Iraq, saying it was acting to protect "the essential security interests of the United States."

The directive, issued Friday by Paul D. Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary, represents the most substantive retaliation to date by the Bush administration against American allies who opposed its decision to go to war in Iraq.

The administration had warned before the war that countries that did not join in an American-led coalition would not have a voice in decisions about the rebuilding of Iraq. But it had not previously made clear that companies in those countries would be excluded from competing for a share in the money for Iraq's reconstruction that the United States approved last month.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Grammatron

No, France and Russia are bastions of capitalism :rolleyes:

Don't let facts confuse. If an American defines France as socialist, obviously it is socialist. Please remember, the purpose of words is to provide steroetypical labels which can justify our actions. We certainly don't want to facilitate communication of ideas between individuals by finding a common ground.

[Charlie Monoxide]

It really doesn't matter how many countries are banned or allowed to bid. The Republic of Halliburton and it's duchies will probably win most of the bids anyhow.

Charlie (all hail King Cheney) Monoxide

[Ion]

Gramma,

I look into your 'cynical' statement "...No, France and Russia are bastions of capitalism..." and I must ask you:

is this discussion too much for your capabilities?

[Ion]

Originally posted by Grammatron

Well when an oil company and some other major industries are run by the state(France), I count them as socialist.
...

You do?

Have you looked into the French high-tech?

Do you think that Materiel Pour l'Informatique -where I used to work- and the likes, making the biggest part of the French Gross Product, they are run by the state?

Do you even know what's the French life like?

[DrChinese]

This list - the countries that CAN bid - represents the most important part of Bush's drive for a New American Century (a la PNAC). In other words, the US is powerful and rewards it's allies and penalizes those who speak against us.

Just what you would expect from a democracy trying to set the standards for the rest of the world to follow. Not! In the US, the loser in a open debate is to be accorded respect, not ridiculed and punished. Bush's behavior is boorish.

[Zep]

OK, Gramma. Is Australia a "socialist" country too? Have a think about your criteria for saying this is so...

BTW, Australia was one of the three Coalition of the Willing partners to actually send troops to Iraq, if you recall. But do you think any Australian companies will get even a look at the paper on which the bids for projects in Iraq is written, let alone a shot at bidding? Huh! Not Pygmalion likely! Makes you wonder if it is worthwhile us even being associated with such an ignorant and high-handed US government.

One more thing: Since when does the US government get to make critical economic decisions for ANOTHER SOVERIGN COUNTRY so blatently? What would be the reaction in, say, the UK if such decisions were made in Washington. Hey, no, wait. Question retracted. They already are, aren't they...

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Zep
OK, Gramma. Is Australia a "socialist" country too? Have a think about your criteria for saying this is so...

BTW, Australia was one of the three Coalition of the Willing partners to actually send troops to Iraq, if you recall. But do you think any Australian companies will get even a look at the paper on which the bids for projects in Iraq is written, let alone a shot at bidding? Huh! Not Pygmalion likely! Makes you wonder if it is worthwhile us even being associated with such an ignorant and high-handed US government.

One more thing: Since when does the US government get to make critical economic decisions for ANOTHER SOVERIGN COUNTRY so blatently? What would be the reaction in, say, the UK if such decisions were made in Washington. Hey, no, wait. Question retracted. They are, aren't they...

Ze, you'd be the first to shout "puppet government!" if the Iraqi councel would say this. So the point of US making this decision is kind of moot.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Ze, you'd be the first to shout "puppet government!" if the Iraqi councel would say this. So the point of US making this decision is kind of moot.
That's it?

You get a beating and ridiculed in many, many posts here, and that's it, zero defense?

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Ze, you'd be the first to shout "puppet government!" if the Iraqi councel would say this. So the point of US making this decision is kind of moot.

A puppet government making a decision on behalf of the Iraqi people is not ideal (in fact, it's lousy), but it's still better than a foreign country making decisions on behalf of the people. Basically, your answer looks like a dodge.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Zep
One more thing: Since when does the US government get to make critical economic decisions for ANOTHER SOVERIGN COUNTRY so blatently?

Since Bush has already thrown away the most important principle in international relations by overthrowing a foreign government, this is merely a walk in the park by comparison.

It will take many years for the US to earn back the respect of the rest of the world. Even our "allies" - I am thinking of some of the Eastern Europeans now - are with us because it is in their best interest to do so. And certainly not because of respect for our position.

We can regain this respect, much as we eventually did after our misguided fiasco in Vietnam.

[Tmy]

BAH!!! As if we re gonna allow a US hostile govt. Dance puppet, dance.

It wont be so bad. AFter all here in the states we have a puppet public. MUST VOTE DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN.....PRETEND THAT THEY ARE ANY DIFFERENT.

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by Grammatron
Well when an oil company and some other major industries are run by the state(France), I count them as socialist.So any country (http://www.dot.gov) that still has a few remnants of Keynesian economics (http://www.energy.gov/engine/content.do) is essentially a 'socialist country' ? Interesting. What country in the world is not socialist in your mind?1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.According to that definition, France is definitely not socialist. Neither is Russia.

[crackmonkey]

I think companies from the the 'no blood for oil' countries should be allowed - hell, encouraged - to be hypocrites and throw their hats in the ring. They or their countries should of course pay the entry fee of $20 billion or so, just like the rest of the companies being considered. Military and/or reconstructive help could waive this fee.
I'm curious why some Europeans here at the board suddenly feel that penalizing companies for a country's actions (even if not totally owned by said country) is unfair or illogical; did you folks have the same reaction to the proposed EU trade penalties against 'US' products?

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
I think companies from the the 'no blood for oil' countries should be allowed - hell, encouraged - to be hypocrites and throw their hats in the ring. They or their countries should of course pay the entry fee of $20 billion or so, just like the rest of the companies being considered. Military and/or reconstructive help could waive this fee.
I'm curious why some Europeans here at the board suddenly feel that penalizing companies for a country's actions (even if not totally owned by said country) is unfair or illogical; did you folks have the same reaction to the proposed EU trade penalties against 'US' products?

That was in reaction to illegal steel tariffs that were hurting European economies.

[shuize]

I don't know what all the fuss is about. Of course the "no blood for oil" crowd can bid on the contracts.

The pentagon is just being considerate enough to let them know in advance that they just won't be winning any of them.

Oh, wait. You mean the French, German and Russians want to profit off this so-called illegal venture? I don't know for certain, I'm just an ignorant American who needs the Europeans to tell how to live and think, but some might say that smacks of hypocrisy.

[American]

"Aww come on, let us play!"

:roll:


What's it like being a liberal? Try pouting your entire life, and act surprized when you lose potential contracts you absolutely don't deserve in any manner.

[Luke T.]

Some of the other media outlets are reporting that Canada is also on the list of countries excluded from the bidding. I wonder why the NYT left that out?

I do not understand why Canada is being left out. France, Germany and Russia I can see. Not necessarily agree with, but I can see. But Canada?

[Ion]

Originally posted by shuize

...
I don't know for certain, I'm just an ignorant American who needs the Europeans to tell how to live and think, but some might say that smacks of hypocrisy.
I am an European, and indeed shuizy I tell you "...how to live and think..." while you make sure not to "...say that smacks of hipocrisy...":

.) the best bidders in Iraq, no matter their origin of brownnosing to Bush's 'oil for blood' or not brownnosing to Bush's 'oil for blood', are for the sake of Iraq;

.) not for the sake of Bush's 'oil for blood'.

Remember the hipocrite 'liberation' of Iraq for the 'best interests' of Iraq?

Bush did pretend to say it.

But he doesn't do it now, does he?

So, that's why shoizy I teach you "...how to live and think...".

[peptoabysmal]

Little Red Hen is just telling the other animals on the farm that they can't eat the bread if they didn't help grind the wheat. What's wrong with that?

[Ion]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
... What's wrong with that?
Bush.

When forbidding bidding by companies of better quality than the ones from U.S., in spite of the 'best interests of Iraq' that he pretends to endorse.

The 'best interests of Iraq' are in reality the 'best interests of blood for oil', according to Bush and fans.

[ZeeGerman]

As it turns out, it was plain stupidity and lousy management (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/11/international/middleeast/11PREX.html)


White House officials were fuming about the timing and the tone of the Pentagon's directive, even while conceding that they had approved the Pentagon policy of limiting contracts to 63 countries that have given the United States political or military aid in Iraq.

...

"I can't imagine that if you are asking to do stuff for Iraq that this is going to help," a senior State Department official said late Wednesday.

A senior administration official described Mr. Bush as "distinctly unhappy" about dealing with foreign leaders who had just learned of their exclusion from the contracts.



I can't wait to see how the back-paddling will look like.

Zee

[Ion]

Was ist das, Zee?
Originally posted by ZeeGerman
As it turns out, it was plain stupidity and lousy management (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/11/international/middleeast/11PREX.html)

I can't wait to see how the back-paddling will look like.

Zee
Hidden agenda stupidly revealed too early, and back pedaling now...

What is ridiculous also, is to see fans of Bush (style Gramma) who were brownnosing in this thread up until now to this stupidity:

.) do you think that they are going to back pedal now in unison with the official back pedaling by Bush?

.) I bet they will.

Because they are automatons blindly following in unison Bush's idiocy.

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by American
Try pouting your entire life, and act surprized when you lose potential contracts you absolutely don't deserve in any manner. Repeat after me: free market companies losing contracts because of what their governments did!Originally posted by Luke T.
I do not understand why Canada is being left out. France, Germany and Russia I can see. Not necessarily agree with, but I can see. But Canada?It's because Canada is a socialist country! :DOriginally posted by a senior administration official
... Mr. Bush as "distinctly unhappy" about dealing with foreign leaders who had just learned of their exclusion from the contracts.So even Bush thought it was a stupid thing to do? Thanks George, you are my hero for the day! (But just today y'hear?)

[Otther]

One more thing: Since when does the US government get to make critical economic decisions for ANOTHER SOVERIGN COUNTRY so blatently? Wait... who is paying for the rebuilding? Us obviously, and we should since we screwed the place up. I don't see the US telling any other country what to do with it's money, just it taking an opportunity to help it's own goverment while thumbing off some other countrys, inotherwords a typical bush move. But there isn't anything terribley wrong with this because it's our money.

There is NOTHING wrong with a democracy watching it's own back first and formost. ALL countrys have national interests, and it is the goverment's duty to see to them.

[bjornart]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Some of the other media outlets are reporting that Canada is also on the list of countries excluded from the bidding. I wonder why the NYT left that out?

I do not understand why Canada is being left out. France, Germany and Russia I can see. Not necessarily agree with, but I can see. But Canada?

Canada has only contributed money. If they'd just send a token group of uniformed engineers they'd be on Bush's reward list, just like us Norwegians.

As more facts are revealed this looks stupider and stupider. This list applies to a specific set of funds, and the alleged purpose, beside some woolly "national security thing" is to encourage other countries to join the US coalition. Companies based in countries not on the list (and as others have pointed out, lots of previously american companies are run by German and French owners.) can bid on contracts paid for by the funds contributed by countries other than the US, and they can be sub-contractors for bids made by companies on the "good" list.

This list has very little real effect except
a) pleasing those who want as much money as possible to flow back into the US economy, and who are too blind to see it's a drop in the ocean.
b) pissing off those countries who the US is soliciting for money and who were somewhat placated by the "let's look to the future not to the past"

Very few European companies are interested in bidding in Iraq anyway, because they can't afford having their employees shot. A South Korean company just withdrew 60 employees working on restoring power lines after two of their engineers were shot.

[shuize]

Let me guess. France, Germany and Russia were just about to send troops to Iraq and this is what prevented them from doing so, right?

Yeah. Sure.

Let me see if I've got this straight. American soldiers die removing Saddam from power while the same Europeans sit back bad-mouthing the whole campaign and refuse to contribute any assistance. But now those same countries are pissed off that they might not get first bite to profit in the rebuilding.

Go vandalize some more allied war memorials, Hypocrites.

[Flo]

Originally posted by shuize

Let me see if I've got this straight. American soldiers die removing Saddam from power while ... blah,blah, blah


Superpowers act out of self-interest, not morality (http://www.monbiot.com/dsp_article.cfm?article_id=624)

I do believe that there was a moral case for deposing Saddam Hussein, who was one of the world's most revolting tyrants, by violent means. I also believe that there was a moral case for not doing so, and that this case was the stronger. That Saddam is no longer president of Iraq is, without question, a good thing. But against this we must weigh the killing or mutilation of thousands of people; the possibility of civil war in Iraq; the anger and resentment the invasion has generated throughout the Muslim world and the creation, as a result, of a more hospitable environment in which terrorists can operate; the reassertion of imperial power; and the vitiation of international law. It seems to me that these costs outweigh the undoubted benefit.


But the key point, overlooked by all those who have made the moral case for war, is this: that a moral case is not the same as a moral reason. Whatever the argument for toppling Saddam Hussein on humanitarian grounds may have been, this is not why Bush and Blair went to war.

...

But in debating the war, those of us who opposed it find ourselves drawn into this fairytale. We are obliged to argue about the relative moral merits of leaving Saddam in place or deposing him, while we know, though we are seldom brave enough to say it, that the moral issue is a distraction. The genius of the hawks has been to oblige us to accept a fiction as the reference point for debate.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Some of the other media outlets are reporting that Canada is also on the list of countries excluded from the bidding. I wonder why the NYT left that out?

I do not understand why Canada is being left out. France, Germany and Russia I can see. Not necessarily agree with, but I can see. But Canada? Don't fret it. Australia will get left out too, even though we joined in the Iraqi fracas with men and guns too.

The reality is that NO-ONE but Halliburton, "friends of Halliburton," or The Shrub's political payback buddies will get even a look in edgewise. I, Zep, the great predictor (with a current predicting accuracy of more than 20% - watch out JREF million!) have spoken! :)

[ZeeGerman]

Originally posted by shuize
Let me guess. France, Germany and Russia were just about to send troops to Iraq and this is what prevented them from doing so, right?

Yeah. Sure.

Let me see if I've got this straight. American soldiers die removing Saddam from power while the same Europeans sit back bad-mouthing the whole campaign and refuse to contribute any assistance. But now those same countries are pissed off that they might not get first bite to profit in the rebuilding.

Go vandalize some more allied war memorials, Hypocrites.

Interesting strategy Shuize. Instead of discussing the actual topic, namely the apparent diplomatic clumsiness of the US adminitration, you resort to
a) bad guessing
b) trying to get something straight by bending reality
c) tasteless insults

Try again.

