U.S. Bars War Opponents....

[Southpaw]

Cb I do not think you are a troll Very misguided but not a troll. If you cant see the us standing up for the blood shed and want the AMERICAN companies to get the US money back, that is right the US money WE are footing the bill for this right now, then I think you are far far worse than I thought. They did not help or sanction the war so they do not get the US money while AMERICAN soldiers PROTECT the FRENCH GERMAN RUSSIAN ECT workers while the said parties armys sit at home with their thumbs up their *****. I did not know why people didn't like you I thought that you made some valid defenses to peoples arguments but now I just think you cant see past the end of your nose. AMERICANS SHED BLOOD AND ARE PAYING FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE WORKERS AND THE RECONSTRUCTION SO THE PEOPLE THAT HELPED US AND THE GOOD OLD USA GET DIBS ON THE JOBS!!! DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THAT THEY GAVE UP THE RIGHT TO DO ANY THING IN IRAQ WHEN THEY DID NOT HELP??!!!! WOW CB GET A CLUE

[Southpaw]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
WOMD were not the reason, humanitarian reasons are not the reasons, for the people will be worst off. Then what is the reason.

What then is the reason???? MULTIPLE VIOLATIONS of UN sanctions? could that be it??? A change in US policy to shady countries Post 9-11?

How will they be worse off? Will the women have the right to vote or GO TO SCHOOL and make educated decisions or not be beat to death for voicing their views?

I will not hold my breath while you do not answer these questions becaus i think you NEVER WILL!!

[Collegeboy]

You will find that those countries, Germany, France, and Russia, favored intervention into Iraq. They, like I, know the problems that will come out of this war after it is declared "over" (already happened, remember some awol president landing on an air craft). They, like I, have pointed this out before the war happened. They, like I, have asked that the US consider another approach, something that will accomplish something. The US, well Bush, said no, we will drop our bombs, send our troops, handle this asymmetrical war, symmetrically, making the same mistakes we made in Vietnam, and see if different results will come of it. To bad different results will not come out of it.

The US can not allow a democratically elected government, they can not allow the Kurds (who in all sense and purposes of the word are terrorist) to run the government, they can not allow a Sunni to run the government, what is left, a person that represents only 1/100th of the population. That is not democracy, and totally against what they US have said. There is no way they can put into power a government that is strong enough, to gather the majority of the support. Just like in Vietnam, you will lose the war when you can not successfully accomplish the first task of counter guerilla or counter insurgent warfare, have a successful, powerful, and popular government at home for the people to latch on to.

By barring these countries for participation Bush is further isolating this country from the rest of the world, he is undoing years and years of work on behalf of the State Department to make us liked in the rest of the world. He is doing more to spread terrorism then stop it. For as we all should know, you can not stop terrorism by force, it thrives on force, you can only hope to contain it, stop its recruitment, and outlast it. Bush in his 2 years since 911, have done more to spread its containment by making us less and less liked all over the world. I just hope that the US citizens in 2004 has enough sense to not vote this man, well lets say his advisors, back into power. If we do, this country is bound for another attack that pales in comparison to 911.

Would you like a list of all countries that violate UN decisions?

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by Kevmaster
however, i see it both ways, the countries that didn't help shoulnd't get a piece, but at some point you have to ask, whats more valuable: being arrogant about the past or being the bigger man and helping foster a positive future with all nations?

Don't just think of it as between US and the (for lack of a better phrase) Axis of Weasles. You've got to consider that we've got dozens of allies that helped us out in the coalition. What message would we be sending to them if we rewarded the obstructionists instead of the people that put their necks on the line for us. As much as I want to see France and Germany punished this is really more about rewarding our friends.

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
So now this is a war for profit? I thought it was a war for humanitarian reasons?

CB, who's profit? It's OUR money! How can we profit by spending OUR money? What we simply said is that we stand by our allies, and we're going to support their economies because they supported us. Not an unreasonable posistion.

And the war was fought both for WMD (don't start on it, whether there were or their weren't that's a major reason why we went in) and for Humantarian reasons.

[Albinonewt]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Collegeboy


Why should we give our money to people who obstructed us and keep it from the people that supported us? Do you have an answer for that CB? Those allies of our spent billions of their own dollars and sent their own troops into battle while the French, Russians, and Germans all obstructed to some degree or another. It is an insult to our allies to put them all at the same table together.

This is just the first step to a fundamentalist controlled Iraq as I predicted before the war started.

Yeah, but you were wrong then and you're wrong now. We're activly trying to get the Iraqis to take over.

