U.S. Bars Iraq Contracts for Nations That Opposed War

[zimv20]

lnk (http://nytimes.com/2003/12/09/international/middleeast/09CND-DIPL.html?hp=&pagewanted=print&position=)


The Pentagon has barred French, German and Russian companies from competing for $18.6 billion in contracts for the reconstruction of Iraq, saying the step "is necessary for the protection of the essential security interests of the United States."

The directive, which was issued by the deputy defense secretary, Paul D. Wolfowitz, represents perhaps the most substantive retaliation to date by the Bush administration against American allies who opposed its decision to go to war in Iraq.


in other news, little Timmy Minter from my 2nd grade, who got mad at me for doing better than him on the spelling test, still has my superball.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Good! when those 3 nations cough up 87 billion then i say let them in. It would be just stupid if we go over there to change Iraq after spending 87 billion just to let the communist and socialist get the rewards. Keep a good eye on the french and germans after all they got the world involved in 2 world wars did they not? i hate to say this but i see another one coming in the next 10- 20 years and i think it will come right out of the same dam place.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
Good! when those 3 nations cough up 87 billion then i say let them in.

let me ask you this -- for whose alleged good was this war fought?

[mactastic]

Originally posted by zimv20
let me ask you this -- for whose alleged good was this war fought?

<Waving hand wildly> Oh, I know this one! The Iraqi people right? To save them from an oppressive a$$hole of a dictator?

[toontra]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
i hate to say this but i see another one coming in the next 10- 20 years and i think it will come right out of the same dam place.

Well don't say it then. What gives you the idea that France and/or Germany would be responsible for starting a world war, apart from the fact they disagree with the foreign policy of your government.

[Psychic Shopper]

The Pentagon has barred any companies not associated with Dick Channey/ Haliburton from the $16.8 Billion in the Iraqi pork barrell project

[Dont Hurt Me]

Look at history of France and Germany, that should be enough.WW1, WW2, where did Saddam get most of of his stuff? from these same clowns. I pray we never are lulled into letting the U.N make all of our choices because when that happens America will be doomed.

[Stelliform]

...

[g5man]

Actually they all had contracts with Iraq, the problem was they assumed that some how they would get rid of sanctions and get paid.

I love Kerry's plan. Let the UN take over Iraq and we will take care of security. In other words you guys get the new contracts while we get shot.

[IJ Reilly]

Petulance as foreign policy. Yeah, that makes sense -- so long as you're not being asked to pick up the tab.

[G5ROCKS]

The war was fought to remake the political reality of the Middle East and thus protect the national security of the United States. It's a nice side effect, and not all all coincidental, that an asshole of a dictator was removed in the process. The first stage ended with the fall of Saddam's government. The rest of the process has a long way to go.

So far as the contracts go, too bad. Right now, the US taxpayer is paying for most of these contracts, and there's no reason to give them to countries that didn't want us to be there in the first place.

[Dont Hurt Me]

so true, bush said when we went in that those that were with us would partake in the rebuilding of iraq.. what was it 60 some odd nations? and those few that were in bed with Saddam meaning France ,Germany and Russia would be left out. Well looks like george is a man of his word. good for him to bad for those clowns i mean France/Germany.:D

[G5ROCKS]

Only companies from coalition partner nations can bid on the prime contracts, anyone can bid on the sub contracts. I guess that was omitted from the original post.

[IJ Reilly]

Subcontracts don't require bids. I guess that was left out of your post.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
good for him to bad for those clowns i mean France/Germany.:D

Too bad for France and Germany, eh?

Sucker. You're the one (over)paying for it now.

[G5ROCKS]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Subcontracts don't require bids. I guess that was left out of your post.

Here's the story. (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=574&u=/nm/20031209/wl_nm/iraq_contracts_dc_3&printer=1)

The move is likely to anger France and Germany and other traditional allies in NATO (news - web sites) and the U.N. Security Council who are being blocked out of prime contracts after their opposition to the war. They may bid for sub-contracts.

Apparently, some of them do require bids.

I wonder if it requires bids if it's at night? :D

[g5man]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Too bad for France and Germany, eh?

Sucker. You're the one (over)paying for it now.

I don't mind. We paid to rebuild most of Europe, Japan, and the UN would die without us. US investment in most of the middle east and now in Russia is what keeps this world running.

[pseudobrit]

Yeah, that US "investment" in the Middle East sure does keep the world running.

