U.S. Bars War Opponents....

[Southpaw]

mcveighr Well you see Iraq was in violation of 18 some UN sanctions! As for china that would be a HUGE WAR. China could take over 1/2 of russia by telling all of their people to walk into russia with pointy sticks and the Russians would run out of bullets before killing all of the chinese! So Bush and the US keep them at bay by giving them food and even though they are communist state letting them sell their goods in the US.

[mcveighr]

North Korea then. That war never ended anyway, you've already got troops there and the support of the South Koreans, so there would have been less of a fuss about that.

[Southpaw]

Originally posted by mcveighr
"For a century and a half now, America and Japan have formed one of the great and enduring alliances of modern times."
Tokyo 2/18/02

Now that is funny what did we do to Japan? Oh yea help them rebuild and they came back just fine! look at what the US can do to a "conquered country" Why will this not happen in Iraq?

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by 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

First, they're not sending troops. IF one of their workers were killed they'd complain we weren't doing enough to protect them (see what the UN did). Second, they can still be subcontractors, meaning they are not barred from Iraq, they just won't be rewarded the primary contract with US dollars.

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by 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.

Yeah, that was an interesting move. I'm not sure if it's really stupid or just brilliant.

[Albinonewt]

[QUOTE]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.

Ugh. You do know that all the current Haliburten emergency contracts were awarded under the Clinton Administration, don't you? And despite the fallacy that they were non bidding contracts they were bid on, years ago and kept in place in case something of an emergency happened. THey are now in the process of being bid on.

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

We know, we've been saying it about France and German from the beginning

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

Intersting notion.

But nah, completely insane.

[Albinonewt]

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

And they're only barred from our money, not theirs, not Japan's, not Britain's, not the UN's, only ours.

[Albinonewt]

[QUOTE]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)).

I have no idea what you're talking about. I'll assume it's the standard "Fear leads to hatred. Hated leads to Anger. Anger leads to suffering" nonsense (thanx yoda). The one thing everyone always ignores is dead, unarmed, terrorists with no money or training stop being scarey. Then their just angry cab drivers, and I can live with that.

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.

You have that backwards. When diplomacy fails you use force. Force always ends an arguement (one way or another). We had tried diplomacy and it didn't work, so we tried force. Plus how much more effective should we have been? We took away his country in like 2 weeks! Sounds to me like it worked.

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

IT's NOTHING like Vietnam. Nothing, nada, zip, zero, zilch. For one thing the Administration is committed to fighting the war and isn't just crying about it. For another the war is basically popular (not 80% mind you, but also not 20%). Third, WE ALREADY WON IT! We took over the country and are not policing up the whackos we missed the first time. Unfortunatly there's a bunch of foreign whackos and a lot of room to hide in.

Do you think that killing guerilla insurgents is winning that war.

I don't know, why don't you ask the dead guys?

When the Philippians government tried to repress the Hukabee in post WWII, for every one they killed 3 rose in its place.

I hate to render judgment on the fine Philipino military might, but I reckon we're doing a better job then they are. Also, most of these fighters are really insurgents, they're former regime and foreign terrorists, and their will is not the will of the people

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.

Eh, not really a true statement about Vietnam, but kind of close. But, we didn't control that country. And the bulk of that country wasn't happy with us being there (most Iraqis are either happy with Saddam gone or happy with us being there, in some cases both).

Plus, do you know how stupid that sounds? Killing the enemy isn't the way to stop them? Are you daft?

The US illegally invaded a foreign country without UN approval.

First, so what if we did? Second, the resolution was pretty clear we could do it. Third, we were already at war with Iraq, since they signed a cease fire and then violated it.

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.

Yeah, and then we went in and won the war. Boy those French, they may like wine but prophets they are not.

[b]You do not care about being liked. That explains the conservative view of international affairs.[b/]

Yeah, it does. We value safety and preserving our way of life over being the popular kid at the table.

Why do we need diplomats,

Well, somebody has to let the little depot dictatorships know that we'll be dropping bombs on them soon.

lets have a strong government let our guns solve our problems.

I'm all for it. But we'll need more funding for the military. We don't want to bite off more then we can chew.

And people wonder why we have terrorist attacking us.

I don't wonder, I know why they hate us. Because they hate anyone that isn't them! They attack everyone! They just got their best shot in against us. And now we'll scour the earth hunting them down and killing them!

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

When we (or Israel) is deemed a threat to us. Not before.

Its our money that we spent by not going through the diplomatic channels to get htis situation solved.

