For the purposes of this conversation I assumed that we were defining current-Iraq as unstable. Pre-war Iraq was far more stable than current-Iraq.
The dictatorship made it that way, the removal of that dictator created instability("turmoil"), an instability/turmoil exacerbated by the country's state of economic and infrastructural disrepair.
That's my only point. I don't even ****ing remember what we were talking about.
I was talking about your point that the instability was "exacerbated by the country's state of economic and infrastructural disrepair," a statement I actually agree with (but I don't think that the removal of Saddam caused the turmoil, which is where we were disagreeing, I think). Regardless, I think we're both out of steam on this one. I'm officially out of this one. I've got other research I need to be doing....
There are a few well placed American citizens and private corporations getting very rich from the Iraq situation. America's deficit (re. taxpayer dollars), is now $150 BILLION + in the hole after just 6 months because of this Iraq adventure, and there is no end in sight.
Iraq is not rid of Saddam....he's still out there somewhere. Even if he's dead, he is still there "in spirit" for the 10s of thousands of his supporters who want the US out of Iraq and will keep using guerilla tactics until the US is out of there. And it's not just Saddam's supporters who want the occupation over...every day, more and more ordinary Iraqis who at first welcomed the overthrow of Saddam, now despise the substitute regime. There are still a huge quantity of conventional weapons available, acquired during Saddam's decades in power. Don't forget, these fighters are in their own country, Iraq is their home, and they have all the time in the world, whereas LINK American troops and contractors are far away from home, and it's costing the US taxpayers* $4 billion a month. How much longer will this drain of resources be tolerated here at home?
There are multiple attacks on the troops every day, So far 350+ coalition troops are dead and maybe 8000+ injured. And, if there wasn't terrorist activity in Iraq before the war, there is now, on a big scale. The latest terrorist bomb hit the UN HQ today . Even our military is starting to break with tradition and soldiers are speaking out against being sent to a foreign land, not to defend the freedom of America as they were misinformed about at first, but to be used and hung out to dry as a private security force for a few big corporations close to the administration.
Who is going to stay the course? Bush isn't going to back off...his ego is too big, (although he's starting to pass the buck to Cheney and Rumsfeld now that the adventure is rapidly becoming a misadventure). Will Iraq be force-westernized in a year and a bit, before Bush gets lobbed out of office? Do the Iraqi people *want* McDonalds and Starbucks on every corner? Do they *want* "health" plans we Americans have to put up with? Do they *want* urban sprawl? etc etc
Strange how Congress sided with the president on going to war; sure it was based on lies and fear of a nonexistent threat, but does anyone honestly think that might have had something to do with the fact that out of the 520+ members of the House and Senate, how many of them have sons and daughters in the military who were about to be sent into harm's way on account of that vote? Answer: ONE. Just one member of the house has a son or daughter in the armed services. Yep, count me a yay...I got nobody to lose. Kinda sick, doncha think?
And for all you people who keep bleating about how the war is "just" because it has toppled a brutal dictator, don't forget that Saddam was a US/western ally while he was doing his *worst* atrocities, (gassing the Iranians, etc)... who we funded and coddled for some 13 years (especially during the Reagan years, surprise, surprise), thereby ending his usefulness, before he got manipulated into the Kuwait invasion. Even after the Gulf war, Bush Sr authorized arms and supplies for Saddam's regime to squash the massive Iraqi uprising (which could have freed the Iraqi people). Any notion that (successive) US administrations care about the fate of the Iraqi people is pure kindergarten naivety....yet the human rights issue is pushed for its "moral correctness". There's the sickest part.
Saddam was used. He was outsmarted in the political chess game. Right now, the losers are the American people, the coalition troops, the Iraqi population and.....the national security of every nation who is playing a part in this FUBAR situation. The "winners"...are terrorists, criminals, and sleazebag executives who play on the right golf-courses.
Someone once said that "winning a war is like winning an earthquake". This case is a perfect parallel.
groverat, seriously, I'm not trying to be funny. But, do you know what you're talking about? You said I 'never address anything you said', so I refresh your memory and remind you that I've quoted and responded to you.
You then ask what you haven't responded to. You're confused.
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
Could they do it for themselves cheaper? What would be required for them to even do it themselves?
