You didn't want in, so now stay out

[FUNKbrs]

What's with the French wanting back into Iraq after the US did all the hard work?

SCREW THEM!

They didn't want in before, so now they can stay the hell out, and lose all those fat rebuilding contracts. I notice they congratulated the US on catching Sadam, despite the fact they had NOTHING to do with it, and were partially to blame for the fact the UN pulled its support out of the Gulf War after the securing of Kuwait, DESPITE PROMISES to the Iraqi Shiites that their cooperation would insure the deposing of Sadam. And who took the blame for that? THE US. This led to the insurgence of anti-american feeling among muslims everywhere, ultimately culminating in terrorist activity.

*kicks a frog*

[stonedpimp69]

*/Kicks a french dude, goes in burns the louvre goes out*/
*/( comment two) whenever I finish learning Flash, I'm gonna make an anti French movie, don' know the details *yet* */
Honestly. Us, Britain, Spain, and Australia did all the hard work, so lets kick everyone else out. Israel, Kuwait and Japan backed is with words so let's give them *something*. Everybody else had better stay the fuck out.

[JMHX]

Course we're more than willing to let France, Germany, Russia, and the other non-participatory nations relieve the United States of some of the reconstruction costs. Mmm...

[RedSkunk]

Well, I mean sure, go with this attitude, but realize that then going on to say that the war was about anything but oil / a pro-US government in control is farcical

[Jimsween]

At 12/15/03 11:07 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: Course we're more than willing to let France, Germany, Russia, and the other non-participatory nations relieve the United States of some of the reconstruction costs. Mmm...

If you had people offering to pay your bills, would you refuse?

[FUNKbrs]

At 12/15/03 11:10 PM, RedSkunk wrote: Well, I mean sure, go with this attitude, but realize that then going on to say that the war was about anything but oil / a pro-US government in control is farcical

Where were you during the Gulf War, under a rock?! I bitched for MONTHS about screwing the shiites!

Think with your brain, not with your agenda.

[FUNKbrs]

*kicks a frog*

Need I say more?

[karasz]

well lets see...

we should let only the country that sent troops into iraq get the contracts to help rebuild iraq...

so while about 450 US troops die you want Halliburton to make millions if not BILLIONS on iraq oil... AND the rule is only the contract itself, the sub-contracts, the ones that do like most of the work (usually) can be the lowest bidder...

meaning the french and germans are already doing work in iraq..

oh yeah and of the money that halliburton and all the other companies are going to get why is not ONE dollar going to go to the guys that fought?

and dont even give me shit about taxes and such... cuz the big companies have lawyers whose whole existance is to find ways for Halliburton to not pay as much in taxes as it has to...

i want to hear of ONE CEO that fired a bullet in IRAQ since March 2003

until then it doesnt matter who gets the contract cuz they are all assholes...

[Jimsween]

Karasz, were talking about it in the hopes that the country will benefit economically from the business, that is what we mean when we say we are giving them to the people who actually helped.

[Slizor]

I notice they congratulated the US on catching Sadam, despite the fact they had NOTHING to do with it, and were partially to blame for the fact the UN pulled its support out of the Gulf War after the securing of Kuwait, DESPITE PROMISES to the Iraqi Shiites that their cooperation would insure the deposing of Sadam. And who took the blame for that? THE US.

The UN mandate only allowed them to kick the Iraqis out of Kuwait, there was no pulling of support. It was the US who promised the Shiites and then didn't deliver. No-one else was to blame.

This led to the insurgence of anti-american feeling among muslims everywhere, ultimately culminating in terrorist activity.

Hah, that's beyond bullshit. The Palestine question, stationing of troops in Saudi Arabia, the war in Afghanistan. These are reasons for "anti-american" feeling. Bin Laden said it himself.

[bumcheekcity]

At 12/15/03 11:21 PM, Jimsween wrote: If you had people offering to pay your bills, would you refuse?

Not at all, but it is cheeky to ask them to pay them for you.

[JMHX]

At 12/15/03 11:21 PM, Jimsween wrote:

At 12/15/03 11:07 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: Course we're more than willing to let France, Germany, Russia, and the other non-participatory nations relieve the United States of some of the reconstruction costs. Mmm...

