US retaliation against France etc.
-
Brit wrote: On one hand, it's a slap to France, Germany, and Russia. On the other, those countries ended up with the same number of rebuilding contracts as they would've if the second Gulf War had never happened. I accept your point. It would be a little tacky for any of the three countries to be complaining too loudly about missing out on economic opportunities resulting from a war they opposed. Nevertheless, the retaliatory action reinforces the beliefs already held by many around the world about the Bush Administration, i.e., that it has no respect for the opinions of other countries and considers that acquiescence to US policy is the only acceptable foreign policy stance for other countries to adopt. John Carson
John Carson wrote: Nevertheless, the retaliatory action reinforces the beliefs already held by many around the world about the Bush Administration, i.e., that it has no respect for the opinions of other countries I think you do a disservice to people of other countries. You are assuming they are too stupid to understand that not giving economic opportunities to countries that attempted to extend the rule of Saddam Hussein has nothing to do with "respecting" other nations and everything to do with simple fairness. Why give huge contracts to a country that refused to help liberate the Iraqi people? Those contracts should go to the nations that actually took the effort to remove a brutal dictator.
-
Brit wrote: those countries ended up with the same number of rebuilding contracts as they would've if So the administration actually went out of its way to act like a petulant child? "you can't play with my toys! nyah nyah!" Does anyone still wonder why people are critical of US foreign policy?
« eikonoklastes »
Daniel Ferguson wrote: Does anyone still wonder why people are critical of US foreign policy? Of course not - there are several million people like you all too willing to twist the meanings of the actions of the USA and spread it like an oil slick over the consciousness of stupid people who are all to ready to accept your tawdry explanations. Look - There is a homicidal maniac holed up in his house. You, as a good neighbor, decide to drag him out and beat him to death. Across the street from you is another neighbor. This one is a snivelling little fuck who keeps telling you to leave his firend - the maniac - alone. He keeps whining and wiping his runny nose and crying to everyone who will listen "Oooh that bully isn't so bad. Just leave him alone. Eventually he'll go away if you just ignore him". Since you have common sense, you ignore the snivelling little fuck and knock on the maniacs door and tell him to come out now - he is under arrest. In response, you hear the maniac barricading himself in and you hear weapons being loaded. So you kick in his door and drag him out. Now you have a house with a broken door and the snivelling neighbor from earlier wants you to pay him money to fix the door?!?!??! Yeah right. If people are so stupid that they think the US is acting childish by not awarding contracts to the nations that supported our enemy during the war then fine. They are too fucking stupid for me to care about. Sure - it is hip to insult the USA. It is cool to be the rebel, etc. But by calling our policy of trying to reward the countries that actually *HELPED* childish, you aren't coming off as the smartest person.
-
Oh god. Don't you even know that he meant military retaliation!?!?!??! THe US government has said from the beginning that we would bar from participation in rebuilding Iraq those pro-dictator nations that attempted to use diplomacy to continue the subjugation of the Iraqi people! Of course we would stop Syria, North Korea and France from participation. Help me Jeebus.
Terry O`Nolley wrote: Oh god. Don't you even know that he meant military retaliation!?!?!??! No I don't know that. Nobody was interpreting Powell's remarks as suggesting that the US was about to start a war against France and the rest. Such an interpretation would be absurd. John Carson
-
here's a little more on this. *edit* apparently it's crucial to the security of the US that we make every effort to publicly snub our allies. because, as previous posters have noted, if all the bad countries can still sub-contract, then they only real effect of this is as an insult. yessir, these guys are "grown-ups". and when did Wolfowitz become Sec of State and Treasury ? why does the DoDefense get to decide matters of commerce? whatta buncha fucktards. */edit* ClickPic | ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
Chris Losinger wrote: apparently it's crucial to the security of the US that we make every effort to publicly snub our allies. With allies like them, who needs enemies? They did everything short of attacking us in an attempt to make us lose the war. Russian and French military advisors were scurrying out of Baghdad like a bunch of cockroaches just prior to the invasion. I wish we didn't give them the back-channel heads up. Sure, France and Germany are NATO members. I guess that makes them our military allies by definition. But I don't believe for a second France would honor it's NATO commitments. They would be too busy trying to sell their crappy Mirage fighters to whoever NATO was fighting and then complaining about the fact that they didn't get rebuilding contracts after NATO won the war.