[Albinonewt]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Collegeboy
WOMD were not the reason, humanitarian reasons are not the reasons, for the people will be worst off. Then what is the reason.

WMD were the primary reason. Now maybe they didn't really exist, and we were wrong. I don't think so but it's alwas possible, nothing is certain in life. However, that doesn't mean that wasn't the reason, it would mean that we were wrong. So they were the reason, whether we were right or not.

Humantarian, a very important secondary reason, and frankly I think bush thought the humantarian aspect would secure the democrat's support since they typically support those kinds of missions. And if you say that they were better off under Saddam then they are now you have ZERO idea what you're talking about. None at all.

The US can not and will never allow a democracy to exist in Iraq, if they did, it will be Shiite, and will be a backer of Iran. We went into Iraq to contra the Russia claims in Iran, there is no way we will allow an Iran and Iraq government that are friends.

Actually, we want a non religious democracy in Iraq (sort of like Turkey). Plus, even if the democracy were shiate (which it may be a majority shiate, but not all the way) it will help to destablize Iran which is already a thread from falling in the first place.

[Albinonewt]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Collegeboy
You will find that those countries, Germany, France, and Russia, favored intervention into Iraq.

No they didn't liar. The only time France talked about troops was to put UN troops in Iraq as a way to deter us from attacking.

They, like I, know the problems that will come out of this war after it is declared "over" (already happened, remember some awol president landing on an air craft).

They like you would prefer the innocents die then to upset an dictator and do what a Republican President wants.

They, like I, have pointed this out before the war happened. They, like I, have asked that the US consider another approach, something that will accomplish something.

They, like you, cried and whined before, during, and after the war. They, like you, wanted to use diplomacy FOOREVER without ever accomplishing anything or threatening anything

The US, well Bush, said no, we will drop our bombs, send our troops, handle this asymmetrical war, symmetrically, making the same mistakes we made in Vietnam, and see if different results will come of it. To bad different results will not come out of it.

I'm sorry, are we still bogged down in a jungle or have we liberated and occupied Iraq? This is nothing like Vietnam, except the same anti war types are crying about it like it was.

ALthough, we made some mistakes in reconstruction that I can't believe we made. I'm completely floored by those mistakes because they seem so obvious. But, it's easier to sit and home and complain.

The US can not allow a democratically elected government, they can not allow the Kurds (who in all sense and purposes of the word are terrorist) to run the government, they can not allow a Sunni to run the government, what is left, a person that represents only 1/100th of the population. That is not democracy, and totally against what they US have said. There is no way they can put into power a government that is strong enough, to gather the majority of the support. Just like in Vietnam, you will lose the war when you can not successfully accomplish the first task of counter guerilla or counter insurgent warfare, have a successful, powerful, and popular government at home for the people to latch on to.

We kill dozens of guerilla insurgents a week. We are winning that war. But frankly, there are a lot of them and they hide well so it takes time. But make no mistake, it's being won.

As for the democracy, they will have a democratically elected government that represents all the people in Iraq. that's what they're working towards and that's the goal.

By barring these countries for participation Bush is further isolating this country from the rest of the world,

You're so wrong it's scary. By doing that he's telling the world that we value our friends and our supporters, and we put them first in line when there are benefits to be had. Bush isn't isolating us, he's drawing us closer to our real allies. The world is a big place and we can't be friends with everyone all the time, so he's picking the friends that picked us, and he's right to do it.

he is undoing years and years of work on behalf of the State Department to make us liked in the rest of the world.

I don't care about being liked. That's like saying it's ok to sleep with every boy in highschool because then you'll be popular. Grow up

He is doing more to spread terrorism then stop it. For as we all should know, you can not stop terrorism by force, it thrives on force, you can only hope to contain it, stop its recruitment, and outlast it.

Coward

Bush in his 2 years since 911, have done more to spread its containment by making us less and less liked all over the world.

Well, prior to us going out and killing the terrorists they attacked our homeland and killed thousands. Now they don't.

I just hope that the US citizens in 2004 has enough sense to not vote this man, well lets say his advisors, back into power.

Unlikely we will isten to your "sense"

If we do, this country is bound for another attack that pales in comparison to 911.

Let's hope not. We're vigilant, but not omnipotent.

Would you like a list of all countries that violate UN decisions?

We're working on it. We'll get to them at some point in some fashion.

[Collegeboy]

Can not respond to all until I get done with my finals for today. But to a few.

ABN. Intervention means a WHOLE lot more then just warfare.

There is no way the Iraqis can police themselves. The government is doing this for Bush can not afford to have troops in Iraq in October of 2004. Like I said before this whole thing started. The US will not be able to stay there long enough to get anything done, and will leave the country worse off then when it invaded.