If you had people offering to pay your bills, would you refuse?

Thing is, they aren't offering -- we're trying to MAKE them.

[SchiesterSpear]

At 12/15/03 11:21 PM, Jimsween wrote: If you had people offering to pay your bills, would you refuse?

Actually, they aren't offering to pay our bills, they are trying to get US and Iraqi funded contracts to rebuild the lost infrastructure. Anyone who gets those contracts would be making money, not only from the contract, but from the future business they would recieve as a result.

Since the French and the Germans wanted nothing to do with the war, they can have nothing to do with the reconstruction and get nothing from it. Why should they get money from the rebuilding if they didn't put forth any capital or resources to help with the war in the first place?

So we all agree that this is about economic interests?

[JMHX]

At 12/16/03 04:32 PM, punk_shithead wrote: So we all agree that this is about economic interests?

It's poltiics -- of course it's economic. Just like George saying it's the god-given right of all nations to be free and Democratic, but rejecting Taiwan's plea for freedom because Chinese Premier Wen was visiting, and it's bad to upset a major nuclear trade partner.

[thenark]

Wow, you're my hero Judge. First of all, I dont think its up to the americans to decide who can help rebuild Iraq, i'd think that would be up to the Iraqis, and secondly, if bush went to war to free the people of Iraq and not for americas personal gain, why does he care who helps rebuild?

[adrshepard]

Because, humanitarian reasons or not, there is a sizeable investment opportunity in rebuilding Iraq, and it doesn't make sense that a nation that condemned the war to begin with should want some of the possible profits now.
And Judge, I don't think Bush meant "Grant your citizens freedom or we'll come after you" as much as "The Iraqis deserve freedom like everyone else. There are a hell of a lot of countries without real trade benefit to the US that are dictatorships in anarachy. The U.S. can't just go to war on everyone.

[Jimsween]

At 12/16/03 11:25 AM, bumcheekcity wrote:

At 12/15/03 11:21 PM, Jimsween wrote: If you had people offering to pay your bills, would you refuse?

Not at all, but it is cheeky to ask them to pay them for you.

Oh no, my country is being cheeky, the government must be taken down.

[Jimsween]

At 12/16/03 03:12 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote:

At 12/15/03 11:21 PM, Jimsween wrote:

At 12/15/03 11:07 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: Course we're more than willing to let France, Germany, Russia, and the other non-participatory nations relieve the United States of some of the reconstruction costs. Mmm...

If you had people offering to pay your bills, would you refuse?

Thing is, they aren't offering -- we're trying to MAKE them.

Since when were we trying to make them? If your talking about a UN vote, that is democratic, and we aren't making them pay, everyone has a vote, and if the entire UN were to agree that they should all chip in for Iraq it isn't just the US that is making them pay, it is every UN member that voted for the resolution.

[Jimsween]

At 12/16/03 04:32 PM, punk_shithead wrote: So we all agree that this is about economic interests?

What else should it be about? Since the war already happened, the only people who could stand to gain from the rebuilding of Iraq are the Iraqis and whoever the contracts were given to, and since whoever the contracts are given to doesn't really effect the Iraqi's much in the end just as long as they get the job done, it only makes sense that this only be about economic interests.

If your going to try to trick people into saying it was all for oil, at least do it right.

[Jimsween]

At 12/16/03 05:24 PM, thenark wrote: Wow, you're my hero Judge. First of all, I dont think its up to the americans to decide who can help rebuild Iraq, i'd think that would be up to the Iraqis,

This would be all well and good if we could magically set up an Iraqi government and infastructure with limited funds and despite the damaged infastructure of Iraq and the Iraqui's lack of experience with democracy. To put it simple, you can't make Iraq a democracy until it has been rebuilt, so if it isn't rebuilt, you can't have the people democratically decide how to rebuild it.

and secondly, if bush went to war to free the people of Iraq and not for americas personal gain, why does he care who helps rebuild?

Because the war has already been fought, and nothing he could do now could effect why he went to war in the first place.

Basically what your saying is that if you only go to school because you have to by law, there is no reason you should try hard at it. Which does not make any sense at all.