We spent 14 months at the UN working on this. DOn't lie. We may not have succeeded 100% through diplomacy but we did try. You make it sound like Iraq really wanted to disarm and France really wanted to help us but Bush screwed it up. He tried to convince them otherwise and he failed, but that doesn't mean he didn't try.

By thumbing our nose at the law of this world,

How did we do that exactly? By attacking a country we were at war with after it violated it's ceasefire?

invading a foreign country,

Damn right we did!

then baring other countries from their fair share in Iraq

Huh? What fair share? It's our money! If we wanted to spend it on porno tapes and ho-hos would they have a fair share of that? No, because it's ours and we can do what we want with it.

(which they have put just as much effort as we have, just in other ways),

The reconstruction is a direct result of the occupation, which they put NO effort into. They're effort was spent trying to keep Saddam in power, in direct contrast with what made the contracts possible.

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.

What the hell does this mean?

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

CB, are you saying that there are certain races of people that can't govern themselves? See, I'm not a racist like you, I believe they can and will rise to the challenge.

No we didn't try to intervene in Iraq for 10 years, we did token efforts.

So? I didn't vote for Clinton. I didn't want him running our national policies. But he was in charge and he didn't invade Iraq. It's not Bush's fault that Clinton didn't do anything.

Iraq didn't then, or now pose any threat to us, there was no reason to intervene.

Says you. I'd rather be safe then sorry.

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.

What cyrstal ball tells you that will happen? Our goal is to avoid that very scenario

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.

And what will they do about it if they do? Cry foul and ask the UN for help? The only miltary the UN has is ours.

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by p8ntball1016
well building a wall between israel and the occupied territories isnt going to help the peace plan either.

I think it's brilliant.

But, I would have built the wall around the road map for peace's boundaries, not the current disputed ones

[Albinonewt]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kevmaster
no, the US's foreign policy is a DIRECT cause for terrorism throughout the world directed at the US and allies.

Except that the policy that everyone hates now started after the largest terrorist attack ever

[Albinonewt]

For all the people that say because the US is agressive on the world stage we get attacked by terrorists I want you to think about something.

These are the countries I can think of off the top of my head that have been hit by terrorists in the last two years or so:

France, India, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Indonesia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and others. The terrorists kill anyone they can find that they don't like. Period. Hiding or beaing neutral doesn't protect you. These people attack Red Cross for crying out loud. Doesn't that tip you off a little?

[MayAMonkeyBeYourPinata]

Originally posted by Albinonewt


I think it's brilliant.

But, I would have built the wall around the road map for peace's boundaries, not the current disputed ones

So cutting off the jobs of innocent Palestinenes in Gaza, by not allowing them to go to the West Bank is a brilliant idea. All Isreal is doing is adding fuel to the fire, and if you haven't noticed terrorists have been less selective about just taking their enemies down. They are doing whatever is needed for the cause. This wall is just creating an even larger gap for peace in Palestine.

[Mateo]

I have a solution for the Isreal Palestine conflict. Gather up all the Isrealis and send them to Antartica while we do the same to Palestinians and send them to Greenland. They are on opposite sides of the earth so nobody can suicide bomb this or blow up that. Maybe when they both cool off they can talk about the land issue(ZING!)

[Kevmaster]

Originally posted by Mateo
I have a solution for the Isreal Palestine conflict. Gather up all the Isrealis and send them to Antartica while we do the same to Palestinians and send them to Greenland. They are on opposite sides of the earth so nobody can suicide bomb this or blow up that. Maybe when they both cool off they can talk about the land issue(ZING!)

certainly counldn't turn out any worse than it is now....although, i beg, where did this thought come from? its way off subject


Newt,

i know that they can and will subcontract and that they will whine whenever the option presents itself, however, right now, it is clear we need all the help of any commited country. Be it France or anyone else. We are in a position where we have alienated ourselves (whether we should have been is not for discussion--we ARE alienated) from the world, and we need to work to get this back into an international program. However, I certainly do see how france has no right to the contracts in the way the 60-some-odd others do.

[Southpaw]

We DID NOT ALIENATE ANYONE they alienated us! It is not the US on a whim saying that they cant it is Russia France and Germany's "punishment" for not helping in the war! Why dont people understand that the US MONEY stays with the US and US Allies. The reason is they have armies and did nothing to help us! France and Germany were getting most of their oil from Iraq and didn't want to loose that or the money owed to them by Iraq. Bush asked them to forgive the money owed to them by Iraq as a start to fixing the problem Between them and the US. (125 billion i think)We Will see what they do now who is GREEDY.