US Bars Iraq Contracts for Countries that Opposed War !

[sandorski]

So, who decides what projects should be done?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The Iraqis should get to decide who gets the contracts, without US pressure.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Czar
well then good luck getting more and more support for helping rebuilding iraq

Looks like you're right. It's starting.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: Czar
well then good luck getting more and more support for helping rebuilding iraq

Looks like you're right. It's starting.

Was funny on Leno last night, Jimmy Carter ripping Dubya a new one on this in his subtle kind of way.

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
I don't think it's a problem when US taxpayer is paying for it. It would be a problem if it was from Iraqi oil revenue, unless Iraqi people had a voice in the decision.
I think Russians can't do much about it, but Germans and French can pull their forces out of Afghanistan in retaliation, which would force US to spread its troops even thinner.
I do think burning bridges with Russia, France, and Germany is a mistake. In the real WoT relating to Al Qaeda, Russia is US' most natural partner with its problems in Chechnya.
The damage done to that relationship because of this Iraq fiasco will be detrimental to the US security long term. Russia reached out to the US after 9/11 only to be slapped on the hand by Dubya.

Were the French and Germans to unilaterally pull out of Afghanistan, it would essentially mean the end of NATO. Though the French would likely be happy (the politicians at least, not the military), the Germans would certainly not want that to happen. Nevertheless, even if they did, their contribution is only a few battalions.

Russia the most natural partner because of Chechnya? Last I checked, the U.S. hasn't twice invaded a border province and brutally slaughtered thousands upon thousands of civilians while essentially leveling the capital city. Russia created their own problem, but it even predates the current Russia and stems from the former borders of the Soviet Union. Further, if you think Russia "reached out" for anything but their own self-interest, you really should study some international politics. Take a look at their economy for an idea as to why they would want to engage the U.S. -- dollars, not goodwill. Putin has the veneer of an honest man, but keep in mind that he's a former KGB officer.

Iraq damaging to long term security? Laughable. Hundreds if not thousands of terrorist operatives are in Iraq right now fighting against the U.S. military, instead of trying to infiltrate U.S. territory to fight against U.S. civilians. Which is preferable to you?

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: Czar
well then good luck getting more and more support for helping rebuilding iraq

Looks like you're right. It's starting.

Was funny on Leno last night, Jimmy Carter ripping Dubya a new one on this in his subtle kind of way.

Ah, yes, President Carter's policies in the middle east were extremely beneficial to this country, weren't they? 444 days anyone?

 

[EXman]

Why not these scumbags lined Saddams pockets and looked the other way as he slaughtered/ tortured hundred's of thousands why cause it made them $.

 

[Gaard]

<<...and looked the other way as he slaughtered/ tortured hundred's of thousands>>

Who exactly didn't look the other way?

 

[heartsurgeon]

the removal of saddam hussein from power in iraq was moral, just and the right thing to do.

to argue that a monster to his own people, a mass murderer, a demonstrated threat to regional stability, an avowed enemy of the U.S., a
billionare interested in obtaining/developing/using nuclear, biological and chemical weapons to control his neighbors, and someone INVOLVED in ongoing
discussions with Al-qaeda about how to harm the U.S., should not have been forceably removed from power..identifies you as a morally bankrupt.

some things are black and white.
there does exist true evil.

the french, german and russians have a history and tradition that brings into question their morality and opposition to evil.

the libs would argue "Bush should have gotten the U.N. to approve of the Iraq War!"
wake up...NOTHING would have gotten the French or the Russians to agree...
are you therefore arguing that Saddam should not have been removed?

a morally bankrupt position.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
the removal of saddam hussein from power in iraq was moral, just and the right thing to do.

to argue that a monster to his own people, a mass murderer, a demonstrated threat to regional stability, an avowed enemy of the U.S., a
billionare interested in obtaining/developing/using nuclear, biological and chemical weapons to control his neighbors, and someone INVOLVED in ongoing
discussions with Al-qaeda about how to harm the U.S., should not have been forceably removed from power..identifies you as a morally bankrupt.

some things are black and white.
there does exist true evil.

the french, german and russians have a history and tradition that brings into question their morality and opposition to evil.

the libs would argue "Bush should have gotten the U.N. to approve of the Iraq War!"
wake up...NOTHING would have gotten the French or the Russians to agree...
are you therefore arguing that Saddam should not have been removed?

a morally bankrupt position.