-
Terry O`Nolley wrote: Oh god. Don't you even know that he meant military retaliation!?!?!??! No I don't know that. Nobody was interpreting Powell's remarks as suggesting that the US was about to start a war against France and the rest. Such an interpretation would be absurd. John Carson
I figured he must have meant military retaliation since it was already common knowledge that non-military retaliation via the contract-awardal system would be implemented. To me, that only left room for military retaliation. Why would Mike talk about there being no retaliation (in the non-military sense) when he already knew there *would* be retaliation (in the non-military sense)? Because of this logical inconsistency, I took the "retaliation" in question to mean military retaliation.
-
Chris Losinger wrote: apparently it's crucial to the security of the US that we make every effort to publicly snub our allies. With allies like them, who needs enemies? They did everything short of attacking us in an attempt to make us lose the war. Russian and French military advisors were scurrying out of Baghdad like a bunch of cockroaches just prior to the invasion. I wish we didn't give them the back-channel heads up. Sure, France and Germany are NATO members. I guess that makes them our military allies by definition. But I don't believe for a second France would honor it's NATO commitments. They would be too busy trying to sell their crappy Mirage fighters to whoever NATO was fighting and then complaining about the fact that they didn't get rebuilding contracts after NATO won the war.
Terry O`Nolley wrote: They did everything short of attacking us in an attempt to make us lose the war. taking extra vitamin-Hyperbole these days? tell me what Canada, Sweden and Finland (to pick three) did to "make us lose the war" ? were they blockading our ships? we're they cutting off food and supplies ? were they boycotting us? were they jamming our communications ? none of those countries are eleigible to compete for contracts in Iraq, and neither are India, China, Korea, Mexico, Norway, Brazil, Argentina, or dozens of other countries. tell me, what did Greece and Switzerland do to "make us lose the war" . RTFDocument, this isn't about Germany, France and Russia. ClickPic | ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
-
John Carson wrote: Nevertheless, the retaliatory action reinforces the beliefs already held by many around the world about the Bush Administration, i.e., that it has no respect for the opinions of other countries I think you do a disservice to people of other countries. You are assuming they are too stupid to understand that not giving economic opportunities to countries that attempted to extend the rule of Saddam Hussein has nothing to do with "respecting" other nations and everything to do with simple fairness. Why give huge contracts to a country that refused to help liberate the Iraqi people? Those contracts should go to the nations that actually took the effort to remove a brutal dictator.
