Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Companies in anti-war countries barred

Iraq Anti-war Foreign Countries Barred

  • Please log in to reply
63 replies to this topic

#41 prolog

prolog

    The Merry Programmer

  • Islander
  • 1,062 posts

Posted 11 December 2003 - 08:43 AM

the'Hawk, on Dec 10 2003, 10:59 PM, said:

ZipperInt, on Dec 10 2003, 01:50 PM, said:

**Glad Chretien is leaving on Friday** :glare:
I know I'll be raising a glass to see him off. So long, pallie. Thanks for nothin'.

Of course, it's going to be a case of "meet the new boss, same as the old boss". Still, it's an excuse to party.

End threadjacking. ;)
Unlike Chretien, though, Martin is articulate and well-spoken.  While I'm not enthused about yet another Liberal government, at least this one has some upsides.

#42 Munrock

Munrock

    As for the monkey there is a wood

  • Islander
  • 166 posts

Posted 11 December 2003 - 09:13 AM

The US administration in Iraq is there to administer Iraq (hold its 'purse strings') on behalf of the people of Iraq.

Whether or not they're doing this in Iraq's interests is all that really matters.

You don't do someone a favour without their asking for it and take something from them in return.  Not where I come from, anyway.  If this action isn't in the best interests of the people of Iraq (and their best interest is not to become an client state to America) then it's unjustifiable.
Lies: the real WMDs

"When minds have fed on falsehood for generations, these falsehoods constitute a prison from which it is difficult and painful to break out."
-Renato Constantino

#43 the 'Hawk

the 'Hawk
  • Islander
  • 5,281 posts

Posted 11 December 2003 - 03:36 PM

prolog, on Dec 11 2003, 08:43 AM, said:

Unlike Chretien, though, Martin is articulate and well-spoken.
If it walks like a lame duck, quacks like a lame duck, and looks like a lame duck, it *is* a lame duck .

He already looks the part from his party affiliation. And so what if he doesn't quack like a lame duck. He's still got a lot of terrain to cover to prove that he doesn't walk like a lame duck.

In short, if Paul Martin wants to be a respectable prime minister, he can start earning my respect on Monday when he takes office (since Parliament doesn't do weekends). Otherwise he should call an election now and have done.

:cool:
“Now is the hour, Riders of Rohan, oaths you have taken! Now, fulfil them all! To lord and land!”  
~ Eomer, LotR:RotK

#44 the 'Hawk

the 'Hawk
  • Islander
  • 5,281 posts

Posted 11 December 2003 - 04:15 PM

Apparently, Canada is getting some form of exemption.

(Of course, Chretien has lied to us before. GST, anyone?)

:cool:
“Now is the hour, Riders of Rohan, oaths you have taken! Now, fulfil them all! To lord and land!”  
~ Eomer, LotR:RotK

#45 StarDust

StarDust
  • Islander
  • 1,155 posts

Posted 12 December 2003 - 01:05 PM

Firstly, ALL companies belong to one country or another. And that's the way it should be.  I have issues with some American companies that seem to forget they are American and do things like outsource to other places instead of hiring their own people.  ALL companies reap rewards from the country they belong to (taxes, protection, etc) and all companies provide rewards to said countries such as employment to individuals.  When companies make money, get a big contract, etc, then the owning country gets a huge chunk of that money as taxes, especially in places like France and Russia. If this were not true, the COUNTRY of FRANCE, for example, would not be upset that FRENCH COMPANIES cannot get the contracts. What would the country care if it's a separate thing?

Secondly,  this was stated policy since day one and should be no surprise.  One thing I like about Bush is that he means what he says. He doesn't play games. But countries such as France seem to continue to make the mistake that they can manipulate things and everything is a game.

Thirdly, it's American money and we get to decide where it goes.  France, Russia, Germany and Canada have no right to tell us we have to give them money, that's ludicrous.  It should benefit Americans, and if we choose, our allies.

They made a choice to not get involved, so they aren't involved. You can't decide you don't want to be involved in the risks, but you should be able to partake in the rewards.

If I take the risk of starting up a new company, for example, and it succeeds, why would I give all the profits to my next door neighbor who was not involved?

It's only common sense, something that seems to be amazingly lacking by some these days.

Edited by StarDust, 12 December 2003 - 01:07 PM.


#46 StarDust

StarDust
  • Islander
  • 1,155 posts

Posted 12 December 2003 - 01:09 PM

Munrock, on Dec 11 2003, 10:13 AM, said:

The US administration in Iraq is there to administer Iraq (hold its 'purse strings') on behalf of the people of Iraq.

Whether or not they're doing this in Iraq's interests is all that really matters.

You don't do someone a favour without their asking for it and take something from them in return.  Not where I come from, anyway.  If this action isn't in the best interests of the people of Iraq (and their best interest is not to become an client state to America) then it's unjustifiable.
No one is taking anything from Iraq.

It's American money, period.

There is other money involved and that can be handled anyway the people who control that money want.

Our money is our money.

#47 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 12 December 2003 - 01:15 PM

StarDust, on Dec 12 2003, 02:05 PM, said:

They made a choice to not get involved, so they aren't involved. You can't decide you don't want to be involved in the risks, but you should be able to partake in the rewards.
They did more the not get involved...they actively tried to prevent the US from going to war with Iraq. They actually preferred having a Terrorist like Saddam in power...