To wage preemptive war against an enemy that is not an imminent threat is morally bankrupt. To supply an ally with chemical and biological and tactical information in a war against neighbors because it serves your 'so called' strategic interests is morally bankrupt. To incite a revolt against a dictator and renege on the promise and have the revolter's wind up in mass graves is morally bankrupt. To not reckon these kinds of behavior into your moral equation is morally bankrupt.

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
the removal of saddam hussein from power in iraq was moral, just and the right thing to do.

to argue that a monster to his own people, a mass murderer, a demonstrated threat to regional stability, an avowed enemy of the U.S., a
billionare interested in obtaining/developing/using nuclear, biological and chemical weapons to control his neighbors, and someone INVOLVED in ongoing
discussions with Al-qaeda about how to harm the U.S., should not have been forceably removed from power..identifies you as a morally bankrupt.

some things are black and white.
there does exist true evil.

the french, german and russians have a history and tradition that brings into question their morality and opposition to evil.

the libs would argue "Bush should have gotten the U.N. to approve of the Iraq War!"
wake up...NOTHING would have gotten the French or the Russians to agree...
are you therefore arguing that Saddam should not have been removed?

a morally bankrupt position.

I agree. The UN is pointless. Everyone just tries to use it for their own country's advantage. France was opposed because it would hurt them financially. Yea, that's a good reason right there

. Saddam was an evil man who treated his people like cattle. Anyone opposed to the war is basically condoning those actions.

Country's opposed to the war should not get contracts. Why should they? We did all the grunt work, now they want to come and cash in? SCREW 'EM. Maybe next time they will listen when we come calling instead of blowing us off.

 

[EXman]

To wage preemptive war against an enemy that is not an imminent threat is morally bankrupt.

I guess Chamberlain was right then to appease Hitler?

Ouch how you like them apples?

 

[Fencer128]

there does exist true evil.

Scary. Just scary.

the french, german and russians have a history and tradition that brings into question their morality and opposition to evil.

what "tradition" exactly? I guess the Japanese are the same?

Saddam was an evil man who treated his people like cattle. Anyone opposed to the war is basically condoning those actions.

I agree with the action - but not with the analysis. If you don't support the war you're supporting Iraqi oppression? A tad simplistic unless you live in a black and white world.

Country's opposed to the war should not get contracts. Why should they? We did all the grunt work, now they want to come and cash in? SCREW 'EM. Maybe next time they will listen when we come calling instead of blowing us off.

I agree that if you view the conflict as much a US security measure as a liberation then that's a valid viewpoint - however, there should be checks to make sure the Iraqi's aren't being ripped off. There's children to feed, patients to treat, etc. They need to get value for money as most of them are innocent in all this.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[EXman]

I agree that if you view the conflict as much a US security measure as a liberation then that's a valid viewpoint - however, there should be checks to make sure the Iraqi's aren't being ripped off.

oh crap there goes the last 30 years!!!

 

[JackStorm]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

the removal of saddam hussein from power in iraq was moral, just and the right thing to do.

Is that so? then why isn't the US removing other dictators and brutal rulers around the world, who are just as bad as hussein? I mean, if it's so "just" why don't they put their money where their mouth is and remove them all?(Oh wait...The US doesn't have any interests in those other countries)

to argue that a monster to his own people, a mass murderer, a demonstrated threat to regional stability, an avowed enemy of the U.S., a
billionare interested in obtaining/developing/using nuclear, biological and chemical weapons to control his neighbors, and someone INVOLVED in ongoing
discussions with Al-qaeda about how to harm the U.S., should not have been forceably removed from power..identifies you as a morally bankrupt.

And yet the US supported him up untill the time he invated kuwait. Funny how things work out.

the libs would argue "Bush should have gotten the U.N. to approve of the Iraq War!"
wake up...NOTHING would have gotten the French or the Russians to agree...
are you therefore arguing that Saddam should not have been removed?

Yeah, lets just ignore the U.N and international laws because we don't agree or think the U.N is useless.

 

[JackStorm]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
the removal of saddam hussein from power in iraq was moral, just and the right thing to do.

to argue that a monster to his own people, a mass murderer, a demonstrated threat to regional stability, an avowed enemy of the U.S., a
billionare interested in obtaining/developing/using nuclear, biological and chemical weapons to control his neighbors, and someone INVOLVED in ongoing
discussions with Al-qaeda about how to harm the U.S., should not have been forceably removed from power..identifies you as a morally bankrupt.

some things are black and white.
there does exist true evil.

the french, german and russians have a history and tradition that brings into question their morality and opposition to evil.

the libs would argue "Bush should have gotten the U.N. to approve of the Iraq War!"
wake up...NOTHING would have gotten the French or the Russians to agree...
are you therefore arguing that Saddam should not have been removed?

a morally bankrupt position.