Like a 767 into a skyscraper.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by G5ROCKS

Right now, the US taxpayer is paying for most of these contracts, and there's no reason to give them to countries that didn't want us to be there in the first place.

yes, there is a reason. the rebuilding is supposed to be for the iraqi people. and it will be paid for by the US taxpayer.

therefore, as a taxpayer, i want a contract for a particular aspect of the rebuilding of iraq to be done by the best qualified company for the least amount of money. (sort of the way i, as a consumer, spend).

should i be happy that i'll now be paying such that companies friendly to bush and cheney can charge me out the wazoo? shall i feel good for the iraqis that the engineers of eritrea, for example, will be designing bridges, rather than germans?

and i don't suppose anyone's going to end up being accountable for how my money is spent...

[g5man]

Originally posted by zimv20
yes, there is a reason. the rebuilding is supposed to be for the iraqi people. and it will be paid for by the US taxpayer.



should i be happy that i'll now be paying such that companies friendly to bush and cheney can charge me out the wazoo? shall i feel good for the iraqis that the engineers of eritrea, for example, will be designing bridges, rather than germans?

and i don't suppose anyone's going to end up being accountable for how my money is spent...

Well you only have two choices. If you don't want Iraq rebuild, then don't pay taxes. Someone has to do the work and pay for the materials used, therefore our taxes will need to be used. There is no going around this part.

The second option is to put someone in the WH for example like Dean who said he would not fund the Iraqi reconstruction or the military there. God I hope he gets nominated.

[g5man]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Yeah, that US "investment" in the Middle East sure does keep the world running.

Like a 767 into a skyscraper.

Blame America first is not a good strategy for regime change at home.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by g5man
Well you only have two choices. If you don't want Iraq rebuild, then don't pay taxes.

OMFG could you miss my point any more wildly?

1. let's rebuild iraq
2. let's spend our money wisely
3. let's get the best company for each job

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by g5man
Blame America first is not a good strategy for regime change at home.

Nor is regime change abroad a good strategy for America at home.

Which was my point. But you've always been good at missing points.

[Ugg]

Originally posted by g5man
I don't mind. We paid to rebuild most of Europe, Japan, and the UN would die without us. US investment in most of the middle east and now in Russia is what keeps this world running.

It's so funny to read such misguided statements like yours. Once again, the reason the US economy has been growing is because the rest of the world was willing to invest in us. Our trade deficit is scandalous and today the dollar was selling like hotcakes. Had it not been for Japan buying 18,000 billion yen worth of dollars today today, link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,3604,1103465,00.html) it is very likely that the dollar would have fallen to historical lows. In other words, the only reason we have the money to invest is because others are investing their trade surpluses with us. The US has had little or nothing to do with the reconstruction of eastern Europe or Russia, the majority of the money has come from western Europe.

It is true that Europe is very happy with the very low oil prices due to the fact that oil is priced in dollars, but the Sauds and all the other opec members are pretty pissed at the US for keeping the dollar down. You can bet that before long, there will be a two-tier oil pricing scheme so the oil producers don't lose their shorts every time the US decides to deflate the value of the dollar. If you'll notice as well, treasury bonds aren't selling very well these days overseas. The US is a piss poor place to invest and the world or at least the business world is pulling out and finding other places to put their money.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Ugg
the reason the US economy has been growing is because the rest of the world was willing to invest in us.

if the world loses confidence in the dollar, we're gonna be a lot like japan in the 80s and 90s: well ****ed.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by zimv20
if the world loses confidence in the dollar, we're gonna be a lot like japan in the 80s and 90s: well ****ed.

Japan isn't in the fix it's in because of the value of the yen -- it's a product of problems in the banking system they haven't got the political courage to address fully. Still, there's a possible analogy here. The Fed has pretty much run out of interest rate bullets; yet interest rates are rising even with the low Fed bank rates, as a result of the massive deficits. The economy may get moving again just in time to slip our necks out of that noose, but it won't happen with much room for error, and we'd better hope that inflation rates don't pick up, or we're in real trouble.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Japan isn't in the fix it's in because of the value of the yen -- it's a product of problems in the banking system they haven't got the political courage to address fully. Still, there's a possible analogy here. The Fed has pretty much run out of interest rate bullets; yet interest rates are rising even with the low Fed bank rates, as a result of the massive deficits. The economy may get moving again just in time to slip our necks out of that noose, but it won't happen with much room for error, and we'd better hope that inflation rates don't pick up, or we're in real trouble.

yeah, the parallels that concern me are japan's deflation, inability to sell overseas, housing market crisis and amount of public debt.