Terry O`Nolley wrote: I think you do a disservice to people of other countries. You are assuming they are too stupid to understand that not giving economic opportunities to countries that attempted to extend the rule of Saddam Hussein has nothing to do with "respecting" other nations and everything to do with simple fairness. Your characterisation of what I am "assuming" is very wide of the mark. Terry O`Nolley wrote: Why give huge contracts to a country that refused to help liberate the Iraqi people? Those contracts should go to the nations that actually took the effort to remove a brutal dictator. The Iraqi people may be liberated. I hope so. But it hasn't happened yet. Why give contracts to these countries? Well...why conduct any international trade with them? Perhaps a trade embargo would be in order? (I actually suspect we will see some action on the trade front.) The point is that the US is awarding commercial contracts based on non-commercial principles. It is adopting a deliberate policy of economic punishment of those who didn't support its foreign policy. Nobody is suggesting that France and the rest should be given any favours. Merely that they should be able to compete on an even commercial basis. The extent of US intolerance toward any disagreement is shown in the fact that Canada is on the list of banned countries, in spite of the fact that Canada played no role in the Security Council and has contributed more than $190 million toward Iraqi reconstruction. With your US-centric perspective, I guess you think it is OK for the US to use economic means to reward and punish other countries for their foreign policy. Such an approach has a legitimate place in relation to countries that are fundamentally hostile to the US. But it is also being applied to countries that are fundamentally allies of the US --- democratic Western countries. Such countries are entitled to draw the inference that the US does not consider that it has any allies --- only foreign powers to be coerced. This attitude on the part of the Bush Administration is both offensive and dumb. John Carson
-
Daniel Ferguson wrote: Does anyone still wonder why people are critical of US foreign policy? Of course not - there are several million people like you all too willing to twist the meanings of the actions of the USA and spread it like an oil slick over the consciousness of stupid people who are all to ready to accept your tawdry explanations. Look - There is a homicidal maniac holed up in his house. You, as a good neighbor, decide to drag him out and beat him to death. Across the street from you is another neighbor. This one is a snivelling little fuck who keeps telling you to leave his firend - the maniac - alone. He keeps whining and wiping his runny nose and crying to everyone who will listen "Oooh that bully isn't so bad. Just leave him alone. Eventually he'll go away if you just ignore him". Since you have common sense, you ignore the snivelling little fuck and knock on the maniacs door and tell him to come out now - he is under arrest. In response, you hear the maniac barricading himself in and you hear weapons being loaded. So you kick in his door and drag him out. Now you have a house with a broken door and the snivelling neighbor from earlier wants you to pay him money to fix the door?!?!??! Yeah right. If people are so stupid that they think the US is acting childish by not awarding contracts to the nations that supported our enemy during the war then fine. They are too fucking stupid for me to care about. Sure - it is hip to insult the USA. It is cool to be the rebel, etc. But by calling our policy of trying to reward the countries that actually *HELPED* childish, you aren't coming off as the smartest person.
Well said. You got my +5 Mike "liberals are being driven crazy by the fact that Bush is so popular with Americans, and thus by the realization that anyone to the left of center is utterly marginal." JAMES TRAUB NY Times Loyal member of the vast right wing conspiracy **"could a country (USA) letting one sixth of its population under the level of powerty be considered as civilized?"**KaЯl (France let 15,000 elderly die from summer heat)
-
here's a little more on this. *edit* apparently it's crucial to the security of the US that we make every effort to publicly snub our allies. because, as previous posters have noted, if all the bad countries can still sub-contract, then they only real effect of this is as an insult. yessir, these guys are "grown-ups". and when did Wolfowitz become Sec of State and Treasury ? why does the DoDefense get to decide matters of commerce? whatta buncha fucktards. */edit* ClickPic | ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
Chris Losinger wrote: it's crucial to the security of the US that we make every effort to publicly snub our allies Which allies are you referring to? France, against evrything American. Germany, sell us out for an election. Russia, bankrupt financially morally / and a 50 year+ enemy. Mike "liberals are being driven crazy by the fact that Bush is so popular with Americans, and thus by the realization that anyone to the left of center is utterly marginal." JAMES TRAUB NY Times Loyal member of the vast right wing conspiracy **"could a country (USA) letting one sixth of its population under the level of powerty be considered as civilized?"**KaЯl (France let 15,000 elderly die from summer heat)
-
Chris Losinger wrote: it's crucial to the security of the US that we make every effort to publicly snub our allies Which allies are you referring to? France, against evrything American. Germany, sell us out for an election. Russia, bankrupt financially morally / and a 50 year+ enemy. Mike "liberals are being driven crazy by the fact that Bush is so popular with Americans, and thus by the realization that anyone to the left of center is utterly marginal." JAMES TRAUB NY Times Loyal member of the vast right wing conspiracy **"could a country (USA) letting one sixth of its population under the level of powerty be considered as civilized?"**KaЯl (France let 15,000 elderly die from summer heat)
Are you willing to say that Canada, Korea and Mexico are "against evrything American" and are "enemies" ? Well, yeah, you probably are. Nevermind... Read the document this is all based on. This isn't about France, Germany and Russia; those countries are not mentioned in Wolfowitz's document. The countries that are mentioned are those included in the "coalition". All countries not mentioned are (by definition of "include") excluded from bidding on contracts. ClickPic | ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
-
I figured he must have meant military retaliation since it was already common knowledge that non-military retaliation via the contract-awardal system would be implemented. To me, that only left room for military retaliation. Why would Mike talk about there being no retaliation (in the non-military sense) when he already knew there *would* be retaliation (in the non-military sense)? Because of this logical inconsistency, I took the "retaliation" in question to mean military retaliation.