I agree. The UN is pointless. Everyone just tries to use it for their own country's advantage. France was opposed because it would hurt them financially. Yea, that's a good reason right there

. Saddam was an evil man who treated his people like cattle. Anyone opposed to the war is basically condoning those actions.

Country's opposed to the war should not get contracts. Why should they? We did all the grunt work, now they want to come and cash in? SCREW 'EM. Maybe next time they will listen when we come calling instead of blowing us off.

You know, people like you amaze me. You seem to think that because you think the U.N is useless the US can just bypass international law whenever it feel like it. I bet you're the kind of person who ignores laws that you don't agree with.

And yes, I'm going to say it again, even though this horse has been beaten to death 1000s of times. The war in Iraq was illegal, the U.N charter (yeah, here I go talking about that useless U.N again) and the Iraqi resolutions CLEARLY state that *ONLY* the U.N SC has the right to authorize the use of force against Iraq, to enforce the resolutions. But hey, the U.N is useless, right? we should just ignore it, right? Never mind all the humanitarian work it does and helps organize around the world. Maybe it's time the US just pulls out of the U.N since it's so useless.

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: SuperTool
I don't think it's a problem when US taxpayer is paying for it. It would be a problem if it was from Iraqi oil revenue, unless Iraqi people had a voice in the decision.
I think Russians can't do much about it, but Germans and French can pull their forces out of Afghanistan in retaliation, which would force US to spread its troops even thinner.
I do think burning bridges with Russia, France, and Germany is a mistake. In the real WoT relating to Al Qaeda, Russia is US' most natural partner with its problems in Chechnya.
The damage done to that relationship because of this Iraq fiasco will be detrimental to the US security long term. Russia reached out to the US after 9/11 only to be slapped on the hand by Dubya.

Yeah everyone, Supertool is right. We should reward the three countries that did the most damage to the UN by doling out Iraqi contracts to 'em. Ingenious.

Still shooting at the messengers despite the fact that they were correct all along regarding the Bushies' "evidence" for WMD.

Please Sire, explain to me how they were right.

fact is, these three countries supported Iraq's WMD for the longest. And they fought hard to get rid of the sanctions prematurely, so that they could profit from iraqi intransigence.

What WMD's?

"He [Saddam Hussein] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to use conventional power against his neighbors." Colin Powell, Cairo Egypt, February 24th, 2001

Prematurely? You mean while the 500,000 kids were still alive?

You didn't answer my question.

As for those kids, are you blaming the United States, United Nations, or Saddam Hussein?

They were right by simply seeing through the US/UK charade with manufactured "evidence" for Saddam's WMD's.

The US refused to change the UN oil for food program even after it became obvious that it was enriching Saddam on the behalf of his people. The US demanded that Saddam conform to their wishes. Now who in their right mind demands sanity from a criminally insane murderer? Madeleine Albright said she thought the deaths of 500,000 children was "worth it". Now of course it follows that the US let those kids die for nothing if what the Bush administration said regarding the WMD's was true and the sanctions failed. But Powell and Rice in early 2001 bragged that Saddam was contained and did not pose a threat to his neighbours. How quickly that tune changed when the neocons got their opportunity after 911.

There are no heroes in this tale and plenty of blame to go around for all involved. But it was the Bush administration that did the most damage to the UN by ignoring the proper process and going to war for reasons of political expediency. And not France, Germany and Russia as you claim.

Why is the US in Iraq right now, Dari? Is it because of the innate goodness in American hearts?

Edit: typo

 

[EXman]

Maybe it's time the US just pulls out of the U.N since it's so useless.

The U.N. will not let that happen as we bankroll the UN. And they do suck. If that plane hit thier building do you think we'd have a problem?

Syria is the the chair of the security council fro pete's sake they have been taking Saddam's blackmarket oil for ages as well as it's boarders leak insurgents into Iraq all the time. and lastly Syria is trembling due to many in the region say WMD's could have found there way into Syria via Iraq and that even now there are contingency plans to invade them if there is solid intel (that be a first) they had them.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: EXman

To wage preemptive war against an enemy that is not an imminent threat is morally bankrupt.