Zee

[crackmonkey]

You Europeans are just shaking your pudgy, pallid fists over this, aren't you?
Companies are routinely punished for the misdeeds of their countries (tarriffs, duties, sanctions).
If Germany et al. were truly concerned about the Iraqi people, they should cancel the debt owed by Iraq. It'll never happen, of course...

[Mr Manifesto]

I'm just wondering if someone's trying to start the cold war with the Russians again.

First, IIRC (and I could be mistaken), the Americans say that, since the oil deals between Iraq and Russia were made under Saddam's regime, they are no longer valid.

Then, Russia isn't allowed a look-in to the rebuild contracts.

Now, they're expanding into Eastern Europe (http://www.spacewar.com/2003/031210161939.7zrz9nt7.html) and trying to placate Russia by saying, "Nothing personal, pal."

Yeah, mate, no worries... Go for your life.

I hope Russia's nukes are as outdated as Saddam's WMD's were.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by ZeeGerman
Pentagon Bars Three Nations From Iraq Bids (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/10/international/middleeast/10DIPL.html?hp)

Just the right way to gain international support, isn't it?

Zee

Zee,

Have you ever heard the story of "The Little Ren Hen"?Little Red Hen (http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0899193498/ref=sib_dp_pt/002-0368823-4120008#reader-page)

"Who will help topple the tyrant?"
"NOT I" said the Germans,
"NOT I" said the French,

Well guess what Zee? You and all those from all those countries who shed not a drop of blood, nor even risked doing so are NOT ENTITLED to share in the rebuilding.

Also, the coalition is not barring the French or Germans, etc...from participating militarily. The coalition is still open...so it's not even too late to send troops and help out now. But you don't get something for nothing.

That's the moral of the little red hen. A concept of fair play that every 5 year old can grasp. Makes one wonder how you FrenchGermanRussian's were raised.

-z

[Thanz]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Zee,

Have you ever heard the story of "The Little Ren Hen"?Little Red Hen (http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0899193498/ref=sib_dp_pt/002-0368823-4120008#reader-page)

"Who will help topple the tyrant?"
"NOT I" said the Germans,
"NOT I" said the French,

Well guess what Zee? You and all those from all those countries who shed not a drop of blood, nor even risked doing so are NOT ENTITLED to share in the rebuilding.

Also, the coalition is not barring the French or Germans, etc...from participating militarily. The coalition is still open...so it's not even too late to send troops and help out now. But you don't get something for nothing.

That's the moral of the little red hen. A concept of fair play that every 5 year old can grasp. Makes one wonder how you FrenchGermanRussian's were raised.


Actually, isn't it less "Little Red Hen" and more "To the victor go the spoils"?

Oh, wait, I forgot - this wasn't an invasion of conquest. It was because Saddam had all those WMD aimed at the USA. Except he didn't actually have them. So, in nice revisionist fashion, it was all about the liberation of the Iraqi people. Sure.

Face it - no matter how you want to spin it, the USA conquered Iraq and is now dividing up the booty.

[Tmy]

I have to admit that this does make the US look bad. We get the whole "free Iraq from Saddam" and "for the benefit of the Iraqi people" propagada lines from the Whitehouse all the time. Now it turns into the spoils of war???

How does cutting out contractors from these countries help the Iraqi people. Isnt this going to be paid for with their oil money?

We have a bad reputation in the mid east of being imperialists. Bush is not helping wh that.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by bjornart


Canada has only contributed money. If they'd just send a token group of uniformed engineers they'd be on Bush's reward list, just like us Norwegians.



Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Canda (and Germany, for that matter) has sent troops to Afghanistan to help us out there. If this is all one big war on terror, what's the damned difference?

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Luke T.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Canda (and Germany, for that matter) has sent troops to Afghanistan to help us out there. If this is all one big war on terror, what's the damned difference?

I believe the Canadian Prime Minister has said as much. I assume this is some sort of oversight that will be corrected. Either that, or all the reconstruction contracts have been earmarked already and there simply isn't room for other bidders.

Nah...

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Thanz


Face it - no matter how you want to spin it, the USA conquered Iraq and is now dividing up the booty.

Er, do you have a better idea?

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Thanz

Actually, isn't it less "Little Red Hen" and more "To the victor go the spoils"?

Oh, wait, I forgot - this wasn't an invasion of conquest. It was because Saddam had all those WMD aimed at the USA. Except he didn't actually have them. So, in nice revisionist fashion, it was all about the liberation of the Iraqi people. Sure.

Face it - no matter how you want to spin it, the USA conquered Iraq and is now dividing up the booty.


What booty?
If there's so much treasure over there, then why is the US spending 87 BILLION $ on rebuilding Iraq?? Shouldn't we just be over there setting up a defensive perimeter around the oil fields, pumping them dry, and hauling ass?

The contracts in question are a direct result of much of that 87 Billion. That's our money...guess what? We can, and will say how we're going to spend it.

The fact that these people even have the gall to complain about this is incredible. They have risked nothing. The "Little Red Hen" indeed!

-z

[Chaos]

Originally posted by Luke T.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Canda (and Germany, for that matter) has sent troops to Afghanistan to help us out there. If this is all one big war on terror, what's the damned difference?

Indeed. Germany has stationed a special forces unit (KSK - Kommando Spezial-Kräfte) in Afghanistan, as well as some support (medical/logistics) personnel. I don´t know the exact numbers, but I think it was about a thousand men.

But I guess this doesn´t count, since the supporters of the "war on terrorism" don´t give a f*cking damn any more about Afghanistan.

[KelvinG]

As a Canadian, I was proud when our government decided not to parcipate in the coalition attack on Iraq without approval of the UN. In hindsight, the decision seems even more correct since the US has since been forced to eat some crow over their silly and deception claims about WMDs.

Now that it turns out the US was wrong and the dissenting countries were right it doesn't surprise me that they are behaving the the way they are by prohibiting non-coalition countries from getting a piece of the Iraq pie. It's called "sour grapes." The US hates being proved wrong so they are now punishing other countries who have been proven right.

And that's perfectly fine with me. I believe we did the right thing and if the US wants to take their ball home and only play with their friends then so be it. I remain proud of our decision.
We were right, the US was wrong.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
Little Red Hen is just telling the other animals on the farm that they can't eat the bread if they didn't help grind the wheat. What's wrong with that?

We have the right, as the victor, to award contracts to our buddy nations.

Bush also awards US govt. contracts to his buddy Republican donors. What's the diffference? Just another day at the big business pork barrel.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by KelvinG
As a Canadian, I was proud when our government decided not to parcipate in the coalition attack on Iraq without approval of the UN. In hindsight, the decision seems even more correct since the US has since been forced to eat some crow over their silly and deception claims about WMDs.

Now that it turns out the US was wrong and the dissenting countries were right it doesn't surprise me that they are behaving the the way they are by prohibiting non-coalition countries from getting a piece of the Iraq pie. It's called "sour grapes." The US hates being proved wrong so they are now punishing other countries who have been proven right.

And that's perfectly fine with me. I believe we did the right thing and if the US wants to take their ball home and only play with their friends then so be it. I remain proud of our decision.
We were right, the US was wrong.

Sour grapes? Iraqi pie? That's our $87 Billion going to rebuild Iraq, and if one red cent goes to a company from a nation who was too "good" or self-righteous to put their own troops in harm's way then it's simply wrong.

Most of the people I know from Canada do at least know right from wrong. The US and UK took the risk,..whether we were right or wrong about WMD, etc....the hard decision to go in was taken. We took responsibility, which is what a world leader must regularly do. It's easy for a nation like Canada (which is smaller in population than California) to exist quietly in the shadow of a nation like the US. You don't have to worry about taking world shaking decisions...you can just sit up there and be self righteously impotent. Great gig. You did the right thing? You didn't DO anything. :rolleyes:

-z

[Thanz]

Originally posted by rikzilla

Sour grapes? Iraqi pie? That's our $87 Billion going to rebuild Iraq, and if one red cent goes to a company from a nation who was too "good" or self-righteous to put their own troops in harm's way then it's simply wrong.
Who reduced the damn country to rubble in the first place, and lied about the reasons for doing so?

Most of the people I know from Canada do at least know right from wrong. The US and UK took the risk,..whether we were right or wrong about WMD, etc....the hard decision to go in was taken. We took responsibility, which is what a world leader must regularly do. It's easy for a nation like Canada (which is smaller in population than California) to exist quietly in the shadow of a nation like the US. You don't have to worry about taking world shaking decisions...you can just sit up there and be self righteously impotent. Great gig. You did the right thing? You didn't DO anything.
Just because you did something doesn't mean you did the RIGHT thing. It would have been easier for Canada to just toe the US line, given how interlinked our economies are. Instead, we took a stand on what we thought was right. You don't invade other countries, no matter how much you disagree with their regime, if they are no threat to you. You guys are like a schoolyard bully who knocks down a little kid with a big mouth because you can't find the one that actually hit you in the eye with his sling shot.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Thanz

Who reduced the damn country to rubble in the first place, and lied about the reasons for doing so?

Easy, Saddam did. He invaded Kuwait...he sowed, he reaped.


Just because you did something doesn't mean you did the RIGHT thing. It would have been easier for Canada to just toe the US line, given how interlinked our economies are. Instead, we took a stand on what we thought was right. You don't invade other countries, no matter how much you disagree with their regime, if they are no threat to you. You guys are like a schoolyard bully who knocks down a little kid with a big mouth because you can't find the one that actually hit you in the eye with his sling shot.

I doubt it, Canada would have had to go send troops, some of which would surely have come home in a box. Then they'd have had to spend money to go along with it. Then there's the protester/vandalists they'd have had to deal with. Nope, not easy at all.

You guys took no stand,...you just stayed out of the fray. I can't say I blame you,..but I do think it's rash of you to try and stick in your oar over the rebuilding contracts. If your country is so principled, then why are you crying about being left out of the rebuilding? Stand on your principles! Refuse to have ANYTHING to do with Iraq. It was a good enough position for Canada during the invasion, why not be consistent? You are trying to have the cake and stuff your mouth with it too my friend. Take off, hoser!

-z

[Tmy]

Saddam has been out of Kuwait for over a decade. Are they the worlds punching bag forever now???

This is a dumb policy. It makes us look bad, its another PR nightmare, and its not in the best interest if the Iraqis. Isnt that what our motives should be? What it IS???? We may be frontingthe 80 billion now, but you know its gonna come back to us in Iraqi oil.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Tmy
Saddam has been out of Kuwait for over a decade. Are they the worlds punching bag forever now???

This is a dumb policy. It makes us look bad, its another PR nightmare, and its not in the best interest if the Iraqis. Isnt that what our motives should be? What it IS???? We may be frontingthe 80 billion now, but you know its gonna come back to us in Iraqi oil.

Not forever, just till Saddam was ousted. Of course if left to the liberals of the world, yes...the sanctions, UNSCOM inspections, no-fly zones, Iraqi's being murdered by Saddam would indeed have lasted forever.

Do let me know when that 87B comes back in Iraqi oil...I'll believe it when I see it. In the meantime, lucrative contracts for rebuilding Iraq are restricted to coalition member nations.

YOU GO POLAND!!! :D

-z

[rikzilla]

Oh BTW,

If all of you pissed off German/Canadian/Russian/Frenchie types were smart you'd all start opening front companies in Poland.

:big: :dl:

[Troll]

Originally posted by Thanz

Who reduced the damn country to rubble in the first place, and lied about the reasons for doing so?

[B]
Just because you did something doesn't mean you did the RIGHT thing. It would have been easier for Canada to just toe the US line, given how interlinked our economies are. Instead, we took a stand on what we thought was right. You don't invade other countries, no matter how much you disagree with their regime, if they are no threat to you. You guys are like a schoolyard bully who knocks down a little kid with a big mouth because you can't find the one that actually hit you in the eye with his sling shot.

Right thing or wrong thing it was our thing. Why should I get a cut of your haul if you rob a bank and I stayed at home telling you you shouldn't? Why should I get part of your paycheck because you got a job I didn't want you to have and are making good money? There's your right and wrong examples and in both examples I've got no justification to partake in the spoils or the rewards.

As for the rash "bully" comment, when was the last time a bully knocked you down, tearing your clothes, then picked you back up and tried to sew your ripped clothes for you? Because that's what's going on at this stage, rebuilding.

As for bigmouthed kids and kids with slingshots, Afghanistan and the Taliban siding with Al-Queda hit us with the slingshot and we knocked them down. we felt Iraq was playing to friendly with the guys we hate on the playground so we knocked them down too. Now we got some friends being "bigmouthed" and complaining about everything we do and we're nowhere near knocking them down. In fact it's just the opposite for the Canadians and I'm sure more calls are being made or will be made to a few others as well. (http://www.forbes.com/technology/newswire/2003/12/11/rtr1177891.html)

[ceo_esq]

Is there some PR value within Iraq to (at least symbolically) excluding the French, Germans and Russians? It's reasonable to assume that the Iraqis might take offense at a large reconstruction role being accorded to the same countries that worked so hard to keep them in chains.

[TillEulenspiegel]

Ok I think George Bush is a freaking idiot. I'm not sure we have a democracy anymore it looks more and more every day like an Oligarcy. I disagreed with going to war.

If we consider the realpolitik of the situation that lead to our allies Germany, France and Russia not going to war the reasons are clearer than any claim of humanitarian concern that any of those countries raised.

Russia, with billions of dollars owed it from Iraq and the prospect of billions more in contracts for the oil and power industries Russa would ( and did ) lose a LOT of hard currency, the one thing it needs most as a fledgling democracy.

Germany, Gerhard Schröder had an increasingly dim future for both his government and his party and with regional elections imminent he had to adhere to the popular will to assure personal and policy longevity. To get a grasp of the back ground see the link , thier politics make the Machiavellian plots of the Borgas' look like the pecking order of a 5th grade girls club.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/jul2001/germ-j27.shtml

AND then there's Phrance, Ahh the Phrench, the inventors of diplomacy and the force frappe', still ripe with illusions of goepolitical relevance, which they have a second, no third, no , heck I lost count..have a shot at again because the EU is now a reality. Thus shall Pffrance take her rightful station as leader of a coalition of nations larger then the United States...blablabla. The duplicitous self serving Phrench. Skeptic and I have a pretty divergent opinion about most things politic but his quote "But I guess you're right: the USA will have to fight its future wars without the support of France... which is a bit like having to go hunt deer without your accordion." if I were just a creature of politics would deserve signature status.