Terry O`Nolley wrote: I took the "retaliation" in question to mean military retaliation. You are partially correct. I consider denying non-coalition business a chance at major rebuild contracts a consequence of their pre-war stance, not retaliation (especially since we told them up front). As John said military retaliation against them would be absurd, however, if the US held non-coalition country's position against them in areas completely unrelated to Iraq (or terrorism in general) then it would be retaliation and IMO would be uncalled for. For instance, if the US created tariffs on non-coalition imports or denied visas to non-coalition citizens, etc... All I've ever wanted was an honest week's pay for an honest day's work.
-
Chris Losinger wrote: it's crucial to the security of the US that we make every effort to publicly snub our allies Which allies are you referring to? France, against evrything American. Germany, sell us out for an election. Russia, bankrupt financially morally / and a 50 year+ enemy. Mike "liberals are being driven crazy by the fact that Bush is so popular with Americans, and thus by the realization that anyone to the left of center is utterly marginal." JAMES TRAUB NY Times Loyal member of the vast right wing conspiracy **"could a country (USA) letting one sixth of its population under the level of powerty be considered as civilized?"**KaЯl (France let 15,000 elderly die from summer heat)
Mike Gaskey wrote: Which allies are you referring to? France, against evrything American. Germany, sell us out for an election. This is remarkably shallow. France is a democratic country that respects human rights. Likewise Germany. The fact that they didn't jump to start a war against a country that posed no imminent threat to any other country is not surprising and would barely call for comment if not for the "we rule the world" complex of so many in the US. It certainly doesn't disqualify them from being allies. The original reasons for the Iraq war having proven bogus (i.e., weapons of mass destruction, Iraqi links to anti-US terrorism, and support for the resolutions of the UN), it is now being re-cast as a war to liberate the Iraqi people. What if France decided to liberate the people of Uzbekistan, or of Saudi Arabia, or of any of dozens of other undemocratic countries that torture and abuse their citizens? Would the US jump in to support it? I seem to recall that the invasion of various Western countries by Adolf Hitler wasn't reason enough for the US to intervene militarily on their side until the US was itself attacked by Japan. So where do all these expectations come from that other countries should immediately fall into line in support of a US-initiated war just because the US cooks up some bogus intelligence? John Carson
-
Chris Losinger wrote: apparently it's crucial to the security of the US that we make every effort to publicly snub our allies. With allies like them, who needs enemies? They did everything short of attacking us in an attempt to make us lose the war. Russian and French military advisors were scurrying out of Baghdad like a bunch of cockroaches just prior to the invasion. I wish we didn't give them the back-channel heads up. Sure, France and Germany are NATO members. I guess that makes them our military allies by definition. But I don't believe for a second France would honor it's NATO commitments. They would be too busy trying to sell their crappy Mirage fighters to whoever NATO was fighting and then complaining about the fact that they didn't get rebuilding contracts after NATO won the war.