Could they? Yes. They rebuild most of their country after the first Gulf War, and that was with sanctions limiting their abilities. Without sanctions crippling them, they would obviously do a better job. They have tons of engineers and plenty of construction workers. They could do it. And everyone agrees that their labor would be less costly than the contracts we're creating.
So, unless you believe they couldn't redo what they already did, we're stuck in a position of extortion.
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
I don't consider it extortion. You draw black and white lines on a grey world and expect others to immediately adopt your view when your strongest backing is putting "apparently" in quotation marks?
I put apparently in quotes because we're working off of newspaper articles. I'm smart enough to know that the paper might be wrong. If it's correct in its assertions, then my point is correct. If the paper is wrong, the quotes save my ass.
This thread is working under the assumption that the article is correct, even if you're not.
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
What is "the country"? Are the people of Iraq going to suffer any loss?
If they sell off their industries of course they people of Iraq are going to suffer a loss. Are you really that naive?
You can deflect all you want, but the U.S. is extorting these contracts out of Iraq. There's no reason for the U.S. to get this money when Iraqis can do the job.
So lemme get this straight. The US is paying for everything and thus the US is "extorting" the Iraqis? The money comes from the US and it used to contract US companies to rebuild Iraq and therefor the Iraqis are victims of US "extortion"?
And we're making tons of money off of this. In Hassian's anti-American bigoted view?
So lemme get this straight. The US is paying for everything and thus the US is "extorting" the Iraqis? The money comes from the US and it used to contract US companies to rebuild Iraq and therefor the Iraqis are victims of US "extortion"?
And we're making tons of money off of this. In Hassian's anti-American bigoted view?
But the U.S. isnt' paying for everything. Iraq is being forced to sell oil at a reduced rate to the U.S. AND use profits from other oil sales to pay off new debt to the U.S.
That's not free.
So Scott, are you willing to recant your trolling post? I suspect not.
So lemme get this straight. The US is paying for everything and thus the US is "extorting" the Iraqis? The money comes from the US and it used to contract US companies to rebuild Iraq and therefor the Iraqis are victims of US "extortion"?
And we're making tons of money off of this. In Hassian's anti-American bigoted view?
No you freakin' moron. The issue is that US corporations are going to be making a mint on rebuilding Iraq. Did these very same corps. fund the war? Nope. You and I did.
These self-same corps. have some rather uncanny connections to Bush and friends. Draw your own conclusions....
But the U.S. isnt' paying for everything. Iraq is being forced to sell oil at a reduced rate to the U.S. AND use profits from other oil sales to pay off new debt to the U.S.
That's not free.
So Scott, are you willing to recant your trolling post? I suspect not.
So we are just supposed to foot the whole bill all by our lonesome?
So we are just supposed to foot the whole bill all by our lonesome?
Bah.
In a perfect world, yes.
But under the circumstances we either need to put a U.N. face on reconstruction so we're not the focus of the Iraqi ire or get rid of the conflict of interest by not deciding who gets the reconstruction contracts or how they're paid for. We can offer loans, but we shouldn't force debt.
Can someone explain me how an 'american taxpayer' is paying for that war?
you are not paying for anything... yet.
So far there are numbers being shifted around, national debt grows, but it's just a number.
***WARNING, WARNING, GROSS OVERSIMPLIFICATION***
1. You need 1B to invest in a war
2. Big deal, our national debt is now 1B
3. Money are being spent on military equipment, old stuff gets dropped on Iraq, new stuff is being produced, people make $$ on it (and they will be taxed on it, again :-))) )
So far you have (1B) on a paper and you will receive some of it back.
4. Corporations are awarded contracts in Iraq.
It's not a donation, they are not 'rebuilding' for free, it's a loan, Iraq will pay for it.
5. US contractors are working there, they make money, 'US government' makes money. (a little perk: US now controls Iraq's market.)
7. Puppets are in control of political decisions, to insure a long 'friendship with nations, who out of good heart liberated us from this monster Saddam'.
How did you guys pay for that?
Are you honestly believe that Iraq's government will ever be independent?
Could they? Yes. They rebuild most of their country after the first Gulf War, and that was with sanctions limiting their abilities. Without sanctions crippling them, they would obviously do a better job.
They rebuilt from a high prosperous and wealthy nation to a shitheap nation with rampant healthcare issues, malnutrition and poor education.