There is one more thing I agree with him on. Before the stupid , uncalled for war started, I posted that those who did not take part should be excluded from any effort to rebuild after the fighting. I invoked ( for the mentally challenged ) the fable of the little red hen , the one who asked for help at all stages of baking a loaf of bread and was refused, but when the task was accomplished all sought to avail themselves, and the hen said " kiss my ass".

Act like children someone said? You must realize that political choices that a democracy has the luxury of making has consequences political, monetary or others. The fact that those respective countries chose to exclude themselves from a rushed war is thier right, but now after billions of American dollars and countless American and other lives you whine about not being cut into a deal financed by the American people? Act like children? See the hen's response above.

One more thing , someone mentioned the socialist tendency's of the P-french and a responder said show me the revolution, when did it happen? It happens every time pensions are lowered or the benefits are cut or government subsidies to pharmers are cut and the Paris streets glistening with urine are crowded with cretins with hoes and hogs blocking traffic until the government aquiesces. Acting like children you say?

[Tmy]

This type of behaivor is illegal and offensive within the US.

IS Bushs next plan to give domestic govt contracts only to companies that donated to his campaine? Is the govt only going to hire registered republicans???

This is childish and it does not help the Iraqi people that we pretend to care about.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by rikzilla

Easy, Saddam did. He invaded Kuwait...he sowed, he reaped.
He invaded Kuwait 10 years ago. That is not what reduced Iraq to rubble. Nope, that was the USA in this war.

You guys took no stand,...you just stayed out of the fray.
BS. Canada tried to broker a deal at the UN level between the French side and the American side, and was rebuffed by both. But to say we took no stand is BS.
I can't say I blame you,..but I do think it's rash of you to try and stick in your oar over the rebuilding contracts. If your country is so principled, then why are you crying about being left out of the rebuilding? Stand on your principles! Refuse to have ANYTHING to do with Iraq. It was a good enough position for Canada during the invasion, why not be consistent? You are trying to have the cake and stuff your mouth with it too my friend. Take off, hoser!
If you truly don't understand that helping to reduce a country to rubble, destrying their infrastructure and leaving the populous without electricity or water is not the same as helping to rebuild that country and restore electricity and water I feel sorry for you.

[Tmy]

Bush is such an ass. His reasoning is that the US and our buddies literally put our lives on the line for Iraq. What a crock, most of those countries contributed nothing more than a thumbs up.

If he was going to be sincere he'd limit it to countries to contributed soilders or at least a little money.

[TillEulenspiegel]

Originally posted by Tmy
This type of behaivor is illegal and offensive within the US.

IS Bushs next plan to give domestic govt contracts only to companies that donated to his campaine? Is the govt only going to hire registered republicans???

This is childish and it does not help the Iraqi people that we pretend to care about.

Tmy comparing private employment in the US and the use of American tax dollers for aid with restrictions as a matter of US foreign policy are not comparable.

As to your second paragraph , It would'nt suprize me , I am NOT a Bush fan.

As for your characterization , I pretty much agree. My plan ( pre-war) was to let the Iraqi's themselves rebuild. What a concept huh? They have a stake in the sucessful rebuilding of thier own country, they make a living wage and thier loyalties would switch from party or tribe to country!! We would get the help of some third world countries ( say some African countries) which would stimulate thier economies ( migrants send monies home ) and prahaps would enable the reagions to stabilize thus instead of giving them food or aids drugs they could actually buy them!!..Wow who woulda thunk?

edit sp

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Thanz

He invaded Kuwait 10 years ago. That is not what reduced Iraq to rubble. Nope, that was the USA in this war.

[B]
BS. Canada tried to broker a deal at the UN level between the French side and the American side, and was rebuffed by both. But to say we took no stand is BS.
[B]
If you truly don't understand that helping to reduce a country to rubble, destrying their infrastructure and leaving the populous without electricity or water is not the same as helping to rebuild that country and restore electricity and water I feel sorry for you.

No,..you ARE sorry for you.

You look at Iraq and see rubble, I look at Iraq and see a free people trying to raise themselves up out of the rubble of Saddam's dictatorial regime. You can't bring yourself to admit the truth, that the Iraqi people are far better off in the post-war chaos than they ever were under the yoke of Saddam. Iraqis now have a reason to hope for a better life,..they have actual reasons to look forward to a better future.

When they get there, they're going to know who to thank, and it won't be Ottawa. You may be so PC as to celebrate your national cowardice as if it were a virtue...but I doubt any Iraqis would mistake it as such. Gee, what did those American draft dodgers do up in Canada during 'Nam anyway? Breed?

-z

[Tmy]

I have no problem giving US companies preference, (recycle some of our tax diollars) but Im offended by the banning of countries.

Shouldnt we have the lower bids win? Even if its a french company. Save on costs, its already expensive.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by rikzilla

You look at Iraq and see rubble, I look at Iraq and see a free people trying to raise themselves up out of the rubble of Saddam's dictatorial regime. You can't bring yourself to admit the truth, that the Iraqi people are far better off in the post-war chaos than they ever were under the yoke of Saddam. Iraqis now have a reason to hope for a better life,..they have actual reasons to look forward to a better future.
Come on, tell the truth. After composing this paragraph (which neatly avoids the actual issues involved, but is long on rhetoric) did you tear up and feel compelled to stand and sing a rousing rendition of God Bless America? What will you do if by a popular vote the Iraqi people decide to install a Muslim theocratic regime?

When they get there, they're going to know who to thank, and it won't be Ottawa. You may be so PC as to celebrate your national cowardice as if it were a virtue...but I doubt any Iraqis would mistake it as such. Gee, what did those American draft dodgers do up in Canada during 'Nam anyway? Breed?

National cowardice? How truly sad you are to think that the only possible reason for not engaging in a war against another sovereign nation is cowardice. Why aren't you invading North Korea? Chicken?

[Ion]

Originally posted by rikzilla

...
You look at Iraq and see rubble, I look at Iraq and see a free people trying to raise themselves up out of the rubble of Saddam's dictatorial regime.
...
-z
I look at rikzilla and I see a feeble American who brownnoses to Bush's 'oil for blood' in Iraq.

zilla,

how does it smell the brownnosing that you do?

You like it?

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Thanz


National cowardice? How truly sad you are to think that the only possible reason for not engaging in a war against another sovereign nation is cowardice. Why aren't you invading North Korea? Chicken?

Actually, the reason Canada didn't participate in the war is that the French minority (mostly in Quebec) disapproved of it, and there was a provincial election coming that the federal Liberals really wanted the provincial Liberals to win. (It should be noted that most opinion polls showed a majority of Canadians wanted Canada to side with the U.S.)

I doubt the government's decision had anything at all to do with what was 'right', but just what was politcally opportune at the time.

As for Canada's being shut out of contracts, I suspect that most people are smart enough to realize that the countries that took the risk in supporting the war should also be the ones that end up with any 'benefits' from reconstruction. Our soon-to-be Prime Minister Martin's complaints either mean that he's either trying to rally support, or he's a fool. (I'd believe either.)

[Zep]

Originally posted by rikzilla
...Canada would have had to go send troops... Then they'd have had to spend money to go along with it. Then there's the protester/vandalists they'd have had to deal with. Nope, not easy at all.

You guys took no stand,...you just stayed out of the fray. I can't say I blame you,..but I do think it's rash of you to try and stick in your oar over the rebuilding contracts. If your country is so principled, then why are you crying about being left out of the rebuilding? Stand on your principles! Refuse to have ANYTHING to do with Iraq. It was a good enough position for Canada during the invasion, why not be consistent? You are trying to have the cake and stuff your mouth with it too my friend. ...

-z Hey, Rik. The Australian government DID send soldiers and sailors and airmen and equipment to Iraq and DID spend money to do it and DID ignore public outcry over such a commitment. But will WE get a slice of the spoils from Iraq? In a pigs eye we will! Just watch, buddy, just watch. It's ALL earmarked for Halliburton and "friends." Has been for years.

[TillEulenspiegel]

Originally posted by Tmy
I have no problem giving US companies preference, (recycle some of our tax diollars) but Im offended by the banning of countries.

Shouldnt we have the lower bids win? Even if its a french company. Save on costs, its already expensive.

Damn if politics makes strange bedfellows it HAS to be exemplified by me endorsing a Bush policy.

The fact is that the administration reads like a who's who of ex-employees, board members,consultants of Haliburton and Bechtel Et.Al. They ought to hang a sign at 1600 Pennsylvaynia Ave. " Bush Inc." I think the line that separates some of the conduct of this administration is so close to the line of criminal ( not BJ's and thier subsequent denial but real abuse of power and station ) it screams for an IP to look into. Like the war however , which was planed years in advance in not strategically then at least as a political outlook, the excesses of the chosen few will dominate.

I , recognizing that we WILL be screwed ( $100,00 sheets of plywood, $5.00Gal gasoline IN IRAQ!! ) would prefer that it happens only once and excludes the bottom feeders who sought and now have lost thier own enrichment via omission.


Segnosaur BTW seems to have it right , altho I still have more of a problem excluding Canada then the three others., but as I said democratically derived positions have real world consequences.

[Zep]

Troll: As for the rash "bully" comment, when was the last time a bully knocked you down, tearing your clothes, then picked you back up and tried to sew your ripped clothes for you? Because that's what's going on at this stage, rebuilding. Er, nope. That would actually be the bully knocking you down and tearing your clothes off, then offering to sell you your clothes back only if you promise him and his goons all your lunch money forever.

Get it straight: The Shrub is NOT interested in humanitarian aid in Iraq or Afghanistan in any way. If he was, he wouldn't have started a shooting war there in the first place. The $87B is an investment that he fully expects to pay back in much higher coin in the not too distant future.

[Thanz]

There appears to be some movement on the Canada front:

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2003/12/11/284230-cp.html

[Zep]

Originally posted by Tmy
If he [Bush] was going to be sincere he'd limit it to countries to contributed soilders or at least a little money. Hi, you are talking about us here down under in the Great Southern Land! And he won't, by the way, he won't. We are not even a blip on The Shrub's radar, let alone important enough to consider cutting in on any of his investments in "the new free Iraq."

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Thanz
There appears to be some movement on the Canada front:

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2003/12/11/284230-cp.html

I find that very strange, considering Cretien has been claiming one of his greatest achievements was to keep Canada out of the war. (Ok, its one thing to disagree with the invasion, but its pretty pathetic if one of your 'achievements' is to do nothing.)

[Tony]

Originally posted by Zep
Hi, you are talking about us here down under in the Great Southern Land! And he won't, by the way, he won't. We are not even a blip on The Shrub's radar, let alone important enough to consider cutting in on any of his investments in "the new free Iraq."


I know you have me on ignore, but how do you know this? Your opinion seems to be extremely prejudiced and unfounded.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Zep
Er, nope. That would actually be the bully knocking you down and tearing your clothes off, then offering to sell you your clothes back only if you promise him and his goons all your lunch money forever.

Get it straight: The Shrub is NOT interested in humanitarian aid in Iraq or Afghanistan in any way. If he was, he wouldn't have started a shooting war there in the first place. The $87B is an investment that he fully expects to pay back in much higher coin in the not too distant future.

Yeah we could have had just extended the long and uneventful "sanction war" with the UN. Loads of progress in that. I mean it's so much more helpful to people to just tell someone to stop killing them than it is to actually make the person stop doing it. So much for your "shooting war" theory.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Thanz

Come on, tell the truth. After composing this paragraph (which neatly avoids the actual issues involved, but is long on rhetoric) did you tear up and feel compelled to stand and sing a rousing rendition of God Bless America?

What if I did? Do I not have that right? Or is the freedom of speech only for trendy hipsters with zippos poised to torch the flag?


What will you do if by a popular vote the Iraqi people decide to install a Muslim theocratic regime?

Constitutional democracy is the system Thanz, and it is to be writ in stone. For example, if Pat Robertson was to win the presidency, then decide by presidential proclamation to set up a christian theocracy in the US, he would be prohibited from doing so. Therefore, if they do this right, the duly elected president or council of Iraq will be unable to modify certain aspects of their government because to do so would violate their constitution. Simple. So simple I shouldn't have to point it out.

Democracy is not a free for all...and it's not absolute. A few years ago the citizens of Colorado voted in a referendum to allow discrimination against gays in housing and jobs. The law was voted in overwhelmingly by the citizens....yet it was overturned due to it's unconstitutionality. But you should know this stuff.



National cowardice? How truly sad you are to think that the only possible reason for not engaging in a war against another sovereign nation is cowardice. Why aren't you invading North Korea? Chicken?

It's one possible reason isn't it? Tell you what, get your buddies in Ottawa to go after NK,....we'll watch you spend and bleed and die. Once you've got it under control though, we're gonna come looking for those lucrative rebuilding contracts,...ok?

-z

[rikzilla]

BTW, Segnosaur....

I've been goaded into a little Canada-bashing by Thanz. I'd like to take this opportunity to say that I know Canada to be a lovely place full of good people....you being one of them.

My Canada bashing in response to Thanz is not heartfelt, and is mostly tongue in cheek....please forgive. ;)

-z

[Ion]

Originally posted by Segnosaur


I find that very strange, considering Cretien has been claiming one of his greatest achievements was to keep Canada out of the war. (Ok, its one thing to disagree with the invasion, but its pretty pathetic if one of your 'achievements' is to do nothing.)
Once again, for your benefit, the Prime Minister of Canada who resides in your city, Ottawa, is Jean Chretien.

It is not Cretien, like you write in an illiterate way.

Also, learn how to speak one of the two official languages of Canada, French:

this is to counter your "...its pretty pathetic if one of your 'achievements' is to do nothing..." with my 'do something' Segnosaur to broaden your horizon and understand where you live.

Also, when visiting Vancouver -last time in September 2003- I saw a majority of Vancouverites opposing the war in Iraq.

Reading the Globe and Mail, told me that the same is happening across Canada.

I doubt that Canadian polls did show support for the war in Iraq.

[Luke T.]

I am wondering if Iraq was literally reduced to rubble by the U.S. I seem to recall that their country was falling apart long before the invasion. People squatting in the streets to defecate due to lack of plumbing, that sort of thing.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Troll


Yeah we could have had just extended the long and uneventful "sanction war" with the UN. Loads of progress in that.
...

Tell about the efficiency of the 'sanction war' to Bush Sr..

He did it in U.N., against Iraq.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by rikzilla
BTW, Segnosaur....