[Kevmaster]

newt, i see the rewarding our friends, and i see how france doesnt deserve to hve access to the money, but shouldnt we at least open up a little to help draw teir govenrment into iraq? maybe a couple of their workers will get killed ( i know it sounds evil of me to say) and tey will have some more encouragement to help out? despite what we say about them, 10,000 french troops would do a lot of good for us

[Vendetta]

What I find truly sad is that the same day the Pentagon put out this list, George Bush was calling Russia, Germany, and France to ask that they forgive the debts that Iraq owes them.

[cphilip]

Well it is our money. Loans and gifts combined the paper I am reading says 18.6 Billion in reconstruction contracts. But reguardless we giving some of that and garantee the rest at our risk. We certianly should have a right to know who is gaining those.

Now it also says previous Iraq owes 125 Billion. Most of it to Germany, France and Russia. These were contracts that Saddam made and hense the reason these countries were so against the action. Money. They got no real way of collecting that now! So for all the phoney anti war hype from them earlier (and even now) that reason still remains the sore point that these countries continue to balk on helping out. Let's get real here. Who was profiting from Iraq? Who was helping them avoid sanctions? Look up!


WOMD? They are there I am fairly certain. Continued intelligence continues to show they were there and most of them could not have made it out of the country in time. Its a given the few people who know where they were hidden will not talk untill Saddam is dead. And they had years to plan to hide them. And its a given they well hidden. And its a given if we have to find them piece by peice with no help it will take years. We still got millions of sites to inspect that we know about. Slow process. They look like any other artilery shell. And you can imagine the time it takes to open each one in a safe way. And there are millions of them. Estimated that there are 11 known sites the size of Manhattan. And we completely gone through only two of them. Thats just the ones we know! It's an insurmoutable task. It will take years. This is why the close people involved continue to tell you they are there. They are.

[Sir_Brass]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
Can not respond to all until I get done with my finals for today. But to a few.

ABN. Intervention means a WHOLE lot more then just warfare.

There is no way the Iraqis can police themselves.

Of course they can! The Iraqie people are just as capable of policing themselves just like the other arabian countries.

ALso, we tried for over 10 years to intervene in IRaq w/o going to war like we said we would if they violated the terms of the cease fire. Well, guess what, that 'intervention' didn't work. You'd think that after 10 years the message would be clear that the 'peaceful' road was not the one that was going to oust Saddam. At least we have a president with the guts, the morals, and the strength of will to do what's right rather than spend his day having sex with his female aids.

I fully plan on voting for Bush in 2004. Liberal idiots (there are some intelligent liberals, it's just that you liberal idiots are so much more visible) like you are one of the cheif reasons I left the liberal way of thinking and have gone to a more moderate but conservative-leaning view. Idealism is fine, as long as it doesn't cloud your judgement. However, it seems that in today's world, short term idealism clouds judgement by it's very nature.

Grow up and look at the real world outside the philosophic Liberal Arts degree rose-tinted glasses, CB. We did what we could, and did what was necessary and right for the people of Iraq. If we did what was in our pocketbook's best interest, then bush would be acting just like Clinton did: cowering behind the U.N. and doing nothing. Instead, we went out on a limb economically to do this. That in itself debunks your "We did it for the money" arguement. It's not financially sound to put so much money at risk for something that only benefits us economically if we have underhanded deals. Bush knows that, and his aids know that. Yet they still had us go into Iraq. If we did it for the money, we wouldn't even be IN Iraq at the moment.

[Vendetta]

That in itself debunks your "We did it for the money" arguement.

I think you guys are forgetting just who is making the money. Cheaney's Haliburton and other such companies links to this administration. Boeing just got rid of the head because the Pentagon was offering its VP a job while they were negotiating a sweatheart deal.

YOU are the ones living in a dream world. It always about the money.

The right wing "revolution" was convincing the working classes of this country that the filty rich getting richer is good for them.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
So now this is a war for profit? I thought it was a war for humanitarian reasons?

What freaking profit? It's AMERICAN MONEY, not Iraqi!!!!!

These are US funds and last time I checked, we can spend our money the way we want!

Why should France, Germany, and Russia have a crack at US Taxpayer dollars?

IT IS OUR MONEY THEY ARE BARRED FROM GETTING! WHAT IS THE PROBLEM? THESE ARSES HAVE NO RIGHT TO US TAXPAYER FUNDED CONTRACTS!

If France, Germany, and Russia want contracts, let their governments fund them, like ours are!