And who is this "they"? Saddam Hussein organized it all, who will organize it now? They?
Quote:
They have tons of engineers and plenty of construction workers. They could do it. And everyone agrees that their labor would be less costly than the contracts we're creating.
Who would organize them? Who would pay them? Who would regulate and control the utilites? Who would decide what the mechanical standards were?
They?
Quote:
If they sell off their industries of course they people of Iraq are going to suffer a loss. Are you really that naive?
What does "sell off" mean?
Quote:
Go look up the Bhagdad Blogger.
I read Salam Pax from his blog to his Guardian articles. Make a point.
You are a lunatic, totally blinkered to the truth in a breath-taking manner.
Seek help.
Seriously.
I'm not the one speaking for people I don't know and never talked to. Rather is seems your mindlessly repeating what you and maybe your friends agreed over the lunch table to be "true".
And who is this "they"? Saddam Hussein organized it all, who will organize it now? They?
Who would organize them? Who would pay them? Who would regulate and control the utilites? Who would decide what the mechanical standards were?
They?
The U.S. is in a position to do it, but they're selling the jobs to foreign companies instead. We're stealing the jobs away from Iraq even though they have the manpower to do it themselves. If the U.S. isn't willing to organize the local engineers then we should move out of the way and let the U.N. in conjunction with Iraqis do it.
You said this type of action should be punished. What type of punishment do you suggest?
Conversely, if you believe he U.S. isn't extorting money from Iraq as the thread asserts, show us some proof as to why Hassan is wrong. Why is the information in the link incorrect?
What's really dumb is the that the left should be focusing on the fact that the government is larger than it has ever been in the history of the United States, this under the watch of a republican who allegedly is for small government. Gah the left is retarded these days.
Odd, wasn't Condoleeza Rice just on TV talkign about how silly the French plan for an immediate transfer of power to the Iraqis was? Didn't she say that it would not make sense since they (iraqis) do not even have a democraticaly elected government? If this chick thinks that the Iraqis are not prepared to govern themselves, why doesn't this chick think that they are also not ready to sell off their assets? One day the Iraqis will wake up and find that their infastructure is owned by everyone but themselves and fidn themselves, even as private corporations, unable to even purchase back these assets or compete against the multinationals that own them. And it doesn't matter if the companies are British, french or whatever, in the end a multinat is just that a multinat. that could really care less about local soveriegnty.
Comments
Originally posted by groverat
torifile:
For the purposes of this conversation I assumed that we were defining current-Iraq as unstable. Pre-war Iraq was far more stable than current-Iraq.
The dictatorship made it that way, the removal of that dictator created instability("turmoil"), an instability/turmoil exacerbated by the country's state of economic and infrastructural disrepair.
That's my only point. I don't even ****ing remember what we were talking about.
I was talking about your point that the instability was "exacerbated by the country's state of economic and infrastructural disrepair," a statement I actually agree with (but I don't think that the removal of Saddam caused the turmoil, which is where we were disagreeing, I think). Regardless, I think we're both out of steam on this one. I'm officially out of this one. I've got other research I need to be doing....
peace and pj. 8)
Iraq is not rid of Saddam....he's still out there somewhere. Even if he's dead, he is still there "in spirit" for the 10s of thousands of his supporters who want the US out of Iraq and will keep using guerilla tactics until the US is out of there. And it's not just Saddam's supporters who want the occupation over...every day, more and more ordinary Iraqis who at first welcomed the overthrow of Saddam, now despise the substitute regime. There are still a huge quantity of conventional weapons available, acquired during Saddam's decades in power. Don't forget, these fighters are in their own country, Iraq is their home, and they have all the time in the world, whereas LINK American troops and contractors are far away from home, and it's costing the US taxpayers* $4 billion a month. How much longer will this drain of resources be tolerated here at home?
There are multiple attacks on the troops every day, So far 350+ coalition troops are dead and maybe 8000+ injured. And, if there wasn't terrorist activity in Iraq before the war, there is now, on a big scale. The latest terrorist bomb hit the UN HQ today . Even our military is starting to break with tradition and soldiers are speaking out against being sent to a foreign land, not to defend the freedom of America as they were misinformed about at first, but to be used and hung out to dry as a private security force for a few big corporations close to the administration.