I've been goaded into a little Canada-bashing by Thanz. I'd like to take this opportunity to say that I know Canada to be a lovely place full of good people....you being one of them.

My Canada bashing in response to Thanz is not heartfelt, and is mostly tongue in cheek....please forgive. ;)

-z

My suggestion is Bash away.

At one point in my life, I was fairly patriotic. (I even kept a Canadian flag in my locker.) As of late, I've become increasingly disgusted by Canadian politics. Now, its very easy to say "Its because of the politicians", but you know what? Canadians keep voting for them!.

The biggest problem I have is the lack of thought that goes into people's decisions. So many people tend to almost make up reasons not to vote for parties other than the Liberals. Where's the rational thought people?

[Ion]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

...
Where's the rational thought people?
Not in your shoes:

as a war supporter you certainly have no rationality.

Same goes for you living in Canada, but not knowing how to speak French.

[Ion]

Also, for the brownnosers to 'oil for blood' in Iraq posting in this forum (i.e.: zilla, Segno, Gramma, crackmonkey, etc.) consider that the major part of the reconstruction money is a loan, not a grant.

While repayments have been suspended for eighteen months, this means that the loan part of the reconstruction bill is, in fact, money that belongs to the Iraqis.

Not to Bush.

Bush only dismantled Iraq.

Since the Iraqis have no choice in the continued U.S. occupation of their country or what reconstruction takes place, they are in fact being forced to pay U.S. and allied companies a reconstruction fee on terms that they have no part in negotiating.

Bush wants to run a protection racket of his 'oil for blood' in Iraq, doesn't he?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Ion
Also, for the brownnosers to 'oil for blood' in Iraq posting in this forum (i.e.: zilla, Segno, Gramma, crackmonkey, etc.) consider that the major part of the reconstruction money is a loan, not a grant.

While repayments have been suspended for eighteen months, this means that the loan part of the reconstruction bill is, in fact, money that belongs to the Iraqis.

Not to Bush.

Bush only dismantled Iraq.

Since the Iraqis have no choice in the continued U.S. occupation of their country or what reconstruction takes place, they are in fact being forced to pay U.S. and allied companies a reconstruction fee on terms that they have no part in negotiating.

Bush wants to run a protection racket of his 'oil for blood' in Iraq, doesn't he?

Yes...of course that is only a Yes if you ignore the fact that Legislature changed it from a grant to the loan and Bush wanted it to be a Grant. So, I suppose you will now say that all politicians in Washington are there to get oil from Iraqi blood, or some such.

[TillEulenspiegel]

Originally posted by Segnosaur


My suggestion is Bash away.

At one point in my life, I was fairly patriotic. (I even kept a Canadian flag in my locker.) As of late, I've become increasingly disgusted by Canadian politics. Now, its very easy to say "Its because of the politicians", but you know what? Canadians keep voting for them!.

The biggest problem I have is the lack of thought that goes into people's decisions. So many people tend to almost make up reasons not to vote for parties other than the Liberals. Where's the rational thought people?

O-ya the Canadians this, the Canadians that ....WHAT you think you have cornered the market on electing Idiots?? WE American's not only practice this , WE do it BEST! ( and with frightining regularity)

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Ion
Also, for the brownnosers to 'oil for blood' in Iraq posting in this forum (i.e.: zilla, Segno, Gramma, crackmonkey, etc.) consider that the major part of the reconstruction money is a loan, not a grant.

While repayments have been suspended for eighteen months, this means that the loan part of the reconstruction bill is, in fact, money that belongs to the Iraqis.

Not to Bush.

Bush only dismantled Iraq.

Since the Iraqis have no choice in the continued U.S. occupation of their country or what reconstruction takes place, they are in fact being forced to pay U.S. and allied companies a reconstruction fee on terms that they have no part in negotiating.

Bush wants to run a protection racket of his 'oil for blood' in Iraq, doesn't he?

You know, normally I ignore stuff Ion posts, because, well, frankly he virtually never contributes anything useful to any topic he posts in. However, what he posted has some major problems...

- The Bush administration pushed to have the money made a grant, NOT a loan. (They felt it would be best for Iraq to start its democracy debt-free.)
See:
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/01/sprj.nitop.congress/
http://www.saintpetersburgtimes.com/2003/10/30/Worldandnation/Panel_decides_Iraq_mo.shtml
http://us.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/17/sprj.irq.congress/

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel


O-ya the Canadians this, the Canadians that ....WHAT you think you have cornered the market on electing Idiots?? WE American's not only practice this , WE do it BEST! ( and with frightining regularity)

Who said we were electing idiots? (Well, our Prime Minister is definitely one.) Instead, they are corrupt, deceitful, opportunistic, and incompetent. But people up here seem to like that sort of thing.

[TillEulenspiegel]

Oh! Never mind =)

[Ion]

This:
Originally posted by Segnosaur

...
- The Bush administration pushed to have the money made a grant, NOT a loan. (They felt it would be best for Iraq to start its democracy debt-free.)
...

applies to Gramma's last post too.

The rebuke that I easily have is that in the chronological sequence of order of events:

1.) it is a loan;

(no matter what Bush pretends to have asked for, and Bush claiming things like WMDs, al-Qaeda link, "...war on terror...", 'liberation of Iraq', "...debt-free..." that's never a reference of honesty)

2.) because it's a loan (with my tax money), the money is ultimately Iraq's;

3.) Bush knowing that it is Iraq's money, rackets this money today for his 'oil for blood' scam;
he calls this 'reconstruction'.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Ion
This:

applies to Gramma's last post too.

The rebuke that I easily have is that in the chronological sequence of order of events:

1.) it is a loan (no matter what Bush pretends to have asked for, and Bush claiming things like WMDs, al-Qaeda link, "...war on terror...", 'liberation of Iraq', "...debt-free..." that's never a reference of honesty);

2.) because it's a loan (with my tax money), the money is ultimately Iraq's;

3.) Bush rackets this money today for his 'oil for blood' scam;
he calls this 'reconstruction'.

So you are going to blatantly ignore fact and just bash Bush? Your ignorance to facts, once again, is noted.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Ion

Tell about the efficiency of the 'sanction war' to Bush Sr..

He did it in U.N., against Iraq.

So? How is who began the sanctions relevant? Someone wanted to change it and the UN didn't want to go along for the ride. They imposed the sanctions and basically said "comply or else" while never defining or showing an "or else". There were no consequences for actions. It doesn't have to be Bush, but in this case it was, that demands to see consequences for actions for me to agree with them. The UN was just putting on a dog and pony show. Twelve years of sanctions being broken and no consequences.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Grammatron


So you are going to blatantly ignore fact and just bash Bush? Your ignorance to facts, once again, is noted.
I bash Bush and fans because they know that it is Iraq's money (advanced from my taxes) and Bush gives this money to his fans.

Bush and fans are running a racket in Iraq.

Your lack of intelligence, once again, is noted.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Troll

...
They imposed the sanctions and basically said "comply or else" while never defining or showing an "or else".
...

U.N. didn't find that Iraq didn't comply with the sanctions that Bush Sr negotiated in U.N..

U.N. resolutions 678, 687, and 1441 are not deemed broken by U.N..

Bush Jr sent U.S. to war in spite of U.N..

All his WMDs, al-Qaeda, "...war on terror...", 'liberation', is bull.

Today Bush Jr is the joke of the world.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Ion

U.N. didn't find that Iraq didn't comply with the sanctions that Bush Sr negotiated in U.N..

U.N. resolutions 678, 687, and 1441 are not deemed broken by U.N..

Bush Jr sent U.S. to war in spite of U.N..

All his WMDs, al-Qaeda, "...war on terror...", 'liberation', is bull.

Today Bush Jr is the joke of the world.

I wouldn't say that. After reading some of your replies I'd have to say it's a close race :D

[Ion]

You say that because you brownnose only to Bush.

Try brownnosing to me instead.

You will feel better.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Ion
What you say shows what you are:

a brownnoser to Bush.

You like brownnosing to Bush, do you?

Did school let out for the holidays early or something?

Disagreeing with your irrational claims doesn't make me anyone's butt kisser. regardless of what your social studies teacher is trying to make you think.

[Ion]

The school that I learned is not to kill for oil.

And not to brownnose like you do, either.

But try brownnosing to me, if brownnosing is all that you can do.

You will see that it is better than brownnosing to Bush.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Ion
The school that I learned is not to kill for oil.



What a kook...

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Ion
The school that I learned is not to kill for oil.

And not to brownnose like you do, either.

But try brownnosing to me, if brownnosing is all that you can do.

You will see that it is better than brownnosing to Bush.

Funny stuff that.

Perhaps we could get pillory to translate?

Ion, normally I do not ever respond to you because I still await the day when you will say something worth responding to. But, I gotta say, that post of yours....it's stupider than an Austin Powers movie,...and just as funny. Congratulations.

-z

[Skeptic]

Frankly, it should be amusing to recap the headlines in the French newspapers in the last year, wouldn't it?

IRAQ WANTS PEACE
EVIL USA INSISTS ON UNJUST WAR
FRANCE WILL NOT JOIN "LIBERATION" FARCE
COWBOY AMERICANS STUCK IN QUAGMIRE
BUSH USES WAR TO HIDE PROBLEMS AT HOME
MORE TERROR FOR TROOPS IN UNJUST WAR JUST LIKE WE PREDICTED
BUSH'S IMPERIALIST PLANS GO AWRY
THANKSGIVING STUNT MERE PR PLOY
Oh, dear, Bush's decision on not allowing us to reconstruct Iraq might hinder further cooperation in the war on terror from our side (latest news)

[tedly]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Easy, Saddam did. He invaded Kuwait...he sowed, he reaped.



I doubt it, Canada would have had to go send troops, some of which would surely have come home in a box.


-z

1) -So you're saying the decision to go in now was made back in '91 ? This is what many Canadians were afraid of.

2) This would be less likely if we could keep them out from under US aircraft. Present score Afghanis 2 - US 4

[tedly]

Originally posted by Segnosaur


Actually, the reason Canada didn't participate in the war is that the French minority (mostly in Quebec) disapproved of it, and there was a provincial election coming that the federal Liberals really wanted the provincial Liberals to win. (It should be noted that most opinion polls showed a majority of Canadians wanted Canada to side with the U.S.)

I doubt the government's decision had anything at all to do with what was 'right', but just what was politcally opportune at the time.

Well... the night Chretien announced that we wer beefing up our contingent in A'stan and therefore would not be able to contribute to the attack on Iraq I was attending a talk by David Suzuki. About 500 were in attendance and when he opened his remarks with 'I have never been prouder of my country thatn I am right now.' he was greeted with long and loud applause.

Of course it was an audience of left wing pinko sit down ban the bomb degenerates, but that's what you get out here in farm country.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Troll
Yeah we could have had just extended the long and uneventful "sanction war" with the UN. Loads of progress in that. I mean it's so much more helpful to people to just tell someone to stop killing them than it is to actually make the person stop doing it. So much for your "shooting war" theory. I didn't say that continued sanctions was the answer, did I? That sort of response makes me wonder if you read and heed anyone else's opinions at all, frankly.

And anyway, Saddam had been killing people for decades, even well before Shrub's daddy got to sit in the big chair. So why was Shrub all of a sudden all fired up to "right some wrongs" only this year? I'll let you answer that yourself...OK?

[Troll]

Originally posted by Zep
I didn't say that continued sanctions was the answer, did I? That sort of response makes me wonder if you read and heed anyone else's opinions at all, frankly.

And anyway, Saddam had been killing people for decades, even well before Shrub's daddy got to sit in the big chair. So why was Shrub all of a sudden all fired up to "right some wrongs" only this year? I'll let you answer that yourself...OK?

Then by all means tell me what it is you would have suggested. No sanctions and no bombs or bullets. TPing the presidential palaces maybe?

Why this year? Could be he planned it before this year but then he got hit with that whole WTC thing and it messed his plans up a little. But that's just speculation on my part. You really should let him answer the question himself and not ask me to answer for him.

[TillEulenspiegel]

Skeptic, Damn it man how many times have I told you to wash your hands before engaging in satire?!
Satire?
Umm satire................
No that wasn't satire was it.
O ya the Phrench !
never mind.

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Sour grapes? Iraqi pie? That's our $87 Billion going to rebuild Iraq, and if one red cent goes to a company from a nation who was too "good" or self-righteous to put their own troops in harm's way then it's simply wrong.

Most of the people I know from Canada do at least know right from wrong. The US and UK took the risk,..whether we were right or wrong about WMD, etc....the hard decision to go in was taken. We took responsibility, which is what a world leader must regularly do. It's easy for a nation like Canada (which is smaller in population than California) to exist quietly in the shadow of a nation like the US.
You don't have to worry about taking world shaking decisions...you can just sit up there and be self righteously impotent. Great gig. You did the right thing? You didn't DO anything.
-z

We absolutely did do the right thing. We didn't let the US bully us into military action without UN approval. You might see this as not doing anything, but I disagree. It takes guts to stand up to a bully when you're this small little country that you like to minimize us as being.
As for the contracts, personally I could care less who they go to. To me it's much more important to take a morale stand and be right in doing that than do the wrong thing to reap financial gain later. If we had joined the coalition simply because we wanted lucrative contracts later that would be sad.

And yes, yes, the US is great and proactive and makes wonderfully bold decisions as the leader of the rest of the world. Blah, blah, blah. I've heard this over and over from some many self-righteous Americans who believe it's their responsibility to rebuild other nations in their image.
It's becoming tiresome and I'm not buying it anymore.

And by the way, I seem to remember a couple of wars last century where Canada got into the mix right away while the USA sat on it's butt and waited to see how things played out. They were called World War I & II.
So save me the condescending crap.:rolleyes:

[Zep]

Originally posted by Troll
Then by all means tell me what it is you would have suggested. No sanctions and no bombs or bullets. TPing the presidential palaces maybe?

Read this thread from April this year when the Iraqi invasion was about to start (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15566&highlight=baghdad). You were in it, by the way. And you might also see how many of my own predictions are coming true w/r/t the US occupation of Iraq.

Why this year? Could be he planned it before this year but then he got hit with that whole WTC thing and it messed his plans up a little. But that's just speculation on my part. You really should let him answer the question himself and not ask me to answer for him.

Could it be that the WTC tragedy was simply an excuse for him to do it, having planned it well in advance? Note that I'm NOT saying he and his crew were in any way behind 9/11, but it made a DAMNED fine and convenient excuse, didn't it!