Terry O`Nolley wrote: They did everything short of attacking us in an attempt to make us lose the war. Talk about twisting the truth. There's a difference between not wanting someone to go to war and losing a war. VERY BIG FUCKING DIFFERENCE. -- 20 eyes in my head, they're all the same![^]
-
Mike Gaskey wrote: Which allies are you referring to? France, against evrything American. Germany, sell us out for an election. This is remarkably shallow. France is a democratic country that respects human rights. Likewise Germany. The fact that they didn't jump to start a war against a country that posed no imminent threat to any other country is not surprising and would barely call for comment if not for the "we rule the world" complex of so many in the US. It certainly doesn't disqualify them from being allies. The original reasons for the Iraq war having proven bogus (i.e., weapons of mass destruction, Iraqi links to anti-US terrorism, and support for the resolutions of the UN), it is now being re-cast as a war to liberate the Iraqi people. What if France decided to liberate the people of Uzbekistan, or of Saudi Arabia, or of any of dozens of other undemocratic countries that torture and abuse their citizens? Would the US jump in to support it? I seem to recall that the invasion of various Western countries by Adolf Hitler wasn't reason enough for the US to intervene militarily on their side until the US was itself attacked by Japan. So where do all these expectations come from that other countries should immediately fall into line in support of a US-initiated war just because the US cooks up some bogus intelligence? John Carson
What did you expect from him? His mind is stuck in the early 40's. -- 20 eyes in my head, they're all the same![^]
-
Terry O`Nolley wrote: I think you do a disservice to people of other countries. You are assuming they are too stupid to understand that not giving economic opportunities to countries that attempted to extend the rule of Saddam Hussein has nothing to do with "respecting" other nations and everything to do with simple fairness. Your characterisation of what I am "assuming" is very wide of the mark. Terry O`Nolley wrote: Why give huge contracts to a country that refused to help liberate the Iraqi people? Those contracts should go to the nations that actually took the effort to remove a brutal dictator. The Iraqi people may be liberated. I hope so. But it hasn't happened yet. Why give contracts to these countries? Well...why conduct any international trade with them? Perhaps a trade embargo would be in order? (I actually suspect we will see some action on the trade front.) The point is that the US is awarding commercial contracts based on non-commercial principles. It is adopting a deliberate policy of economic punishment of those who didn't support its foreign policy. Nobody is suggesting that France and the rest should be given any favours. Merely that they should be able to compete on an even commercial basis. The extent of US intolerance toward any disagreement is shown in the fact that Canada is on the list of banned countries, in spite of the fact that Canada played no role in the Security Council and has contributed more than $190 million toward Iraqi reconstruction. With your US-centric perspective, I guess you think it is OK for the US to use economic means to reward and punish other countries for their foreign policy. Such an approach has a legitimate place in relation to countries that are fundamentally hostile to the US. But it is also being applied to countries that are fundamentally allies of the US --- democratic Western countries. Such countries are entitled to draw the inference that the US does not consider that it has any allies --- only foreign powers to be coerced. This attitude on the part of the Bush Administration is both offensive and dumb. John Carson
John Carson wrote: Such an approach has a legitimate place in relation to countries that are fundamentally hostile to the US. I would say that a nation that supported our enemy in a war is a hostile country.
-
Well said. You got my +5 Mike "liberals are being driven crazy by the fact that Bush is so popular with Americans, and thus by the realization that anyone to the left of center is utterly marginal." JAMES TRAUB NY Times Loyal member of the vast right wing conspiracy **"could a country (USA) letting one sixth of its population under the level of powerty be considered as civilized?"**KaЯl (France let 15,000 elderly die from summer heat)
Mike Gaskey wrote: You got my +5 Thanks - but it won't matter. The anti-US/pro terrorist wankers will vote it down anyways :)
-
brianwelsch wrote: Seems fair to me that these countries should get first dibs on contracts. First and last dibs apparently. John Carson
John Carson wrote: First and last dibs apparently. Should the Syrian Baath party be awarded contracts? How is France any different? Both groups attempted to prop up Saddam's terror government by every means necessary short of warfare. both countries had military advisors in Iraq, both countries attempted to sow dissension within the UN. Why should that behaviour be rewarded? It is insane to give Iraqi money to nations who attempted to prop up Saddam's regime and stop the world from liberating them.
