U.S. Bars War Opponents....

[shartley]

Originally posted by Vendetta
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.

[shartley]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye


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!

BINGO! :)

[Vendetta]

Haliburton rebuilding Iraq?

Yes it is, and making an nice profit.

Boeing's main buisness in now military. They have lost their cilivian market share to Airbus (damn those Europeans )

[shartley]

Originally posted by Vendetta
Yes it is, and making an nice profit.

Boeing's main buisness in now military. They have lost their cilivian market share to Airbus (damn those Europeans )

[hitech]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye
It's AMERICAN MONEY, not Iraqi!!!!!

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

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

BTW, it's not all out money. Canada contributed also. The should not be barred from contracts.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by hitech


BTW, it's not all out money. Canada contributed also. The should not be barred from contracts.

The money being discussed now is US Taxpayer dollars!!! Read the article thoroughly. The Canadians have contributed, but the $18+billion being discussed now is US tax dollars only!

[hitech]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye
The Canadians have contributed, but the $18+billion being discussed now is US tax dollars only!

They contributed (regardless of when) and they should be allowed to bid for contracts, IMO.

[PyRo]

Sounds fair...

[Collegeboy]

ABN.

No I want to prevent the deaths of the innocents that will far out trump the number that Saddam is responsible for killing. (many of which are terrorist (Kurds), or those who attacked the government (marsh Arabs)).

When you know force will not work, you have got to find another solution. You do not just do something to do something, you make sure it will be effective, if not you will end up causing more problems.

This is just like Vietnam. Read up, ask around, get information. Vietnam like Iraq is now, is WAY more then just the "war".

Do you think that killing guerilla insurgents is winning that war. When the Philippians government tried to repress the Hukabee in post WWII, for every one they killed 3 rose in its place. When the US tried to kill the insurgents in Vietnam, for every one we killed, another two or so rose in its place. You do not solve counter guerilla warfare by killing your enemy.

The US illegally invaded a foreign country without UN approval. The other countries are our allies and friends (as well as can be in international climate) they tried to tell Bush that they is no way he can win this war, but his jingo and warhawk cabinet is trying to make up for being laughed at in the defense department in the 1970's.

You do not care about being liked. That explains the conservative view of international affairs. Why do we need diplomats, lets have a strong government let our guns solve our problems. And people wonder why we have terrorist attacking us.

So when will the US invade itself, or how about Israel?

Its our money that we spent by not going through the diplomatic channels to get htis situation solved. By thumbing our nose at the law of this world, invading a foreign country, then baring other countries from their fair share in Iraq (which they have put just as much effort as we have, just in other ways), we send the word out that we went in here for economic reasons. If we didn't, we would get our money back, then let it go its own way.

No the Iraqi people are not capable. They will be imbedded in a civil war pretty soon, if one is not going on now.

No we didn't try to intervene in Iraq for 10 years, we did token efforts. Iraq didn't then, or now pose any threat to us, there was no reason to intervene. So is promising them that they will have to fight another war after we leave, that their children will be killed while dictator after dictator pushes for power, that a fundamentalist government will come into power, is that what is best for the Iraqi people.

Grow up, see the 'real' world. People do not just roll over and submit to the mighty guns of the US, gun diplomacy is over, Bush is 100 years too late. The world is tired of it. It WILL backfire.

[Kevmaster]

Originally posted by Vendetta


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.

yes, haliburton is getting money. NO, cheny will not see a penny of that. before stepping into office, cheny retired and sold his stocks to an insurance comapny. he will recieve set amounts of money from that insurance company no matter how well or how poor haliburton does. If they go broke, he still gets money. If they become the #1 company in the world, he gets no more money. has anyone thought that perhaps haliburton is the most prepared and best equipped company to handle the oil over there?

[Kevmaster]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
ABN.

No I want to prevent the deaths of the innocents that will far out trump the number that Saddam is responsible for killing. (many of which are terrorist (Kurds), or those who attacked the government (marsh Arabs)).

When you know force will not work, you have got to find another solution. You do not just do something to do something, you make sure it will be effective, if not you will end up causing more problems.

This is just like Vietnam. Read up, ask around, get information. Vietnam like Iraq is now, is WAY more then just the "war".

Do you think that killing guerilla insurgents is winning that war. When the Philippians government tried to repress the Hukabee in post WWII, for every one they killed 3 rose in its place. When the US tried to kill the insurgents in Vietnam, for every one we killed, another two or so rose in its place. You do not solve counter guerilla warfare by killing your enemy.

The US illegally invaded a foreign country without UN approval. The other countries are our allies and friends (as well as can be in international climate) they tried to tell Bush that they is no way he can win this war, but his jingo and warhawk cabinet is trying to make up for being laughed at in the defense department in the 1970's.

You do not care about being liked. That explains the conservative view of international affairs. Why do we need diplomats, lets have a strong government let our guns solve our problems. And people wonder why we have terrorist attacking us.