[Ion]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Funny stuff that.

Perhaps we could get pillory to translate?

Ion, normally I do not ever respond to you because I still await the day when you will say something worth responding to. But, I gotta say, that post of yours....it's stupider than an Austin Powers movie,...and just as funny. Congratulations.

-z
I think that what I say is better than killing for oil, and is better than brownnosing to the killer in chief.

This brownnosing that you do makes you a slave, rikzilla.

Long slave life to you, zilla!:D

[Ion]

Originally posted by BTox


What a kook...
Is that right, toxy?

Have you thought about it?

Do you have proof that I ever killed for oil, or ever killed in my life?

Because without proof, you shut up.

[Ion]

Valid points:
Originally posted by Skeptic

...
IRAQ WANTS PEACE
EVIL USA INSISTS ON UNJUST WAR
FRANCE WILL NOT JOIN "LIBERATION" FARCE
COWBOY AMERICANS STUCK IN QUAGMIRE
BUSH USES WAR TO HIDE PROBLEMS AT HOME
MORE TERROR FOR TROOPS IN UNJUST WAR JUST LIKE WE PREDICTED
BUSH'S IMPERIALIST PLANS GO AWRY
THANKSGIVING STUNT MERE PR PLOY
...

That's why, all of you U.S. hicks in this forum, stop brownnosing to crime.

Since your lives are addicted to brownnosing, brownnose to me instead.

[bjornart]

Originally posted by Luke T.
I am wondering if Iraq was literally reduced to rubble by the U.S. I seem to recall that their country was falling apart long before the invasion. People squatting in the streets to defecate due to lack of plumbing, that sort of thing.

Most of the damage was due to Saddam spending all the money on himself, yes. (Although I don't know about the squatting in the street bit, even without plumbing you can find places that are a bit better than the street.) A relatively small portion (relatively, mark) was due to the US bombardment and invasion. Not that it matters in this thread, apparently it's been taken over by the forces of dumb.

[Tricky]

Getting back to the original topic, the thing that angers me about the US dictating who may and may not bid on contracts is that the US is behaving as if Iraq were now part of the US. If our goal was to overthrow the dictatorship, then it seems that such decisions should be made by the people of Iraq, not by the US.

No government for Iraq yet? Hmm... that is odd, considering that it is the main reason (this week) for us being there. Okay, how about a council of businessmen? Anybody but The Pentagon. Given their known proclivity for graft and wasteful spending, they are absolutely the worst people to be making these decisions. (I hope Iraq doesn't need hammers or toilet seats.)

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Tricky
Getting back to the original topic, the thing that angers me about the US dictating who may and may not bid on contracts is that the US is behaving as if Iraq were now part of the US. If our goal was to overthrow the dictatorship, then it seems that such decisions should be made by the people of Iraq, not by the US.

No government for Iraq yet? Hmm... that is odd, considering that it is the main reason (this week) for us being there. Okay, how about a council of businessmen? Anybody but The Pentagon. Given their known proclivity for graft and wasteful spending, they are absolutely the worst people to be making these decisions. (I hope Iraq doesn't need hammers or toilet seats.)

I read about a case where the US built a basketball court in a small Iraqi town, where help with the water was actually needed. They can't bathe, but they can work on developing the next Michael Jordan.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Ion

U.N. resolutions 678, 687, and 1441 are not deemed broken by U.N..


The UN would actually disagree with you. From the text of the resolution 1441: http://ods-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/682/26/PDF/N0268226.pdf?OpenElement


Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided and accurate full final and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687...


Edited to add: So, your assertion that 687 was not deemed 'broken' is contradicted by the text of resoultion of 1441. (It should also be noted that 1441 also mentions several other Iraq resoultions which it said also were broken, none of the other resolutions were ever mentioned in your original post. You can't even cherry-pick information very well.)

You've gone from sad irrelevant troll to outright liar in this thread.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Segnosaur


The UN would actually disagree with you. From the text of the resolution 1441: http://ods-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/682/26/PDF/N0268226.pdf?OpenElement



Edited to add: So, your assertion that 687 was not deemed 'broken' is contradicted by the text of resoultion of 1441. (It should also be noted that 1441 also mentions several other Iraq resoultions which it said also were broken, none of the other resolutions were ever mentioned in your original post. You can't even cherry-pick information very well.)

You've gone from sad irrelevant troll to outright liar in this thread.

If memory serves, 1441 listed 16 seperate resolutions broken by Saddam's gov't.....starting with 687 itself.

It would be better to ask this idiot what resolution Saddam DID NOT break. Honestly, I've not heard of one.

-z

BTW: Lefties may now feel free to list resolutions broken by Israel, although since Israel hasn't lost any wars...or made cease-fire deals that they've broken...I don't see how it's relevant. But that won't stop them from posting such drivel.....and no, I'm not a psychic...I've just been on this board way too long. :rolleyes:

-z

[Ion]

Be careful about pushing button A:
Originally posted by bjornart

...
Not that it matters in this thread, apparently it's been taken over by the forces of dumb.
because you get an answer to your A.

Case in point:

the trolling in the last post by zulla and the trolling below -a courtesy of the illiterate and idiotic side of Canada-:
Originally posted by Segnosaur


The UN would actually disagree with you. From the text of the resolution 1441...
...
Edited to add: So, your assertion that 687 was not deemed 'broken' is contradicted by the text of resoultion of 1441. (It should also be noted that 1441 also mentions several other Iraq resoultions which it said also were broken, none of the other resolutions were ever mentioned in your original post. You can't even cherry-pick information very well.)

You've gone from sad irrelevant troll to outright liar in this thread.
U.N. Resolution 687 -a ceasefire in the war of 1990-, doesn't spell 'attack Hussein in Iraq'.

U.N. Resolution 678 -starting the war in 1990- spells 'attack Hussein in Kuwait' so that Kuwait is freed.

'attack Hussein in Iraq' is nowhere in the U.N..

'attack Hussein in Iraq', that's Bush outside of the U.N..

678 :
authorizes use of all means necessary to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;

660:
demands that Iraq withdraw immediately and unconditionally all its forces to the positions in which they were located on 1 August 1990;

661:
sanctions if 660 is not followed;

662:
demanding, once again, that Iraq withdraw immediately and unconditionally all its forces to the positions in which they were located on 1 August 1990;
determined to bring the occupation of Kuwait by Iraq to an end and to restore the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Kuwait;
determined also to restore the authority of the legitimate Government of Kuwait.

The objective of resolutions referred to in 678 is having Iraq out of Kuwait and having the state of Kuwait reinstated.

This goal for which the use of force was authorized is accomplished in 1991 thus ending the authorization to use force, unless the U.N.S.C., which remains seized of the matter – not the U.S. – decides otherwise

The authority of the U.N.S.C. in this matter is further stressed and accepted by the U.S. in all following resolutions including:

687: ceasefire conditions
34. Decides to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area.

1441: threat of serious consequences
14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

Here, I emphasize 1441:

U.N. "...14. Decides to remain seized of the matter...".

687 was the ceasefire which also said that the U.N.S.C. remains seized of the matter.

It was up to the U.N.S.C. - not the U.S. - to decide if Iraq violated the agreement, and if yes how to react to that violation.

Any action by the U.S. without U.N.S.C. authorization is a violation of 687 and all other Iraq resolutions after it.

The U.N.S.C. did not again authorize the use of force against Iraq despite desperate U.S. attempts to obtain such authorization in February 2003.

It is the U.N.S.C. – not the U.S. made of Bush, Cheney, Perle, Wolfowitz, etc. – who had the authority (as recognized by U.S. in its signature) to authorize further use of force.

The U.N.S.C. didn't authorize further use of force against Iraq.

Thus, the Bush war in Iraq is illegal by world standards.

Can you troll further on this topic, zulla and Segno?

I doubt it...

But you sure are welcome to brownnose to me.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Ion
Be careful about pushing button A:

because you get an answer to your A.

Case in point:

the trolling in the last post by zulla and the trolling below -a courtesy of the illiterate and idiotic side of Canada-:

[b]U.N. Resolution 687 -a ceasefire in the war of 1990-, doesn't spell 'attack Hussein in Iraq'.

U.N. Resolution 678 -starting the war in 1990- spells 'attack Hussein in Kuwait' so that Kuwait is freed.

(cut out other selected clippings from resolutions 678, 660, 661, 662, 687)

What you are doing is cherry-picking, pure and simple.

The resolutions you quoted are much longer than the single lines of each resolution you posted.

For example, while parts of one resolution said that Iraq must leave Kuwait territory (which they did), other parts of the resolution indicated that Iraq must also return property stollen during its occupation. The status of some Kuwaiti property remained in doubt until the invasion.

Also missing are references to resolutions requiring Iraq to stop supporting terrorism, which were clearly spelled out in the resolution.

A reasonable persion cannot pick just one part of a resolution, say "Look, saddam followed this one part" and claim they followed the entire resolution. All parts of the UN resolution must be followed.

Look at this part of resolution 1441:

Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,


This part of resolution 1441 clearly indicates that the Security council thought that Iraq has not complied with resolutions 687, 688, 686, and 1284.

As for your suggestion that the US 'violated' these resolutions, that shows you clear lack of understanding of how UN resolutions work. The resolutions themselves were binding on Iraq only, not on other nations. Any actions which negatively affected Iraq that were not sanctioned by existing resolutions would have to be covered by new resolutions, directed at the party which took the action.

[Skeptic]

'attack Hussein in Iraq', that's Bush outside of the U.N.

Actually, this is not accurate, but even if it was, and Bush acted "outisde the U.N.", so friggin' what?

The U.N. is a corrupt, morally bankrupt organization. It is an institution where Syria heads the security council, Libya the commission on human rights, and Iraq the disarmament committee. Just the nations to whom the US should look for moral guidance, don't you think?

A comic of writing a movie where this is the case would have the script rejected as too far fetched even for an absurdist comedy: surely, even the audience of a slapstick comedy would not be willing to suspend disbelief to such an extent as to accept a situation where the worst three agressive violators of human rights on the face of the planet head the U.N. commissions designed to do the exact opposite. The U.N.'s actions, in other words, are the moral equivalent of nominating Ted Bundy or Charley Mason to the supreme court of the United States, or giving Arafat the Nobel peace prize for his war to eradicate israel in a second holocaust. Er, on second thought, forget the latter example--that, too, actually happened.

That as it may be, to consider a national course of action morally wrong because it didn't meet with U.N. approval is about as logical as considering personal behavior morally wrong if it enrages Hermann Goering.

Of course, the whole U.N. thingy is just an excuse. The real reason for all this "objective criticism" of the USA "ignoring" the U.N. (not that it did, but even if it did, so what?) is that you cannot stand the USA for some reason.

[Ion]

That's how it goes in law, Segno:
Originally posted by Ion

...
Here, I emphasize 1441:

U.N. "...14. Decides to remain seized of the matter...".
...
The U.N.S.C. didn't authorize further use of force against Iraq.

Thus, the Bush war in Iraq is illegal by world standards.
...

U.S. signed 1441.

Here is the explicit promise by the U.S. to not use force without the U.N. Security Council Authorization if 1441 was violated:

here (http://www.staff.city.ac.uk/p.willetts/IRAQ/US081102.HTM)

"As we have said on numerous occasions to Council members, this Resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA, or a member state, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12."

I repeat:

this shows the explicit promise by the U.S. to not use force without the U. N. Security Council authorization.

The promise is broken by Bush's U.S..

Q.E.D.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Skeptic

...
...but even if it was, and Bush acted "outisde the U.N.", so friggin' what?
...
The U.N. is a corrupt,...
...

So friggin' U.S. is in violation of the international law that it signed into.

Regarding "...The U.N. is a corrupt...", you mean that Bush is not corrupt?

This thread is because Bush is corrupt, haven't you noticed it yet?

[BTox]

Originally posted by Ion

Is that right, toxy?

Have you thought about it?

Do you have proof that I ever killed for oil, or ever killed in my life?

Because without proof, you shut up.

Pardon me. I meant to say "cuckoo"...

[Skeptic]

Regarding "...The U.N. is a corrupt...", you mean that Bush is not corrupt?

Certainly, Bush is less corrupt and useless than the U.N. Of course, that's a bit obvious: it's like saying Bush has better eyesight than Hellen Keller.

This thread is about Bush is corrupt, haven't you noticed?

(shrug)

So I hijacked the thread. Sue me.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Ion
That's how it goes in law, Segno:

That's how it goes in law, Segno:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Ion

...
Here, I emphasize 1441:

U.N. "...14. Decides to remain seized of the matter...".
...
The U.N.S.C. didn't authorize further use of force against Iraq.

Thus, the Bush war in Iraq is illegal by world standards.
...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


U.S. signed it.

U.S. signed it.

You forgot to add something from your own post


1441: threat of serious consequences
14. Decides to remain seized of the matter

If you say there will be consequences you either define them or you have left them open for interpretation. We apparently came up with one and then suddenly everyone was trying to come up with differing ones after the fact.

Or did they mean the intransitive sense of seize? I mean I can see where they wanted 2a but acted more like 2b

Main Entry: seize
Pronunciation: 'sEz
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): seized; seiz·ing
Etymology: Middle English saisen, from Old French saisir to put in possession of, from Medieval Latin sacire, of Germanic origin; perhaps akin to Old High German sezzen to set -- more at SET
Date: 14th century
transitive senses
1 a usually seise /'sEz/ : to vest ownership of a freehold estate in b often seise : to put in possession of something <the biographer will be seized of all pertinent papers>
2 a : to take possession of : CONFISCATE b : to take possession of by legal process
3 a : to possess or take by force : CAPTURE b : to take prisoner : ARREST
4 a : to take hold of : CLUTCH b : to possess oneself of : GRASP c : to understand fully and distinctly : APPREHEND
5 a : to attack or overwhelm physically : AFFLICT <suddenly seized with an acute illness -- H. G. Armstrong> b : to possess (as one's mind) completely or overwhelmingly <seized the popular imagination -- Basil Davenport>
6 : to bind or fasten together with a lashing of small stuff (as yarn, marline, or fine wire)
intransitive senses
1 : to take or lay hold suddenly or forcibly
2 a : to cohere to a relatively moving part through excessive pressure, temperature, or friction -- used especially of machine parts (as bearings, brakes, or pistons) b : to fail to operate due to the seizing of a part -- used of an engine

[Troll]

Originally posted by Zep
Originally posted by Troll
Then by all means tell me what it is you would have suggested. No sanctions and no bombs or bullets. TPing the presidential palaces maybe?