[Inu]

Its **** like that that turns countries that actually should contribute to the buildup pretty sour.

First you get called insignificant
Then you get called a saddam lover
Then you get ruled out of Rebuilding bids
Then you get begged on (I dont remember if anyone was so stupid to donate, probably there were some)
At least they still rule you out

Ah, yes, and you get lied to all the time. Nice going.

The biggest problem with other countries paying the US for doing preemtive wars is, that once someone picks up the tab you will be heading into the next country, guns a-blazing.

[manitoubalck]

The USA (poms and Aussies to a lesser extent) dug one huge hole. Now they have to dig themselves out. I don't really car who does it, but it should go to tender and the mest offer accepted.

He he: as long as the Aussie doller keeps climbing I'm stoked:D

[mactastic]

Well it's apparent with this decision that the Bush team has no intention of trying to rebuild all the relationships they damaged on the march to war. It's almost as if someone is sitting around thinking of ways to piss off our friends and alienate us from the rest of the world. "Gee, what's the best way to rub salt in the wound of the America-World relationship? Let's exclude those who disagreed with us from helping out in Iraq!" And now we find out what a great job Bechtel is doing with their subs.

And since these countries are being snubbed, wouldn't it make sense that they will snub and oppose us every chance they get now?

GHWB was shrewd enough not to piss off the world, and almost made money off the first Gulf War. His son wasn't so good at it. We will be paying for this war and occupation for many, many years. Generations perhaps.

[Sayhey]

The European Union is to examine the legality of a US decision to bar many countries from multi-billion-dollar reconstruction contracts in Iraq.

The ban includes leading EU members France and Germany, which, alongside Russia, stand to lose lucrative deals because they opposed the US-led war.

The EU's executive arm said it would examine if the ban was in line with US obligations under world trade rules.

full BBC story (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3308261.stm)

How about a trade war with the EU over a fit of pique by the Bush administration?

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Sayhey

How about a trade war with the EU over a fit of pique by the Bush administration?

and bush recently avoided that by lifting the steel tariffs. because of that, we know what the EU would do -- raise tariffs on products from all those swing states...

wonder when bush will learn that the rest of the world can play politics, too -- and be better at it than he can.

i say the EU should bring it.

[Dont Hurt Me]

as much as you would like to think these countries care about the U.S. they dont unless they need our money or they need the U.S to come save them from another war. France has shown many many times how they play politics wether sending arms and supplies to Saddam while he is killing his own people, trying to get everyone not to go after Saddam, the govt funded Airbus, or how about the deal with China to have a GPS. France is trying like hell to be the big dog of the world and wants to be #1. It goes out of its way everytime to knockdown what the U.S is doing. Look at what they have been doing the past 20 years. I have said it before, 2 world wars from France and Germany and history has a way of repeating itself. Watch France and their wanna be President Joque Chirac.

[Ugg]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
as much as you would like to think these countries care about the U.S. they dont unless they need our money or they need the U.S to come save them from another war. France has shown many many times how they play politics wether sending arms and supplies to Saddam while he is killing his own people, trying to get everyone not to go after Saddam, the govt funded Airbus, or how about the deal with China to have a GPS. France is trying like hell to be the big dog of the world and wants to be #1. It goes out of its way everytime to knockdown what the U.S is doing. Look at what they have been doing the past 20 years. I have said it before, 2 world wars from France and Germany and history has a way of repeating itself. Watch France and their wanna be President Joque Chirac.

Why do you hate the Europeans so much?

Saddam and bin Laden came to power along with a whole slew of other brutal dictators through US sponsorship. Their raison d'etre is the fault of the US pure and simple. This in no way is a means of apologizing for the arms deals other countries have made with brutal dictators but to ignore their beginnings is way out of line.

Airbus has received massive subsidies from the EU but it has become successful because it makes great products. The federal and subsidies are disappearing although local subsidies remain. This has provided much needed competition in the commercial jet market. Boeing's commercial jet manf. is subsidized by the government through Boeing's military contracts. If we look at the massived amounts of local tax benefits that Boeing has received from Chicago, Wichita and Seattle it soon becomes apparent that Boeing is just as heavily subsidized as is Airbus. It's just done differently is all.

The EU is not interested in being number one. It is interested in an equal playing field however and US dominance of such areas as GPS and space are dangerous. A strong EU is in America's best interests.