[JMHX]

Would've been much more cost-efficient to get worldwide support by proving that Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction. Then we wouldn't be complaining about sinking with the ship we built.

[NEMESiSZ]

The French don't want in, the French are just nervous about their ties with Saddam being exposed.

[D2Kvirus]

*Yawns, then speaks in monotone voice*

Must find reason to hate Frenchers, as they are wrong, as they do not bow down to the almighty USofA, so they are wrong, as we are right...

[JMHX]

At 12/17/03 09:53 AM, NEMESiSZ wrote: The French don't want in, the French are just nervous about their ties with Saddam being exposed.

It's not like it's a well hidden secret, Nemmy.

[bumcheekcity]

At 12/17/03 09:48 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: Would've been much more cost-efficient to get worldwide support by proving that Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction. Then we wouldn't be complaining about sinking with the ship we built.

Very true. Wait a minuite, this is like accusing a man of owning a gun, locking him up, then looking for proof.

Wait a minuite... this IS locking a man up for owning a gun, then looking for proof.

[JoS]

The French only have business ties with Iraq. The US gave Sadam money, weapons and helped them fight the Iranians. Whos ties are worse?
Lets not forget the reason France, Germany, Russia and Canada didnt go to war this time. Its not because they were scared, its because it was ILLEGAL. Thats right, for those too full of patriotic feelings to see this, the invasion of Iraq was not a.)sanctioned by the UN b.) in response to a direct attack upon the US or any other country c.)not in response to a declaration of war by Iraq

If I broke into your house and smashed it up, should I fix it up crapy, or get the best person to restore it, whether its my friend or my in-laws.

[Jimsween]

At 12/17/03 10:54 PM, RugbyMacDaddy wrote: The French only have business ties with Iraq. The US gave Sadam money, weapons and helped them fight the Iranians. Whos ties are worse?

Actually, France gave Iraq more weapons, so did Russia. In fact, the US was one of the least (out of the world superpowers) contributors to Iraq since saddam came into power. I don't know why you just said what you did, but quite obviously Frances ties are much much worse.

Lets not forget the reason France, Germany, Russia and Canada didnt go to war this time. Its not because they were scared, its because it was ILLEGAL. Thats right, for those too full of patriotic feelings to see this, the invasion of Iraq was not a.)sanctioned by the UN b.) in response to a direct attack upon the US or any other country c.)not in response to a declaration of war by Iraq

None of those things make the invasion of Iraq illegal, what you just said was a lie. France, Germany, and Russia didn't go to war because they had economic interests in Iraq and they didn't want to risk losing some support from the people in thier country.

If I broke into your house and smashed it up, should I fix it up crapy, or get the best person to restore it, whether its my friend or my in-laws.

This has already been gone over again and again, giving contracts to French companies isn't going to help the Iraqi people any more than giving them to American companies, this argument is completely baseless.

[FRIMA]

At 12/17/03 11:37 PM, Jimsween wrote:

At 12/17/03 10:54 PM, RugbyMacDaddy wrote: Actually, France gave Iraq more weapons, so did Russia. In fact, the US was one of the least (out of the world superpowers) contributors to Iraq since saddam came into power. I don't know why you just said what you did, but quite obviously Frances ties are much much worse.

What does it matter ? It doesn't make the US less evil ; ties are ties. By the way I don't believe you .

France, Germany, and Russia didn't go to war because they had economic interests in Iraq and they didn't want to risk losing some support from the people in thier country.

If the US also had economic interests in Iraq they wouldn't have attacked. Example : Saudi Arabia , it is SA who funds all the terrorist groups (think of 9/11 , Osama bin Laden) but the US doesn't attack .
Once Wolfowicz told cnn that "one" of the reasons that they invaded Iraq is because the US is too dependent of Saudi , once they'll have Iraq they'll be less dependent of Saudi's oil so they won't have to stay there so much to please the terrorists who are fed up with americans being in their country .

http://www.meaus.com/iraq-$2800-billion-bonanza.htm

[FRIMA]

"France, Germany, and Russia didn't go to war because they had economic interests in Iraq and they didn't want to risk losing some support from the people in thier country."

sorry. that was a quote by jimsween.