Read this thread from April this year when the Iraqi invasion was about to start. You were in it, by the way. And you might also see how many of my own predictions are coming true w/r/t the US occupation of Iraq.

Why this year? Could be he planned it before this year but then he got hit with that whole WTC thing and it messed his plans up a little. But that's just speculation on my part. You really should let him answer the question himself and not ask me to answer for him.

Could it be that the WTC tragedy was simply an excuse for him to do it, having planned it well in advance? Note that I'm NOT saying he and his crew were in any way behind 9/11, but it made a DAMNED fine and convenient excuse, didn't it!

I saw the predictions you made, though they weren't really anything outstanding or in any way hard to fathom. But I still have not seen an alternative offered in this thread or the other. Maybe I missed something, if so, please point me in the right direction. But all I have been able to see as far as alternatives to dealing with the situation in Iraq was stas quo of sanctions and the method we're currently engaged in. I've never seen a third alternative offered anywhere.

[Ion]

Originally posted by BTox


Pardon me. I meant to say "cuckoo"...
You mean that you are cuckoo, toxy?

Tell me...

[Ion]

Originally posted by Skeptic

...
Certainly, Bush is less corrupt and useless than the U.N.
...

Not really.

Since 2001, Bush killed about 40,000 people from Afganistan, Iraq and U.S..

For oil mainly.

He is #1 killer in the world, since 2001.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Ion

Not really.

Since 2001, Bush killed about 40,000 people from Afganistan, Iraq and U.S..

For oil mainly.

He is #1 killer in the world, since 2001.

Really? What did he use - a gun, a knife? How does he have time for anything else?

[BTox]

Originally posted by Ion

You mean that you are cuckoo, toxy?

Tell me...

Toxy? I like that.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Troll

...
If you say there will be consequences you either define them or you have left them open for interpretation.
...

Troll,

instead of trolling -like your name wants to bragg- better think of ink/data ratio:
Originally posted by Ion

...
Here is the explicit promise by the U.S. to not use force without the U.N. Security Council Authorization if 1441 was violated:

here (http://www.staff.city.ac.uk/p.willetts/IRAQ/US081102.HTM)

"As we have said on numerous occasions to Council members, this Resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA, or a member state, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12."

I repeat:

this shows the explicit promise by the U.S. to not use force without the U. N. Security Council authorization.

The promise is broken by Bush's U.S..

Q.E.D.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Ion
That's how it goes in law, Segno:

U.S. signed 1441.

Here is the explicit promise by the U.S. to not use force without the U.N. Security Council Authorization if 1441 was violated:

here (http://www.staff.city.ac.uk/p.willetts/IRAQ/US081102.HTM)

"As we have said on numerous occasions to Council members, this Resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA, or a member state, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12."

I repeat:

this shows the explicit promise by the U.S. to not use force without the U. N. Security Council authorization.

The promise is broken by Bush's U.S..

Q.E.D.

Do you ever actually read the stuff you link to?

First of all, there is nothing in resolution 1441 that says that the US won't attack, and its not binding on the US anyways.

Secondly, from your own link:

If the Security Council fails to act decisively in the event of a further Iraqi violation, this resolution does not constrain any member state from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq, or to enforce relevant UN resolutions and protect world peace and security.


So clearly, the ambassador is clearly stating that countries may act if they choose to. At no point did they promise not to invade.

Your list of errors, blunders and outright lies is growing longer. (First your "money is a loan" claim which was clearly shown as wrong with 3 different references, then your "Iraq violated no resolutions" which was shown to be false by the UN itself, and finally this.)

[Ion]

Originally posted by BTox


Really? What did he use - a gun, a knife? How does he have time for anything else?
What?

Brownnosing to Bush doesn't give you these answers?

What does brownnosing to Bush give you instead?

Good smelling when you toxy you are brownnosing to Bush?

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Ion

Try brownnosing to me instead.


Is anyone else disturbed by Ion's fascination with the thought of having a guy's nose inserted into his rectum?

[Ion]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

Do you ever actually read the stuff you link to?
...
Secondly, from your own link:
...

I read the stuff.

It is being proven that "...against the threat posed by Iraq or to enforce UN relevant resolutions..." -which you parrot from my link- does not apply:

.) Iraq didn't and doesn't pose a threat in spite of Bush's lies (no WMDs, al-Qaeda, Niger link, etc);

.) I did cite the "...UN relevant resolutions..." a few posts ago, and I told you -didn't I?- that they were pertinent to restoring the country of Kuwait;

they are done with and they are over;

invading Iraq is nowhere in U.N..

That's why Powell went to lie in U.N. in February 2003.

To get a new U.N. resolution authorizing war, stupid.

He didn't get the U.N. resolution.

Q.E.D..
Originally posted by Segnosaur

...
(First your "money is a loan" claim which was clearly shown as wrong with 3 different references,
...

I replied to this, but you are brain-dead:

Bush knows now that the money is a loan and he still rewards his friends in a racket for oil.

I posted this argument:

(to reply to your claim -"...with 3 different references..."- that Bush asked for grants which I said is a shaky claim coming from Bush, but regardless)

Bush does know today that it is a loan (so is Iraq's money, not Bush's) and he still rewards brownnosers.

So no best interests of the Iraqis here.

But best interests of Bush's 'oil for blood'.

Q.E.D..

Again.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Segnosaur


Is anyone else disturbed by Ion's fascination with the thought of having a guy's nose inserted into his rectum?

Hey! Be careful how you say things. What he does in his own home is his choice :D

[BTox]

Originally posted by Segnosaur


Is anyone else disturbed by Ion's fascination with the thought of having a guy's nose inserted into his rectum?

I'm still trying to figure out what this means:

"Good smelling when you toxy you are brownnosing to Bush?"

Any ideas? ;)

[Troll]

What I'm finding really disturbing is this bizarre trend to associate the past with the present. Ion and others here and in the news repeatedly mention former ties to some companies and if the company has some sort of wrong doing or makes a mistake they automatically assign the blame to past execs as well.

Using the same inane logic we can safely say that if anyone from the same high school as Ion that rapes a puppy must obviously mean Ion is involved. Anyone disagreeing with me is merely trying to be a brown noser to Ion.
:hit:

[Ion]

Originally posted by BTox


I'm still trying to figure out what this means:

"Good smelling when you toxy you are brownnosing to Bush?"

Any ideas? ;)
It means that when you brownnose to Bush, you get to smell Bush's rear.

Is this smelling good for you, toxy?

[Ion]

Originally posted by Troll


Hey! Be careful how you say things. What he does in his own home is his choice :D
You mean that you brownnose at home, too?

[Ion]

Originally posted by Troll

...
Ion and others here and in the news repeatedly mention former ties to some companies and if the company has some sort of wrong doing or makes a mistake they automatically assign the blame to past execs as well.
...

Well if you refer to Halliburton here, there is a strong corruption between Bush and Halliburton, involving Cheney.

It is also in today's papar.

The San Diego Union Tribune.

I was ready to throw out the paper, but if you want to discuss this corruption, I keep the paper for future reference.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Ion

I read the stuff.

No you don't.

You ignore anything which goes against your trolling, and resort to mindless slogans.

Originally posted by Ion

.) I did cite the "...UN relevant resolution..." a few posts ago, and I told you -didn't I?- that they were pertinent to restoring the country of Kuwait;


I posted the parts of 1441 that specifically spell out the resolutions that Iraq has violated. Simply restoring the country of Kuwait was only part of the requirements; you are ignoring the resoultions involving terrorism, human rights, Kuwaiti property in posession of Iraq, all of which were specificially mentioned in 1441.

Originally posted by Ion

Bush knows that the money is a loan and he rewards his friends in a racket for oil.

I posted this argument to reply to your claim ("...with 3 different references...") that Bush asked for grants -which I said is a shaky claim (coming from Bush)- , but regardless, Bush does know that is a loan today (so is Iraq's money, not Bush's) and he still rewards brownnosers.



You have asserted many times that the money is a loan, but all proof (including the bills that were actually passed) show that the money is actually a grant.

This being a skeptics board, if you have proof of such a wild claim, it is your job to actually present it, instead of just making accusations.

Originally posted by Ion

But best interests of Bush's 'oil for blood'.

Q.E.D..



I don't think you understand what Q.E.D. means. It means that a proof has been made, but all your arguments have been shown to be wrong, and simply asserting they are true does not make them so.

And if you're going to resort into your pure troll mode, please let us know so we can start ignoring you again. (Notice that pretty much none of the anti-war protestors ever support you in this thread? That should give you a pretty good indication that even other anti-war supporters think your arguments are wrong.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

No you don't.

You ignore anything which goes against your trolling, and resort to mindless slogans.
...

I did read and I did win this, here:
Originally posted by Ion

I read the stuff.

It is being proven that "...against the threat posed by Iraq or to enforce UN relevant resolutions..." -which you parrot from my link- does not apply:

.) Iraq didn't and doesn't pose a threat in spite of Bush's lies (no WMDs, al-Qaeda, Niger link, etc);

.) I did cite the "...UN relevant resolution..." a few posts ago, and I told you -didn't I?- that they were pertinent to restoring the country of Kuwait;

they are done with and they are over;

invading Iraq is nowhere in U.N..

That's why Powell went to lie in U.N. in February 2003.

To get a new U.N. resolution authorizing war, stupid.

He didn't get the U.N. resolution.

Q.E.D..
...

By the way, you don't know what Q.E.D. means because it's a latin expression employed by mathematicians.

Not knowing mathematics, not knowing one of the official languages of Canada -French-, not knowing how to spell the name of the Prime Minister of Canada, and not knowing how to win this discussion, they are each showing grave stupidity.

What are you going to do about it?

[Ion]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

...
That should give you a pretty good indication that even other anti-war supporters think your arguments are wrong.
When was a claim that you made that proved right?

Show it to me.

I easily debunk each one of your claims, simply because thay are blatantly wrong.

As for other anti-war posters here, Tricky did post my argument about the money being a loan not a grant, and many more posters did post other things, but you not seeing this does show imbecility.

The anti-war protestors post less frequently than I do on this topic, because I take the pro-war posters to the task of squashing them when they want to hijack the civilized world with their "Bring them on.", "UN is irrelevant", "Europeans are chicken", "Europeans don't fight", their dog-eat-dog violent back-stabbing for greedy interests like oil, etc..

[TillEulenspiegel]

Originally posted by Troll
What I'm finding really disturbing is this bizarre trend to associate the past with the present. Ion and others here and in the news repeatedly mention former ties to some companies and if the company has some sort of wrong doing or makes a mistake they automatically assign the blame to past execs as well.



Well there are differing voices out there. The unfortunate fact that the only person stating them demonstrates the syntactical command of a Jerry Lewis bellboy comedy routine <flaven> and has what's seems to be a fixation with things anal............

If this were a physics forum I would explain that the current state of any phenomenon is predicated of the state immediately preceding it with the addition of any new aspect factored in. That holds true for many things .

The fact that Cheney was chairman and chief executive officer of Haliburton
The fact that they were on the "consulting board" in designing Bush's energy policy (which congress is still trying to get a record of ..well the supremes will decide )
The fact that They signed a NO BID contract for services BEFORE the war
The fact that they are now accused of overcharging the US Gov ( read taxpayers...that's You and Me pal ) when many sources said it for months ( including me ) and it was denied by the administration.

This does not include Root and Brown's involvement in the same chicanery in Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Guantanamo
This is as good a link as any : http://www.public-i.org/story_01_080200.htm

Your inability to see any linkage and that you decry any label of abuse of office leads me to be that A You are incredibly naive or B that you like many creatures who strayed too far from the moderate position on either side of the political spectrum suffer from that odd political myopia that allows egregious conduct for the person of office of the same party as yourself, while condemning the same behavior of your political opposite.

This also ignores the fact that Cheney is not alone and as I have described the whole Bush enterprise, err presidency and cabinet reads as a who's who of major corporations that seem to have an unusual stake for , "just plain ole folks".

Any attempt to compare, which some have done, Clinton's bathroom antics ( 2 last years was as a lame duck, got impeached, out of office 3 years) with this, this, stuff is like trying to exhume Lennin's corpse and claim it was anything other then a mouldy skeleton.

OH! and BTW the new line from the dems is a hooter! " When Clinton lied no one died", catchy doncha think? =)

[Ion]

This is an anti-war input, terribly short-sighted:
Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel


Well there are differing voices out there. The unfortunate fact that the only person stating them demonstrates the syntactical command of a Jerry Lewis bellboy comedy routine <flaven> and has what's seems to be a fixation with things anal............
...

because of this:
Originally posted by Ion

...
The anti-war protestors post less frequently than I do on this topic, because I take the pro-war posters to the task of squashing them when they want to hijack the civilized world with their "Bring them on.", "UN is irrelevant", "Europeans are chicken", "Europeans don't fight", their dog-eat-dog violent back-stabbing for greedy interests like oil, etc..
There was a time of civil conversations and protests about the integrity of going to war, but now we are thousands of deaths later, with corruption and hijacking of the moral high-ground by the pro-war crowds in full bloom.

Intelectually speaking (excluding the flaming parts in my posts), this Eulenspiegel character doesn't bring as much food to the anti-war table as I do it in this thread, but is rather passive and limited...

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel


OH! and BTW the new line from the dems is a hooter! " When Clinton lied no one died", catchy doncha think? =)

Except for people in Baghdad...oh and Afghanistan....oh and those people in the aspirin factory. Yeah no one died when Clinton was President.

[TillEulenspiegel]

lon, believe me when I say that my views of Dubya's war are fairly well known, and require no restatment here, the thread is based on a slightly different tangent then the war in general. I don't wish appear to be indelicate but , I think the method of your expression leaves me to believe that english is not your first language. I was just inclined to involve myself in the gang beating of a blind man.

Grammatron as usual not only are your comments non-applicable but are Non-sequitur.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel

Grammatron as usual not only are your comments non-applicable but are Non-sequitur.

I might have zeroed in on a small percentage of your main point, but it was part of your post never the less, as such it can't be considered a non sequitur.

What I want to know, if Bush and Cheney are so gun-ho on oil, then why did everyone (with the exception of two I believe) voted to allow Bush to invade Iraq? Please do not say Bush lied to them as most of them had access to the same intelligence as Bush and if it was so questionable not vote on it. Or perhaps it's some evil conspiracy to brain wash everyone to think the same in the legislature?