Great Link
LINK LINK
Who is going to stay the course? Bush isn't going to back off...his ego is too big, (although he's starting to pass the buck to Cheney and Rumsfeld now that the adventure is rapidly becoming a misadventure). Will Iraq be force-westernized in a year and a bit, before Bush gets lobbed out of office? Do the Iraqi people *want* McDonalds and Starbucks on every corner? Do they *want* "health" plans we Americans have to put up with? Do they *want* urban sprawl? etc etc
Strange how Congress sided with the president on going to war; sure it was based on lies and fear of a nonexistent threat, but does anyone honestly think that might have had something to do with the fact that out of the 520+ members of the House and Senate, how many of them have sons and daughters in the military who were about to be sent into harm's way on account of that vote? Answer: ONE. Just one member of the house has a son or daughter in the armed services. Yep, count me a yay...I got nobody to lose. Kinda sick, doncha think?
And for all you people who keep bleating about how the war is "just" because it has toppled a brutal dictator, don't forget that Saddam was a US/western ally while he was doing his *worst* atrocities, (gassing the Iranians, etc)... who we funded and coddled for some 13 years (especially during the Reagan years, surprise, surprise), thereby ending his usefulness, before he got manipulated into the Kuwait invasion. Even after the Gulf war, Bush Sr authorized arms and supplies for Saddam's regime to squash the massive Iraqi uprising (which could have freed the Iraqi people). Any notion that (successive) US administrations care about the fate of the Iraqi people is pure kindergarten naivety....yet the human rights issue is pushed for its "moral correctness". There's the sickest part.
Saddam was used. He was outsmarted in the political chess game. Right now, the losers are the American people, the coalition troops, the Iraqi population and.....the national security of every nation who is playing a part in this FUBAR situation. The "winners"...are terrorists, criminals, and sleazebag executives who play on the right golf-courses.
Someone once said that "winning a war is like winning an earthquake". This case is a perfect parallel.
Originally posted by groverat
Is there anything I haven't address?
groverat, seriously, I'm not trying to be funny. But, do you know what you're talking about? You said I 'never address anything you said', so I refresh your memory and remind you that I've quoted and responded to you.
You then ask what you haven't responded to. You're confused.
Originally posted by groverat
Could they do it for themselves cheaper? What would be required for them to even do it themselves?
Could they? Yes. They rebuild most of their country after the first Gulf War, and that was with sanctions limiting their abilities. Without sanctions crippling them, they would obviously do a better job. They have tons of engineers and plenty of construction workers. They could do it. And everyone agrees that their labor would be less costly than the contracts we're creating.
So, unless you believe they couldn't redo what they already did, we're stuck in a position of extortion.
Originally posted by groverat
I don't consider it extortion. You draw black and white lines on a grey world and expect others to immediately adopt your view when your strongest backing is putting "apparently" in quotation marks?
I put apparently in quotes because we're working off of newspaper articles. I'm smart enough to know that the paper might be wrong. If it's correct in its assertions, then my point is correct. If the paper is wrong, the quotes save my ass.
This thread is working under the assumption that the article is correct, even if you're not.
Originally posted by groverat
What is "the country"? Are the people of Iraq going to suffer any loss?
If they sell off their industries of course they people of Iraq are going to suffer a loss. Are you really that naive?
You can deflect all you want, but the U.S. is extorting these contracts out of Iraq. There's no reason for the U.S. to get this money when Iraqis can do the job.
Go look up the Bhagdad Blogger.
And we're making tons of money off of this. In Hassian's anti-American bigoted view?
Originally posted by Scott
So lemme get this straight. The US is paying for everything and thus the US is "extorting" the Iraqis? The money comes from the US and it used to contract US companies to rebuild Iraq and therefor the Iraqis are victims of US "extortion"?
And we're making tons of money off of this. In Hassian's anti-American bigoted view?
But the U.S. isnt' paying for everything. Iraq is being forced to sell oil at a reduced rate to the U.S. AND use profits from other oil sales to pay off new debt to the U.S.
That's not free.
So Scott, are you willing to recant your trolling post? I suspect not.
Originally posted by Scott
So lemme get this straight. The US is paying for everything and thus the US is "extorting" the Iraqis? The money comes from the US and it used to contract US companies to rebuild Iraq and therefor the Iraqis are victims of US "extortion"?
And we're making tons of money off of this. In Hassian's anti-American bigoted view?