-
Terry O`Nolley wrote: They did everything short of attacking us in an attempt to make us lose the war. Talk about twisting the truth. There's a difference between not wanting someone to go to war and losing a war. VERY BIG FUCKING DIFFERENCE. -- 20 eyes in my head, they're all the same![^]
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: There's a difference between not wanting someone to go to war and losing a war. VERY BIG f***ING DIFFERENCE Objective: Remove Saddam, liberate the Iraqi people Possible strategies: 1) Economic sanctions - tried for 12 years to no effect. All that happened was Saddam kept the money meant for his people and then tricked the pant-wetting idiots of the world into blaming the US for the starvation 2) Inspection regime - tried for 12 years. Everytime inspectors came close to finding something Saddam would kick them out 3) Military - it worked in a matter of weeks. Since the military option was the only serious method that had any chance of working, anyone who opposed the military option were supporters of Saddam's regime. Sure, they could bitch and moan and maybe even fool themselves into believing they didn't support his government. But anyone who opposes the only thing that would remove Saddam is a Saddam supporter. Or seriously deluded. It is good to see that people are attempting to seperate their nations from France on this issue. I had hoped it would go this way. We aren't quite there yet though...... I was referring to France. Not the impotent nations that huddled in paralyzed nothingness wishing the whole problem could simply go away without their having to do anything. So what of the nations that did nothing - even after their help was asked for? Will you help us? NO!!! So why would a nation who doesn't even bother lifting their fat lazy fingers to help remove Saddam Hussein expect to recieve business from the new nation of Iraq?
-
Terry O`Nolley wrote: They did everything short of attacking us in an attempt to make us lose the war. taking extra vitamin-Hyperbole these days? tell me what Canada, Sweden and Finland (to pick three) did to "make us lose the war" ? were they blockading our ships? we're they cutting off food and supplies ? were they boycotting us? were they jamming our communications ? none of those countries are eleigible to compete for contracts in Iraq, and neither are India, China, Korea, Mexico, Norway, Brazil, Argentina, or dozens of other countries. tell me, what did Greece and Switzerland do to "make us lose the war" . RTFDocument, this isn't about Germany, France and Russia. ClickPic | ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
Excellent! You have separated France from the rest of the herd......... I agree - those countries you mentioned didn't oppose us the way France and Russia did. They merely did nothing. And that is what they shall get in return. Why does this come as a surprise? Maybe when we take on Syria the impotent weasels will contribute.
-
Mike Gaskey wrote: Which allies are you referring to? France, against evrything American. Germany, sell us out for an election. This is remarkably shallow. France is a democratic country that respects human rights. Likewise Germany. The fact that they didn't jump to start a war against a country that posed no imminent threat to any other country is not surprising and would barely call for comment if not for the "we rule the world" complex of so many in the US. It certainly doesn't disqualify them from being allies. The original reasons for the Iraq war having proven bogus (i.e., weapons of mass destruction, Iraqi links to anti-US terrorism, and support for the resolutions of the UN), it is now being re-cast as a war to liberate the Iraqi people. What if France decided to liberate the people of Uzbekistan, or of Saudi Arabia, or of any of dozens of other undemocratic countries that torture and abuse their citizens? Would the US jump in to support it? I seem to recall that the invasion of various Western countries by Adolf Hitler wasn't reason enough for the US to intervene militarily on their side until the US was itself attacked by Japan. So where do all these expectations come from that other countries should immediately fall into line in support of a US-initiated war just because the US cooks up some bogus intelligence? John Carson
John Carson wrote: The original reasons for the Iraq war having proven bogus (i.e., weapons of mass destruction, Iraqi links to anti-US terrorism, and support for the resolutions of the UN), How have the WMD claims been proven bogus? According to this "logic", Saddam Hussein didn't exist either. And one of the original reasons listed for the war was Saddam's human rights abuses.