[Troll]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel


Your inability to see any linkage and that you decry any label of abuse of office leads me to be that A You are incredibly naive or B that you like many creatures who strayed too far from the moderate position on either side of the political spectrum suffer from that odd political myopia that allows egregious conduct for the person of office of the same party as yourself, while condemning the same behavior of your political opposite.


No I can see where there could be a link. But that's only because I'm skeptical. I haven't seen any proof to the accusations as of yet and haven't jumped to the conclusion based upon specious reasoning either.

Haliburton, regardless of money matters, is a company that knows oil, oil fields and oil fires very well. They are right for the job. So is another Texas based company Cudd Pressure Control, no ties to either. Once one puts them out we need another to get them up and running again.

Now I'm not all knowing about the oil industry so maybe you could tell me who would have been better for the job and offer me a solution instead of offering me specious reasons?

[TillEulenspiegel]

As I said to lon this is not the subject of the thread. I have posted many tens of times here and on others as to the reasons and rush to war, we can debate that on another thread . The main topic here is the apparent improproity of actions of appointing (through a secret no bid process before the war) corporations that have a very deep connection to the Bush cabinet and the exclusion ( to which I agree) of certain contries from participating.

[Troll]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
As I said to lon this is not the subject of the thread. I have posted many tens of times here and on others as to the reasons and rush to war, we can debate that on another thread . The main topic here is the apparent improproity of actions of appointing (through a secret no bid process before the war) corporations that have a very deep connection to the Bush cabinet and the exclusion ( to which I agree) of certain contries from participating.

The exclusion of certain countries is merely to apply political pressure for reducing or eliminating debt for Iraq since we already have it set in stone that help in the struggle for an end to insurrection ain't coming. Several news reports on tv today mentioned the possibility of allowing a piece of the rebuilding pie if Baker can convince them to ease the debt situation

[Ion]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
lon, believe me when I say that my views of Dubya's war are fairly well known, and require no restatment here, the thread is based on a slightly different tangent then the war in general. I don't wish appear to be indelicate but , I think the method of your expression leaves me to believe that english is not your first language. I was just inclined to involve myself in the gang beating of a blind man.
...

No mystery that English is not my first language, it is my third out of four.

Look in my profile.

As for why I stick in this forum, I stated since I first came here that I am here to:

pull the teeth out of the pro-war crowd, with the same tactics of bullying, intimidation and moral high ground that thay are using on innocent people.

It works.

After I post, the pro-war crowd is proven wrong.

Like Segnosaur is proven wrong in this page.

So no "...I was just inclined to involve myself in the gang beating of a blind man.", because I am on top.

Many, like RF (RandFan), Tony, corplinx have learned it and dropped their claims.

Others like Segno, Troll, Gramma, BTox, crackmonkey, Ziggurat are learning it now.

When asked for help by someone, I went into the ChristianForums where I humiliated somebody who was proud that he killed in Iraq because of Bush's reasons.

This cannot go on.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Ion

No mystery that English is not my first language, is my third out of four.

Look in my profile.

As for why I stick in this forum, I stated since I first came here that I am here to:

pull the teeth out of the pro-war crowd, with the same tactics of bullying, intimidation and moral high ground that thay are using on innocent people.

It works.

After I post, the pro-war crowd is proven wrong.

Like Segnosaur is proven wrong in this page.

So no "...I was just inclined to involve myself in the gang beating of a blind man.", because I am on top.

Many, like RF (RandFan), Tony, corplinx have learned it and dropped their claims.

Others like Segno, Troll, Gramma, BTox, crackmonkey, Ziggurat are learning it now.

When asked for help by someone, I went into the ChristianForums where I humiliated somebody who was proud that he killed in Iraq because of Bush's reasons.

This cannot go on.

Yes I'm learning that you are trying to use "bullying, intimidation and moral high ground" as opposed to logic, reasoning and proof. You may want to try the latter because this crap you're doing now ain't working.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Ion
pull the teeth out of the pro-war crowd, with the same tactics of bullying, intimidation and moral high ground that thay are using on innocent people.

It works.

After I post, the pro-war crowd is proven wrong.

....

Others like Segno, Troll, Gramma, BTox, crackmonkey, Ziggurat are learning it now.


You're right, it does work. I'm firmly pro-war, now. :D

[TillEulenspiegel]

Originally posted by Troll


Haliburton, regardless of money matters, is a company that knows oil, oil fields and oil fires very well. They are right for the job. So is another Texas based company Cudd Pressure Control, no ties to either. Once one puts them out we need another to get them up and running again.

Now I'm not all knowing about the oil industry so maybe you could tell me who would have been better for the job and offer me a solution instead of offering me specious reasons?
Your last paragraph makes no sense. Specious reasons for what?

Actually I know almost nothing about piplines and such, but I bet if I looked in the green book or had a week to do rescearch I could come up with half a dozen companies that could do the work, adhear to the milspecs guidlines and meet iso 9001 standards, but have no connection with Cheney , the White House or its minions.

Another aspect that does touch upon my area of expertise is those of controls, sensors and data aquision, and offhand I can state that Honeywell, Johnson Controls, Allen- Bradey, GE and others are pre-cleared to do biz with the government and meet or exceed the specs sited above. There are more , but I'm making a point here.

[Ed]

I think that I am missing something here.

Is anyone seriously suggesting that the US is obligated in some way to spend US tax dollars in a certain way?

Forget whether these countries supported us or not. Why should we? To bribe them? To what end? So they love us? So we are part of the vaunted "world community"? So a bribe is all it takes?

If France wanted to help, sincerely, why would they just not help and spend their own tax money? Clearly they want a bribe.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Troll


Yes I'm learning that you are trying to use "bullying, intimidation and moral high ground" as opposed to logic, reasoning and proof. You may want to try the latter because this crap you're doing now ain't working.
Whatever works, trolly.

And it does work to put into submission the pro-war crowd.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Ion
And it does work to put into submission the pro-war crowd.

Keep repeating that to yourself. And also click your ruby slippers together at the same time. Works even better!

[Ion]

Originally posted by Ed
I think that I am missing something here.

Is anyone seriously suggesting that the US is obligated in some way to spend US tax dollars in a certain way?
...

Read the thread, Eddy:

it says that the money invested to rebuild Iraq is a loan to Iraq (with my tax money), so the money is ultimately Iraq's (not Bush's), but Bush gives it to his brownnosers like in a racket for oil.

Read the thread.

[Ion]

Originally posted by BTox


Keep repeating that to yourself. And also click your ruby slippers together at the same time. Works even better!
Nah...

Just your answer in this post is already a change in attitude.

I tell you, I am changing you, it works, slowly, but it does work.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Ion

Nah...

Just your answer in this post is already a change in attitude.

I tell you, I am changing you, it works, slowly, but it does work.

You think so? Keep clicking!

[Ion]

Originally posted by BTox


You think so? Keep clicking!
I wasn't clicking.

Just telling you.

And you do improve...

[BTox]

Originally posted by Ion

I wasn't clicking.

Just telling you.

And you do improve...

Not really, just trying to get to an even 800 posts. But keep a good thought...

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Troll
Haliburton, regardless of money matters, is a company that knows oil, oil fields and oil fires very well. They are right for the job. So is another Texas based company Cudd Pressure Control, no ties to either. Once one puts them out we need another to get them up and running again.

Now I'm not all knowing about the oil industry so maybe you could tell me who would have been better for the job and offer me a solution instead of offering me specious reasons?
Haliburton is indeed one of the industry leaders in oilfield matters, not just wild well control, but drilling and maintainence. There are others, such as Slumberger, but Haliburton has been very busy lately buying up not only competitors, but ancillary businesses, such as geological software modeling (Landmark is the Haliburton subsidiary we deal with most often, being in the exploration business.)

But there is more to rebuilding Iraq besides oil fields. Oil fields have the greatest potential to be profitable for the repairers though. However, Haliburton has fingers in lots of pies, not just oil fields. Are they better than other companies? Perhaps in some things. Not in all. But bidders should be chosen for best fit, not because they are the biggest, or even the cheapest. Haliburton is certainly the biggest, though not always (or often) the cheapest and they are quite often not the best. They are much more commited to profits than to results, in my experience as a geoscientist at a major oil company.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Tricky

...
There are others, such as Slumberger,...
...

I know Shlumberger.

And Allen-Bradley, Johnson Controls, General Electric, Honneywell-Bull, that were mentioned here.

And many more from a variety of countries.

The point that Halliburton got contracts without competing against companies from all over the world, while the sake of 'liberating' Iraq with Iraq's money (i.e.: with Iraq's oil, not with Bush's oil) is at stake, stands unchallenged.

[Troll]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel

Your last paragraph makes no sense. Specious reasons for what?

Actually I know almost nothing about piplines and such, but I bet if I looked in the green book or had a week to do rescearch I could come up with half a dozen companies that could do the work, adhear to the milspecs guidlines and meet iso 9001 standards, but have no connection with Cheney , the White House or its minions.

Another aspect that does touch upon my area of expertise is those of controls, sensors and data aquision, and offhand I can state that Honeywell, Johnson Controls, Allen- Bradey, GE and others are pre-cleared to do biz with the government and meet or exceed the specs sited above. There are more , but I'm making a point here.

specious reasons for Haliburton actually getting the contract.

Now clarify for me, please, the matter of controls, sensors and data aquisition that you brought up. I'm quite familiar with Honeywell's controls but where is the pertinence involving oil field contracts?

[Troll]

Originally posted by Ion

Whatever works, trolly.

And it does work to put into submission the pro-war crowd.

Unless you're wearing stilletto heels and a corset you're not going to see any sort of submission from me using the tactics you're trying to use.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Troll

...
Now clarify for me, please, the matter of controls, sensors and data aquisition that you brought up. I'm quite familiar with Honeywell's controls but where is the pertinence involving oil field contracts?
Controls, sensors, data acquisition and display, automatons (like Allen-Bradley, Shlumberger), these are the instruments used in oil refineries.

I think that now, Halliburton has a monopoly on the instruments being used in oil refineries in Iraq.

Including a monopoly on their prices when Hallibuton makes these instruments without competing against other (and better qualified) companies.

Regarding "...stiletto heels...", just learn what I reply in this post about instrumentation so that you become on par with the topic that you ramble about:

I will put you into submission when you are more educated than now.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Ion

Controls, sensors, data acquisition and display, automatons (like Allen-Bradley, Shlumberger), these are the instruments used in oil refineries.

I think that now, Halliburton has a monopoly on the instruments being used in oil refineries in Iraq.

Including a monopoly on their prices when Hallibuton makes these instruments without competing against other (and better qualified) companies.

Regarding "...stiletto heels...", just learn what I reply in this post about instrumentation so that you become on par with the topic that you ramble about:

I will put you into submission when you are more educated than now.

Whoah, on topic and not "bullying me into submission"?

I understand the controls thing. But I am not sure if Halliburton makes any. I've worked in the civilian electronics industry for about 10 years since I got out of the Marines. I'm very familiar with Honeywell controls as they make them and custom make them for many of the companies I've worked for in the past. so while Hughes may make their own things we used Honeywell controls, same for Luneaire and a few other companies that made their own specialized equipment while subcontracting for parts.

I guess my main question concerning the matter is does Halliburton make their own or does Honeywell supply them, meaning that a Halliburton contract and equipment use mean extra business for someone like Honeywell, as well?

By the way, it's subcontractors that have people going off on Halliburton right now over the pricing issue of gas. But subcontractors often make a ton of cash when the contractor does. Pennsylvania steel companies stand to make a ton of cash when people wake up and realize drilling ANWR isn't that damned bad and stop using the enviromentalist's specious reasonings behind preventing it. So while we know Honeywell can't serve a purpose in putting out oil fires or repairing the oil rigs can anyone say with certainty that Honeywell isn't making a buck off the Halliburton deal?

I've found in life that some of the things I used in one company to test something that went to other companies, were made by companies I worked for as well. Wanna test a new microchip? I can test it, build it, build the equipment that tests it and parts that go into the test equipment. It's one of the funny things about life and the real world I learned in 10 of my past jobs. I can also build the trailer for the truck that ships them if you want to add an 11th job, and can make the materials for the trailer if you want to add a 12th and more recent job I had to the list.

So yeah, I can say with vast experience, that I can see how one company getting a contract can lead to up to at least 5 others gaining business as well. In a world where people are whining about unemployment, of which I'm again a part of right now, I don't rightly care who gets the freaking deal because while they may only need to hire 3 more guys others involved may have to hire hundreds more in support.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Troll

...
I understand the controls thing. But I am not sure if Halliburton makes any.
...

Probably Halliburton doesn't make many of these instruments.

Halliburton is not known in instrumentation, yet.

But Halliburton with its monopoly can resell these instruments that it buys from some companies, to the U.S. government when it sends its bill to the U.S. government, for an inflated price.

It does so when Halliburton puts together an oil refinery with instruments that Halliburton chooses, then sends the inflated bill to the government.

Today's paper is full of such inflations that Halliburton does in its bills.

Let's say that Shlumberger (Fra.) has the capability to put together an oil refinery with full instrumentation, for cheaper and with more expertize than Halliburton (U.S.) does it.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Ion

Probably Halliburton doesn't make many of these instruments.

Halliburton is not known in instrumentation, yet.

But Halliburton with its monopoly can resell these instruments that it buys from some companies, to the U.S. government when it sends its bill to the U.S. government, for an inflated price.

It does so when Halliburton puts together an oil refinery with instruments that Halliburton chooses, then sends the inflated bill to the government.

Today's paper is full of such inflations that Halliburton does in its bills.

Link me to "todays paper" for evidence then. My paper and news only shows claims of overpricing for gas and then cunters itself with subcontractors being the actual people behind the overpricing

[Ion]

This evidence about instrumentation is not out yet.

It is my knowledge that Shlumberger (Fra.) is a big name in professional instrumentation.

Like Allen-Bradley, Honneywell-Bull, General Electric, and so on.

None of them got a lick of a chance to compete.

Rebuilding Iraq was given to Halliburton without any competition.

One of the billing abuses that I saw in the newspaper today was for something else:

cleaning the same offices up to four times per day for each office, everyday.

Halliburton, not a subcontractor, is credited in today's paper with this excessive cleaning.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Ion

Read the thread, Eddy:

it says that the money invested to rebuild Iraq is a loan to Iraq (with my tax money), so the money is ultimately Iraq's (not Bush's), but Bush gives it to his brownnosers like in a racket for oil.