History does have a way of repeating itself but not the way you think it will. GB, France, Germany, Spain, Rome, etc were all once king of the hill and were all taken down. The US and especially gw, a history major, has failed to heed the lessons of history and has embarked on a course of self-destruction. The end of the American empire is nigh.....

[Dont Hurt Me]

i dont hate europeans, i simple dislike Joque Chirac policies, attitude, towards the U.S. and towards its european neighbors and when he went around trying to get everyone to oppose taking out another murderous dictator ( Saddam) that just pissed me off. And every time you hear something going on with the European union it seems like France is allways the benificiary. what about those other countries that make up that union. Say what you may but France wants to and seems to be dominating those other countries.( except Briton ) they dont play all that crap with France.

[mactastic]

We are also punishing any citizens of France, Germany, Russia etc that may have supported our efforts even though their government did not. Now we have effectively alienated even those in other countries who thought we did the right thing. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but foreign governments wouldn't be doing the work right? It would be done by private companies owned by businesspeople from said countries. Ok so maybe we prevent France from collecting some tax money from a company that might have done business in Iraq, but that's the only money France would get. It's not like the US government is making any money over there, it's all being made by private industry, the government is paying for it. And of course, that means you and I. And Bechtel and Halliburton et al. make the profits.

[Ugg]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
i dont hate europeans, i simple dislike Joque Chirac policies, attitude, towards the U.S. and towards its european neighbors and when he went around trying to get everyone to oppose taking out another murderous dictator ( Saddam) that just pissed me off. And every time you hear something going on with the European union it seems like France is allways the benificiary. what about those other countries that make up that union. Say what you may but France wants to and seems to be dominating those other countries.( except Briton ) they dont play all that crap with France.

France and Germany know only too well what the lasting effects of war are like. You would be hard pressed to visit any town in either country that doesn't have a prominently displayed memorial to those who lost their lives. They know what a bitch it is to dig your home out of the rubble and find that absolutely nothing of value is left. Jacques Chirac and Schroeder were members of the generation who paid the price for their parents' folly. They don't want to repeat it.

Germany and France have both sacrificed a great deal to the good of Europe in creating the EU. It didn't just appear out of nowhere but came from Europe's most antagonistic countries. Two countries who were willing to lay aside their differences for the good of Europe. Their sacrifices have been conveniently overlooked by Americans and the smaller countries of the EU. The US motto abroad has always been what's good for the US is good for the world. There are few in Europe that would deny the same for Germany and France. Malta, Slovakia, Slovenia, Estonia and even the two faced Poles have little hope of a future without the EU.

As far as GB and the poodle are concerned, they are playing a very dangerous game and if tony doesn't get off the fence soon, well, I'll leave it to your imagination.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by zimv20
let me ask you this -- for whose alleged good was this war fought?

Dunno. Ask the dead ones that Saddam gassed, or Udai/Qusay put through the plastic shredding machines... or the rape rooms.

I think that this is a good idea. Besides, the $18 billion is OUR money. Its part of the $87 billion that Congress approved for Iraq reconstruction. Might as well have it spent on companies that support the US.

France and Germany... didn't we save and kicked their butts not to long ago? France can't even make their own nuclear aircraft carrier (http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/2003127.asp), and they want a piece of the $18 billion?

[Dont Hurt Me]

Originally posted by mactastic
We are also punishing any citizens of France, Germany, Russia etc that may have supported our efforts even though their government did not. Now we have effectively alienated even those in other countries who thought we did the right thing. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but foreign governments wouldn't be doing the work right? It would be done by private companies owned by businesspeople from said countries. Ok so maybe we prevent France from collecting some tax money from a company that might have done business in Iraq, but that's the only money France would get. It's not like the US government is making any money over there, it's all being made by private industry, the government is paying for it. And of course, that means you and I. And Bechtel and Halliburton et al. make the profits. yep we are paying for it in our Tax dollars and American lives, this is why its even more important to keep Joque the Chirac OUT! They elected this turkey and if he is making turkey decisions well they have to live with it. i have no remorse in what Bush is doing about this situation. France wanted Saddam in power. your with us or your not Joque, well Joque choose not to be with us so why is he crying now. I say lets give those contracts to Americans, British,Australians,Polish,Italians,Japan and all those others that knew Saddam needed the boot. Germany,France Oh well thats what happens when you play politics, we can to.