So when will the US invade itself, or how about Israel?

Its our money that we spent by not going through the diplomatic channels to get htis situation solved. By thumbing our nose at the law of this world, invading a foreign country, then baring other countries from their fair share in Iraq (which they have put just as much effort as we have, just in other ways), we send the word out that we went in here for economic reasons. If we didn't, we would get our money back, then let it go its own way.

No the Iraqi people are not capable. They will be imbedded in a civil war pretty soon, if one is not going on now.

No we didn't try to intervene in Iraq for 10 years, we did token efforts. Iraq didn't then, or now pose any threat to us, there was no reason to intervene. So is promising them that they will have to fight another war after we leave, that their children will be killed while dictator after dictator pushes for power, that a fundamentalist government will come into power, is that what is best for the Iraqi people.

Grow up, see the 'real' world. People do not just roll over and submit to the mighty guns of the US, gun diplomacy is over, Bush is 100 years too late. The world is tired of it. It WILL backfire.

so there is no chance of Iraq coming out in 5-10 years (nation building doesn't happen over night) as a strong democracy without US troops?

Wasn't it you too who said there were no signs of economic recovery and that the economy would be worse than it was then (2-3 months ago) by November 2004? Seems that trend has gone out the window, eh?

[shartley]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
ABN.

No I want to prevent the deaths of the innocents that will far out trump the number that Saddam is responsible for killing. (many of which are terrorist (Kurds), or those who attacked the government (marsh Arabs)).

When you know force will not work, you have got to find another solution. You do not just do something to do something, you make sure it will be effective, if not you will end up causing more problems.

This is just like Vietnam. Read up, ask around, get information. Vietnam like Iraq is now, is WAY more then just the "war".

Do you think that killing guerilla insurgents is winning that war. When the Philippians government tried to repress the Hukabee in post WWII, for every one they killed 3 rose in its place. When the US tried to kill the insurgents in Vietnam, for every one we killed, another two or so rose in its place. You do not solve counter guerilla warfare by killing your enemy.

The US illegally invaded a foreign country without UN approval. The other countries are our allies and friends (as well as can be in international climate) they tried to tell Bush that they is no way he can win this war, but his jingo and warhawk cabinet is trying to make up for being laughed at in the defense department in the 1970's.

You do not care about being liked. That explains the conservative view of international affairs. Why do we need diplomats, lets have a strong government let our guns solve our problems. And people wonder why we have terrorist attacking us.

So when will the US invade itself, or how about Israel?

Its our money that we spent by not going through the diplomatic channels to get htis situation solved. By thumbing our nose at the law of this world, invading a foreign country, then baring other countries from their fair share in Iraq (which they have put just as much effort as we have, just in other ways), we send the word out that we went in here for economic reasons. If we didn't, we would get our money back, then let it go its own way.

No the Iraqi people are not capable. They will be imbedded in a civil war pretty soon, if one is not going on now.

No we didn't try to intervene in Iraq for 10 years, we did token efforts. Iraq didn't then, or now pose any threat to us, there was no reason to intervene. So is promising them that they will have to fight another war after we leave, that their children will be killed while dictator after dictator pushes for power, that a fundamentalist government will come into power, is that what is best for the Iraqi people.

Grow up, see the 'real' world. People do not just roll over and submit to the mighty guns of the US, gun diplomacy is over, Bush is 100 years too late. The world is tired of it. It WILL backfire.

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by shartley

[thump]

in a report in the news toad states that Mr.Bush has said that Canada will be allowed to bid on the contracts as we sent troops into helping the war on terrorism in Afghanistan.

[Jeffy-CanCon]

Originally posted by shartley

A little right, and a little wrong.

(A) The USA invaded Iraq legally, under a UN Security Council resolution passed in 2002 that threatened unspecified consequences if WMD disarmament was not proven. IMO, Bush made a mistake seeking a renewed resolution, when the possibility of failure would make it look as though the invasion was unauthorised, despite the prior resolution.

(B) Invading another country without UN approval is illegal, per the UN charter. That was the whole point of the UN. North Korea invading South Korea was illegal, Iraq invading Kuwait was illegal, USA invading Grenada was illegal. USA invading Iraq weas not.

(C) Guerillas & terrorists don't attack simply because the target appears weak. Otherwise Canadian assets would get attacked way more often, because we are pathetically weak compared to the USA or the UK. Attacks come because the guerillas/terrorist are upset about something, and want to force some sort of a policy change.

Originally posted by Collegeboy
...
Do you think that killing guerilla insurgents is winning that war. When the Philippians government tried to repress the Hukabee in post WWII, for every one they killed 3 rose in its place. When the US tried to kill the insurgents in Vietnam, for every one we killed, another two or so rose in its place. You do not solve counter guerilla warfare by killing your enemy.
...

... Well, you can solve a guerilla problem by killing people. You just usually have to kill them ALL. The Romans did it quite regularly.