No you freakin' moron. The issue is that US corporations are going to be making a mint on rebuilding Iraq. Did these very same corps. fund the war? Nope. You and I did.
These self-same corps. have some rather uncanny connections to Bush and friends. Draw your own conclusions....
Originally posted by bunge
But the U.S. isnt' paying for everything. Iraq is being forced to sell oil at a reduced rate to the U.S. AND use profits from other oil sales to pay off new debt to the U.S.
That's not free.
So Scott, are you willing to recant your trolling post? I suspect not.
So we are just supposed to foot the whole bill all by our lonesome?
Bah.
Originally posted by Scott
Speak for yourself. I think the people who's toddlers were freed from the children's prison might feel different.
Scott,
THEY
DON'T
LIKE
US.
You have drunk too much Comical Rummi Koolade.
Seek HELP man.
NOT
TAKING
YOUR
WORD
FOR
IT.
STOP
SPEAKING
FOR
OTHER
PEOPLE.
Originally posted by Scott
STOP
SPEAKING
FOR
OTHER
PEOPLE.
You are a lunatic, totally blinkered to the truth in a breath-taking manner.
Seek help.
Seriously.
Originally posted by BR
So we are just supposed to foot the whole bill all by our lonesome?
Bah.
In a perfect world, yes.
But under the circumstances we either need to put a U.N. face on reconstruction so we're not the focus of the Iraqi ire or get rid of the conflict of interest by not deciding who gets the reconstruction contracts or how they're paid for. We can offer loans, but we shouldn't force debt.
you are not paying for anything... yet.
So far there are numbers being shifted around, national debt grows, but it's just a number.
***WARNING, WARNING, GROSS OVERSIMPLIFICATION***
1. You need 1B to invest in a war
2. Big deal, our national debt is now 1B
3. Money are being spent on military equipment, old stuff gets dropped on Iraq, new stuff is being produced, people make $$ on it (and they will be taxed on it, again :-))) )
So far you have (1B) on a paper and you will receive some of it back.
4. Corporations are awarded contracts in Iraq.
It's not a donation, they are not 'rebuilding' for free, it's a loan, Iraq will pay for it.
5. US contractors are working there, they make money, 'US government' makes money. (a little perk: US now controls Iraq's market.)
7. Puppets are in control of political decisions, to insure a long 'friendship with nations, who out of good heart liberated us from this monster Saddam'.
How did you guys pay for that?
Are you honestly believe that Iraq's government will ever be independent?
Could they? Yes. They rebuild most of their country after the first Gulf War, and that was with sanctions limiting their abilities. Without sanctions crippling them, they would obviously do a better job.
They rebuilt from a high prosperous and wealthy nation to a shitheap nation with rampant healthcare issues, malnutrition and poor education.
And who is this "they"? Saddam Hussein organized it all, who will organize it now? They?
They have tons of engineers and plenty of construction workers. They could do it. And everyone agrees that their labor would be less costly than the contracts we're creating.
Who would organize them? Who would pay them? Who would regulate and control the utilites? Who would decide what the mechanical standards were?
They?
If they sell off their industries of course they people of Iraq are going to suffer a loss. Are you really that naive?
What does "sell off" mean?
Go look up the Bhagdad Blogger.
I read Salam Pax from his blog to his Guardian articles. Make a point.
Originally posted by Harald
You are a lunatic, totally blinkered to the truth in a breath-taking manner.
Seek help.
Seriously.
I'm not the one speaking for people I don't know and never talked to. Rather is seems your mindlessly repeating what you and maybe your friends agreed over the lunch table to be "true".
Originally posted by groverat
And who is this "they"? Saddam Hussein organized it all, who will organize it now? They?
Who would organize them? Who would pay them? Who would regulate and control the utilites? Who would decide what the mechanical standards were?
They?
The U.S. is in a position to do it, but they're selling the jobs to foreign companies instead. We're stealing the jobs away from Iraq even though they have the manpower to do it themselves. If the U.S. isn't willing to organize the local engineers then we should move out of the way and let the U.N. in conjunction with Iraqis do it.
You said this type of action should be punished. What type of punishment do you suggest?
Conversely, if you believe he U.S. isn't extorting money from Iraq as the thread asserts, show us some proof as to why Hassan is wrong. Why is the information in the link incorrect?