[mactastic]

And of course the flip side is that we are allowing contracts to be awarded to people from Britain, Spain, Austrailia etc. that may NOT have supported the war. So in effect we are potentially rewarding a Briton's anti-war stance and punishing a French businessperson's pro-war stance with this kind of blanket proclamation.

And I guarantee you the general attitude among the donor's conference members who we passed the hat to was "well you elected that turkey, you live with it".

[Dont Hurt Me]

actually any country can go do business there its just that france,germany and russia can not compete as prime contractor for our 18 billion U.S. dollars. they can still be subcontractors and they still can go in and set up shop but they are not going to be allowed to bid on the prime contracts that we are paying for. I dont see anything wrong with that? after all this is U.S money for the Iraqi's not U.S. money for the french,germans and russians.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
this is U.S money for the Iraqi's not U.S. money for the french,germans and russians.

So then it would follow that we'll have Iraqi contractors do the work?
You know, if it really is in fact US money for the Iraqi people.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Dunno. Ask the dead ones that Saddam gassed, or Udai/Qusay put through the plastic shredding machines... or the rape rooms.

WTF is a rape room exactly?

I mean, really, other than making for better sound bites, is there any difference between a "regular" torture room and a "rape room." Do they have Astroglide and broomsticks hung on the walls?

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
WTF is a rape room exactly?

I mean, really, other than making for better sound bites, is there any difference between a "regular" torture room and a "rape room." Do they have Astroglide and broomsticks hung on the walls?

Iraqi Women Say Peace Impossible with Saddam in Power (http://www.womenof.com/News/cn_3_31_03_c.asp)

Read the article about the 'rape rooms'.

[pseudobrit]

I saw no reference to specific rooms designated for rape in that article.

[pdham]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
yep we are paying for it in our Tax dollars and American lives, this is why its even more important to keep Joque the Chirac OUT! They elected this turkey and if he is making turkey decisions well they have to live with it. i have no remorse in what Bush is doing about this situation. France wanted Saddam in power. your with us or your not Joque, well Joque choose not to be with us so why is he crying now. I say lets give those contracts to Americans, British,Australians,Polish,Italians,Japan and all those others that knew Saddam needed the boot. Germany,France Oh well thats what happens when you play politics, we can to.

France and Germany didnt want Saddam in power, they just disagreed with the idea of a preemptive attack.

Stop spouting Fox news, Bill O'Reilly nonsense and actually take the initiative to learn about the countries politics that you are bashing.

Paul

P.S. It is spelled Jacque not Joque

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
I saw no reference to specific rooms designated for rape in that article.

Fine. Why don't you ask this guy (http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/). Ask him if rumors of 'rape rooms' used by Saddam are correct or not correct.

Somehow, he might be to intoxicated with freedom to probably answer you. ;)

His latest blog entry was about the Iraq rally.

He's got pictures of the rally too!!! http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/07.jpg The girl holding up the banner on this on is kinda hidden, but she might be a hot chick! :D

[pseudobrit]

Again, the issue is "what is a rape room?"

I contend there is no such thing as a "rape room" in Iraq. It's another term coined by the Bush administration.

Rape can and does occur in rooms, and I'm sure it did in Iraq.

I just doubt they had rooms reserved for rape alone.

[Stelliform]

....

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Stelliform
So tell me if you disagree with his whole point that the Iraqi people were mistreated at the hands of Saddam.

I don't.

I disagree with the dishonesty and sensationalisation in the way it's being presented.

[G5ROCKS]

France and Germany didnt want Saddam in power, they just disagreed with the idea of a preemptive attack.


pdham,
France was interested in getting rid of the sanctions on Iraq during the Clinton administration. That's a pretty damned good indication that they wanted Saddam in power. France also bailed on participation in the enforcement of the no fly zones in Iraq, which they had participated in at the start. Finally, France signed on to 1441 and then stabbed the US in the back spending immense political captial to, in effect, protect Saddam's Iraq. Sure, they may not have wanted Saddam in power, but the did just about as much as they could do to make sure he stayed in power.

Don't Hurt Me's arguement may seem abrasive, but he is right that there's no reason that the prime contracts paid for by US taxpayers shouldn't go to those countries who have put more on the line. The US, Iraq, other coalition partners, and those with security forces on the ground in Iraq come to mind well before France.

pseudobrit,
That there weren't rooms with "rape room" printed on the door makes it so much less horrible, doesn't it?