I guess Chamberlain was right then to appease Hitler?

Ouch how you like them apples?

Bush is Hitler. How do you like them apples?

And if you find my comment moronic please don't flip out till you look at your own.

 

[GrGr]

The Guardian says that US Special Forces are already operating inside Syria

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: EXman

Maybe it's time the US just pulls out of the U.N since it's so useless.

The U.N. will not let that happen as we bankroll the UN. And they do suck. If that plane hit thier building do you think we'd have a problem?

Syria is the the chair of the security council fro pete's sake they have been taking Saddam's blackmarket oil for ages as well as it's boarders leak insurgents into Iraq all the time. and lastly Syria is trembling due to many in the region say WMD's could have found there way into Syria via Iraq and that even now there are contingency plans to invade them if there is solid intel (that be a first) they had them.

That's the biggest BS and you know it. UN will gladly operate without US as the rest of the world has more than enough resources to keep it going. And US uses UN more than anyone else to do what it wants in international policy, it needs UN more than UN needs US. Yeah, of course UN suck in your view because the rest of the world knows better that not everything revolves around American and not everything should be done for the benefit of the United States.

And so what Syria is one of the member in Security council? they are only one of the 10 elected member with 2 years term. There are 15 member countries in security council and many of them US allys. US couldn't even convince the majority of them to vote for supporting Iraiq war and had to abandon the vote. Yeah, go ahead and single out Syria as why security council didn't work, it just show how ignorant you are about UN structure.

 

[EXman]

Bush is Hitler. How do you like them apples?

Moonbeam if you truely believe that there is no argueing with you.

And so what Syria is one of the member in Security council?

Oxymoron

It is no secret that there are terrorist right now training there that they turn the other cheek to Just ask all the Isrealies who have had been bombed from terrorists that have active bases in Syria. their 2 year term is over in 21 days good riddance.

You all Like Syria? I don't hate them and a friend of mine is Syrian and he agrees that it is not a good place anymore. He has a wife who cannot get into the US cause she is Syrian and they were married there. So he sees her 2 times a year in Syria. He has shared his stories from his travels there and never tells anyone that he is an American citizen. Sad. off the subject for a sec oh well...

look what the U.N. would lose if the US stepped away 24% of their budget. Notice China and Russia pay 1% each

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: EXman

Bush is Hitler. How do you like them apples?

Moonbeam if you truely believe that there is no argueing with you.

And so what Syria is one of the member in Security council?

Oxymoron

It is no secret that there are terrorist right now training there that they turn the other cheek to Just ask all the Isrealies who have had been bombed from terrorists that have active bases in Syria. their 2 year term is over in 21 days good riddance.

You all Like Syria? I don't hate them and a friend of mine is Syrian and he agrees that it is not a good place anymore. He has a wife who cannot get into the US cause she is Syrian and they were married there. So he sees her 2 times a year in Syria. He has shared his stories from his travels there and never tells anyone that he is an American citizen. Sad. off the subject for a sec oh well...

look what the U.N. would lose if the US stepped away 24% of their budget. Notice China and Russia pay 1% each

Who talks about if we like Syria or not, just because its government has a different view and support a different cause, you are saying they shouldn't have their voice heard in the global community? They don't dictate what happens in the security council, they are just one of the 15 and will be out of the council by the end of 2003. what is wrong with that?

And talking about US to UN contribution, let's look at how much US promised to pay be didn't shall we?

US vs. Total Debt to the UN:2003

 

[EXman]

That link is FUBARed but if you are reffering to what we have not paid them good for us. Think the UN feels it? I bet they do. Think they still want it and expect it. Probably so.

If you cannot see where a State that Harbors Terrorist is on the "Security Council" in not an Oxymoron then I cannot help you.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: EXman

To wage preemptive war against an enemy that is not an imminent threat is morally bankrupt.

I guess Chamberlain was right then to appease Hitler?

Ouch how you like them apples?

Bush is Hitler. How do you like them apples?

And if you find my comment moronic please don't flip out till you look at your own.

Originally posted by: EXman

Bush is Hitler. How do you like them apples?

Moonbeam if you truely believe that there is no argueing with you.

I asked you to think before replying. If you truly think Saddam Husein is Hitler than there's no arguing with you. "I guess Chamberlain was right then to appease Hitler?" Your parallel, not mine.