Read the thread.

So? You ever get a loan without conditions? My question stands.

[Chaos]

Originally posted by Ed


So? You ever get a loan without conditions? My question stands.

If you took a loan for a new car, would you accept a condition that you can´t buy that car from a, say, German company? Or that you´d have to buy from a retailer who charges more for the same car than others?

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Ed
I think that I am missing something here.

Is anyone seriously suggesting that the US is obligated in some way to spend US tax dollars in a certain way?


It is all about free trade in my book. We look for the best suppliers in most government purchases/bids. Admittedly there are occasionly issues of national security. Somehow I don't think this qualifies.

So just as we have the "right" to impose steel tariffs and secede from international treaties, we don't actually plan to do so. We want to be a good international partner to other countries, including allowing them to bid and be awarded business in Iraq. Perhaps a French company would not have overcharged the US by a billion dollars for fuel, as Halliburton apparently did.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Chaos

...
Or that you´d have to buy from a retailer who charges more for the same car than others?
and
Originally posted by DrChinese

...
Perhaps a French company would not have overcharged the US by a billion dollars for fuel, as Halliburton apparently did.
Indeed, this is against free market:

a competition for bidding between oil production companies (including Total-Elf Acquitaine from France) would have brought up the lowest price available out there for fuel.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Ion
This evidence about instrumentation is not out yet.

It is my knowledge that Shlumberger (Fra.) is a big name in professional instrumentation.

Like Allen-Bradley, Honneywell-Bull, General Electric, and so on.

None of them got a lick of a chance to compete.

Rebuilding Iraq was given to Halliburton without any competition.

One of the billing abuses that I saw in the newspaper today was for something else:

cleaning the same offices up to four times per day for each office, everyday.

Halliburton, not a subcontractor, is credited in today's paper with this excessive cleaning.

The evidence isn't out yet?

Why are all the claims out then?

[Ed]

Originally posted by Chaos


If you took a loan for a new car, would you accept a condition that you can´t buy that car from a, say, German company? Or that you´d have to buy from a retailer who charges more for the same car than others?

Maybe, maybe not. It depends on the leverage that I have. If I have none I accept the conditions.

[Chaos]

Originally posted by Ed


Maybe, maybe not. It depends on the leverage that I have. If I have none I accept the conditions.

Interesting.

So you do not deny that this is against your interests. (i.e. against Iraqi interests, for the bidding issue)


Tell me, would you protest if, say, the bully of the block (i.e. Saddam) smashed your car (i.e. ruined Iraq), then the precinct´s self-appointed neighborhood watch (i.e. the U.S.A.) came, chased away the bully (i.e. invaded Iraq) and then loaned you the money they spend to buy you a new car (i.e. rebuild Iraq) from one of their own people at a much higher price than what you would have spent if you had bought the same car yourself?

[Ed]

Originally posted by Chaos


Interesting.

So you do not deny that this is against your interests. (i.e. against Iraqi interests, for the bidding issue)


I neither affirmed nor denied. Not really that interesting. If, of course France contributed money to a fund they too might help set conditions. Alas, they have not.

Tell me, would you protest if, say, the bully of the block (i.e. Saddam) smashed your car (i.e. ruined Iraq), then the precinct´s self-appointed neighborhood watch (i.e. the U.S.A.) came, chased away the bully (i.e. invaded Iraq) and then loaned you the money they spend to buy you a new car (i.e. rebuild Iraq) from one of their own people at a much higher price than what you would have spent if you had bought the same car yourself?


Moved me to a better area, did away with the bully, gave me a better car? I suspect I'd count my blessings. The point?

[Ion]

Originally posted by Troll


The evidence isn't out yet?

Why are all the claims out then?
Because this claim that I made yesterday, and elaborated on later on yesterday, is supported by evidence:
Originally posted by Ion

...
The point that Halliburton got contracts without competing against companies from all over the world, while the sake of 'liberating' Iraq with Iraq's money (i.e.: with Iraq's oil, not with Bush's oil) is at stake, stands unchallenged.
As for the ramification into the instrumentation field that this Halliburton's monopoly in Iraq generates, Halliburton's evidenced overcharging in many fields means unethical habits -I think- in just about everything that Halliburton charges.

[Ion]

A.) Replying to Ed's "...Moved me to a better idea, did away with the bully, gave me a better car?..." has me saying that the main point in this thread is that 'gave me' in "...gave me a better car..." is incorrect:

U.S. doesn't give to Iraq since it is Iraq's money (i.e.: oil) that U.S. is after and is using.

B.) Replying to Ed's "...The point?" has me saying that the point is that it is a racket that Bush's U.S. plays in Iraq, as I posted two days ago:
Originally posted by Ion
...consider that the major part of the reconstruction money is a loan, not a grant.

While repayments have been suspended for eighteen months, this means that the loan part of the reconstruction bill is, in fact, money that belongs to the Iraqis.

Not to Bush.

Bush only dismantled Iraq.

Since the Iraqis have no choice in the continued U.S. occupation of their country or what reconstruction takes place, they are in fact being forced to pay U.S. and allied companies a reconstruction fee on terms that they have no part in negotiating.

Bush wants to run a protection racket of his 'oil for blood' in Iraq, doesn't he?

[Ion]

You know, Eddy, your defence of Bush's preferential treatment in Iraq's economics while using Iraq's money (i.e.: Iraq's oil), makes me run this by you:

is it OK with you Ed, if in Bush's election campaign of 2004, Bush is going to promise tax cuts only to people who vote for him?

Because that kind of 'democracy' is the same kind of 'free market' that Bush employs, you know?

[Ion]

With the threat of the tyrant Saddam Hussein (Iraq) being removed because Hussein was allegedly captured yesterday, if the Bush's U.S. was not after Iraq's oil but was only after Hussein then in Iraq it would be expected that:

full control over fossil fuel resources is turned to the Iraqis.

I trust that this will not happen:

looting of the Iraq's oil and preferences in contracts for 'rebuilding' Iraq continues today and will continue for years without shame because of Bush's U.S..

The points made in this thread stand unchallenged after the alleged capture of Hussein.

Hussein is only a smoke screen to Bush's 'oil for blood'.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Ion

The points made in this thread stand unchallenged after the alleged capture of Hussein.
The only point you have made in this thread is that you have one on the top of your head.

[Skeptic]

The points made in this thread stand unchallenged after the alleged capture of Hussein.

Of course; you KNOW the TURTH(tm), and won't let those nasty facts get in the way.

[Ion]

Originally posted by hammegk

The only point you have made in this thread is that you have one on the top of your head.
The only point that you made in this thread is that you don't have anything.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Skeptic
The points made in this thread stand unchallenged after the alleged capture of Hussein.

Of course; you KNOW the TURTH(tm), and won't let those nasty facts get in the way.
You mean that the oil goes back to the Iraqis?

If no, then everything in this thread stands.

[crackmonkey]

Ion - the more words you type, the less sense you make. Perhaps you should remain silent and thus logically unassailable.
Besides - the violence you visit upon my language is offensive.

[Ion]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Ion - the more words you type, the less sense you make.
...

It makes sense to say that Iraq's oil is Iraq's.

Not Bush's.

Not Bush's to do prefered contracts with Iraq's oil.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Ion

The only point that you made in this thread is that you don't have anything.

Yes, I try not to engage idiots, but I've now made an exception for you twice. It will not happen again.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Ion
The points made in this thread stand unchallenged after the alleged capture of Hussein.

Hussein is only a smoke screen to Bush's 'oil for blood'.

Alleged capture - yeah, it was all faked.

And I see you are still yammering about that oil for blood tripe.

[BTox]

Originally posted by hammegk


Yes, I try not to engage idiots, but I've now made an exception for you twice. It will not happen again.

I keep falling into that trap, too. Ion.. Rouser2... too many idiots, too little time...

[DialecticMaterialist]

Originally posted by Tmy
Saddam has been out of Kuwait for over a decade. Are they the worlds punching bag forever now???

This is a dumb policy. It makes us look bad, its another PR nightmare, and its not in the best interest if the Iraqis. Isnt that what our motives should be? What it IS???? We may be frontingthe 80 billion now, but you know its gonna come back to us in Iraqi oil.


That's absurd. First off the French, Germans and Russians are not going to do an about face and become buddy-buddy with us just because we let them in in some court. If they did, I'm not sure it was worth much to begin with.


Secondly, I think there are more important things then PR. Like teaching them a lesson, namely, that if they chump us, we chump them. Scratching their back after they refuse to scratch, damn near stab, ours is just going to make the US look like a push over.

Also the moral principle of letting them call the shots, after they refused to aid our war efforts is most questionable.

Had the situation been reversed, and the EU, for whatever reason, invaded the Congo and the US refused to help, not only that but spoke endlessly against their actions: I bet they'd feel the same way.

[crackmonkey]

Apparently, the French and their fellow travelers are having second thoughts about not forgiving the Iraqi debt owed them by Saddam. By the way - these countries are not prohibited from being subcontractors, but are currently barred from bidding as contractors in Iraq.
It looks like this was an excellent bargaining strategy by Bush that is, in fact, paying off.

[Ion]

The U.S. imbeciles write:
Originally posted by hammegk


Yes, I try not to engage idiots, but I've now made an exception for you twice. It will not happen again.
and
Originally posted by BTox


Alleged capture - yeah, it was all faked.

And I see you are still yammering about that oil for blood tripe.
However, I wrote this without being disproven:
Originally posted by Ion
With the threat of the tyrant Saddam Hussein (Iraq) being removed because Hussein was allegedly captured yesterday, if the Bush's U.S. was not after Iraq's oil but was only after Hussein then in Iraq it would be expected that:

full control over fossil fuel resources is turned to the Iraqis.

I trust that this will not happen:

looting of the Iraq's oil and preferences in contracts for 'rebuilding' Iraq continues today and will continue for years without shame because of Bush's U.S..

The points made in this thread stand unchallenged after the alleged capture of Hussein.

Hussein is only a smoke screen to Bush's 'oil for blood'.

[Ion]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Apparently, the French and their fellow travelers are having second thoughts about not forgiving the Iraqi debt owed them by Saddam.
...

This development is not finished and is to be followed up on.

France and Canada study with the World Trade Office the legality of Bush's forbidding them in Iraq's contracts.

The diplomatic relations between these countries and U.S. exacerbate.

I see that the capture of Hussein is a smoke screen to Bush's wrongdoings that will somewhat work, like debating whether Hussein should be tried in the International Court, like bringing up more justifications for invading Iraq, like jamming the headlines for months on without end, etc..

The facts remain that Bush is supporting a dictator similar to Hussein in Uzbekistan, that Chevron sells now in U.S. Iraq's oil, and that Halliburton gets contracts in Iraq without bidding, which is against 'free market'.

These facts make little difference between Bush's actions and the U.S.S.R. invasion of Afghanistan in 1980.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Ion

The facts remain that Bush is supporting a dictator similar to Hussein in Uzbekistan

Evidence of his atrocities?

[Ion]

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39633000/jpg/_39633943_saddamcaptured203.jpg

http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/history/virtual/portrait/marx.jpg

Hmm...
Originally posted by Troll


Evidence of his atrocities?
Bush the 'liberator' likes this brute from Uzbekistan:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are over 6,000 political and religious prisoners in Uzbekistan. Every year, some of them are tortured to death. Sometimes the policemen or intelligence agents simply break their fingers, their ribs and then their skulls with hammers, or stab them with screwdrivers, or rip off bits of skin and flesh with pliers, or drive needles under their fingernails, or leave them standing for a fortnight, up to their knees in freezing water. Sometimes they are a little more inventive. The body of one prisoner was delivered to his relatives last year, with a curious red tidemark around the middle of his torso. He had been boiled to death.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1072313,00.html

Don't forget: the brute is an ally of Bush's U.S., and the U.S. Special Forces train the troops of this brute.

So, suuuuure, Bush has the profile of an Iraqi 'liberator'...

Bush's U.S. takes out one dictator in Iraq because it's in Bush's U.S. interests, and Bush's U.S. supports another dictator in Uzbekistan because Bush's U.S. has nothing to gain by deposing him:

'liberation' of Iraq, it doesn't exist in Bush's life, but it sure is the opium of gullible rednecks.

[crackmonkey]

The French are being pretty compliant right now. I don't think they're going to raise much of a stink... they can whine to the WTO, but by the time the issue is heard and all sides have their say, it'll be too late to do anything about it, and the French know it.
Face it - you guys lost, and you know it. If you want to whine about it some more, go right ahead. I understand... it must be a tough day for you, Saddam being in US hands and all.

[Ion]

Originally posted by crackmonkey

...
Face it - you guys lost, and you know it. If you want to whine about it some more, go right ahead. I understand... it must be a tough day for you, Saddam being in US hands and all.
The thing that I lose with this capture is that Bush's popularity will increase.

My reasons for being anti-war remain the same.

Also, this is one year away from the next U.S. election:

Hussein couldn't have commanded the Iraqi insurgents from the rathole he was found in, and the Iraqi guerilla and the questionable awards of contracts in 'reconstruction' will continue at Bush's expense.

[crackmonkey]

Hussein was found with documentation describing the activities, personnel, and planning of some of the insurgent cells. This isn't proof that he was involved in the planning or coordination, but it certainly is evidence of his involvement. It's also a pretty good bet that the personnel listed in this documentation are now being interrogated...
Please don't let the facts get in the way of your prognostications. Your bitter, impotent sullenness amuses me so.

[rikzilla]

Go easy on Ion guys,...

He's in mourning for his hero Saddam. You can tell by his descent into denial. Speaking of brownnoses Ion,...didja see Saddam's? After living in a hole in the ground, your hero seems to be badly in need of a shower.

-z

Sic Semper Tyrannis

[Ion]

Originally posted by rikzilla
Go easy on Ion guys,...

He's in mourning for his hero Saddam.
...
-z

Sic Semper Tyrannis
The guys do go easy on me, zulla:

Saddam and Bush are not my heroes.

I challenge you to find in 750 posts that I wrote in this forum so far one single post where Saddam or Bush are my heroes.

So nothing in your post applies to reality.

But what applies to why I am against Bush, is this:

“The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.”

(Hint: that's why a few posts ago I wrote that Saddam is a smokescreen only, and the U.S. interest for war is deeper than Saddam).

"From an American perspective, the value of such bases would endure even should Saddam pass from the scene. Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region." - PNAC 1998

(Hint: by "...American interests in the region." here, understand American oil interests in the region which are well documented).