IMO, after reading and seeing many reports, it's almost impossible to over sensationalize what happened in Iraq under Saddam. There really isn't language that can capture the horror.

[Stelliform]

....

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
I don't.

I disagree with the dishonesty and sensationalisation in the way it's being presented.

What dishonesty and sensationalism?

I think that you are just uncomfortable at being on a side of the argument that happens to disfavor the removal of Saddam. Perhaps you are on this side of the ideological fence because of your opposition to GWBush, but you can't seem to reconcile that removing Saddam is a good thing, especially for the Iraqi people that have suffered his atrocities, because doing so would give credit to GWBush.

If you were alive in the 1930s, and were against America going to war, and if someone said that Hitler killed hundreds of thousands in his death camps, would you say that is being dishonest and sensationalistic? Hmmm?

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by Frohickey
If you were alive in the 1930s, and were against America going to war, and if someone said that Hitler killed hundreds of thousands in his death camps, would you say that is being dishonest and sensationalistic? Hmmm?

The United State decision to wage war against Germany had nothing whatsoever to do with the Nazi death camps.

[g5man]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
The United State decision to wage war against Germany had nothing whatsoever to do with the Nazi death camps.

It was based on that madman Churchill who was the biggest warmonger of them all. We could have had peace had we let the league of nations control the conflict. Our economy boomed after the war so we know it was all about money and making sure no other than the US take over the world. The arms company made millions. We should have minded our own business let dictators kill who they want and who they want. It was in Europe for pits sake, no threat to the US.

Why is history repeating itself? The US never cared about people getting killed, unless we got some money out of it.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by g5man
It was based on that madman Churchill who was the biggest warmonger of them all. We could have had peace had we let the league of nations control the conflict. Our economy boomed after the war so we know it was all about money and making sure no other than the US take over the world. The arms company made millions. We should have minded our own business let dictators kill who they want and who they want. It was in Europe for pits sake, no threat to the US.

Why is history repeating itself? The US never cared about people getting killed, unless we got some money out of it.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Was that an attempt at sarcasm?

Saddam was bad, but he was no Hitler. You're barking up the wrong tree.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
The United State decision to wage war against Germany had nothing whatsoever to do with the Nazi death camps.

And ironically, the US decision had nothing to do with the rape rooms or Saddam's brutality.

It was about the WMD and impending Iraqi terrorist attacks that didn't exist.

[g5man]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Was that an attempt at sarcasm?

Saddam was bad, but he was no Hitler. You're barking up the wrong tree.

I know I am not very good at being sarcastic, but I tried.

So if a dictatory kills only 300,000 before someone takes care of him it is OK with you? Hitle killed his millions in the later part of the war.

Hitler was no threat to the US in 1942 and he had been in power for about 10 years. But wait he was making progress in N. Africa and he attempted to take over Iraq in 1934(I might be off on the year), so we really went into WW 2 to protect the oil.

It is well documented that France and Russia were making great strides in trying to eliminate the UN Sanctions. Now they want the same contracts they were trying to keep back then.

I wonder what type of a threat Saddam would have been in about 5 years without any sanctions or how many more he would have killed. Personally I am glad we will never know.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
And ironically, the US decision had nothing to do with the rape rooms or Saddam's brutality.

It was about the WMD and impending Iraqi terrorist attacks that didn't exist.

My point exactly. Nations, the US included, rarely enter into wars for humanitarian purposes, and Iraq was no exception. Even Kosovo wasn't strictly speaking a humanitarian operation. Intervention in the Balkans was principally about maintaining stability in central Europe. The administration could have sold Iraq on a similar basis, but decided on a more dramatic rationale that better suited their timeline.

[Stelliform]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
And ironically, the US decision had nothing to do with the rape rooms


So... What you are saying is that they do exist! :p :D

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Stelliform
So... What you are saying is that they do exist! :p :D

The concept certainly did. ;)

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by g5man
So if a dictatory kills only 300,000 before someone takes care of him it is OK with you?

No. I never said that. You've always done this - put words into people's mouths. Knock it off, please.

My point is that Hitler was a much bigger threat because of his ambitions and agression outside his nation, and that's why he was so dangerous. Saddam and Hitler were horrible men, but Hitler was a threat to the entire world. Saddam was by no means a serious threat to anyone outside Iraq. Even when we supplied him with arms he couldn't defeat his neighbours.

But you've always been one to ignore the point of an argument and attack something that was never said. And that's why you stink at debate and always will. And that's why you say stupid things and get yourself banned.