Now though, they want to get rich off American effort and blood. Screw that. They made their bed, now let them sleep in it...sleep in it poorer.
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#48 StarDust

StarDust
  • Islander
  • 1,155 posts

Posted 12 December 2003 - 01:25 PM

Gilgamash, on Dec 11 2003, 03:16 AM, said:

As for post-bellum Iraq, I think we've done a more than adequate job.  Are things perfect?  Hardly.  Are they as bad as the media would like to portray them?  Not even close.
I am constantly amazed by the behavior of the press, even though I shouldn't be.

There was a big protest the middle of this week in Iraq by Iraqis.  It got a one-minute blip on ABC's nightly news and that was all I've seen.  I just looked on both ABC and CNN's web sites.  Nothing.

There was a huge protest against the terrorists and in support of stopping the killing of Iraqis and Americans.   If it had been a protest against Americans you can bet we would be hearing about it for days.

#49 StarDust

StarDust
  • Islander
  • 1,155 posts

Posted 12 December 2003 - 01:27 PM

LORD of the SWORD, on Dec 12 2003, 02:15 PM, said:

StarDust, on Dec 12 2003, 02:05 PM, said:


They made a choice to not get involved, so they aren't involved. You can't decide you don't want to be involved in the risks, but you should be able to partake in the rewards.
They did more the not get involved...they actively tried to prevent the US from going to war with Iraq. They actually preferred having a Terrorist like Saddam in power...

Now though, they want to get rich off American effort and blood. Screw that. They made their bed, now let them sleep in it...sleep in it poorer.
Totally true.  Not only did they not help, they were malicious.  

After all the fall of Saddam would interfere in their payday.

#50 MuseZack

MuseZack

    132nd S.O.C.

  • Demigod
  • 5,432 posts

Posted 13 December 2003 - 12:05 AM

LORD of the SWORD, on Dec 12 2003, 06:15 PM, said:

StarDust, on Dec 12 2003, 02:05 PM, said:


They made a choice to not get involved, so they aren't involved. You can't decide you don't want to be involved in the risks, but you should be able to partake in the rewards.
They did more the not get involved...they actively tried to prevent the US from going to war with Iraq. They actually preferred having a Terrorist like Saddam in power...

Now though, they want to get rich off American effort and blood. Screw that. They made their bed, now let them sleep in it...sleep in it poorer.
Okay, one more time:  the issue is not the morality of the policy or the fairness in penalizing some French or German megacorporations.  The issue is that the policy as announced and implemented is stupid and counterproductive because it works against James Baker's very necessary efforts to engage these countries in the reconstruction policy and get them to write off the Iraqi debt.  

Don't believe me?  Here are those noted left-wing radicals William Kristol and Robert Kagan writing in that commie rag The Weekly Standard (note: for the sarcasm-impaired, Kristol and Kagan are prominent neoconservative intellectuals and leading proponents of the Iraq War)--

http://www.weeklysta...03/481yjxxw.asp

A deviously smart American administration would have quietly distributed contracts for rebuilding Iraq as it saw fit, without any announced policy of discrimination.  At the end of the day, it would be clear that opponents of American policy didn't fare too well in the bidding process. Message delivered, but with a certain subtlety.    

A more clever American administration would have thrown a contract or two to a couple of those opponents, to a German firm, for instance, as a way of wooing at least the business sectors in a country where many businessmen do want to strengthen ties with the United States.    

A truly wise American administration would have opened the bidding to all comers, regardless of their opposition to the war -- as a way of buying those countries into the Iraq effort, building a little goodwill for the future, and demonstrating to the world a little magnanimity.    

But instead of being smart, clever, or magnanimous, the Bush Administration has done a dumb thing.

"Some day, after we have mastered the wind, the waves, the tides, and gravity,
We shall harness for God the energies of Love.
Then, for the second time in the history of the world,
we will have discovered fire."
--Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

#51 Mr.Calgary

Mr.Calgary

    Has left.

  • Islander
  • 1,348 posts

Posted 13 December 2003 - 01:17 AM

prolog, on Dec 10 2003, 03:11 PM, said:

Canada currently has a couple of thousand troops (ie, a fair enough amount of our army)........ Canada has recently committed $300 million to re-building Iraq.  Quite frankly, what did we do wrong? 
:blink:  :glare:

As a Canadian I fully support the US action in freezing out countries.  

Here's where we went wrong.  Our Prime Minister, his government and many citizens went out of their way to spit on the efforts to remove a murderous tyrant.

We Canadians can be such self-righteous hypocrites.  :disappointed:

We are one of -the- richest countries in the world.  You matter-of-factly mention that a paltry 2,000 soldiers is a fair amount of our army.  How supremely pathetic is that?  We boast of our vaunted social programs vis a vis the United States.  If we properly funded our national defence those programs wouldn't be quite so lush.   :egads:

We sent those 2,000 troops to Afghanistan precisiely so Chretien could shrug his shoulders over sending troops to Iraq.  I used to like the 'little guy' from Shawinigan.  He ended up as a corrupt bully.

$300 million is peanuts for a country of Canada's wealth.  I think it's time Canada started acting like the powerhouse we could be.  Instead too many Canadians love to view Canada as a 98 pound weakling.  We want the world to love us....even the one country Canadians love to dump on.

We have one of the (if not the) longest coastlines in the world.  The ONE supply ship on the Atlantic coast will be unavailable for almost all of 2004 as the THIRTY year old ship is overhauled.  No replacement program is in place.  Then there's our 35 years old Hercules transports, our 40 years old Sea Kings...etc...etc

Why don't we properly fund national defence?  Is it because we're next to the United States, the nation we love to be so, so smug towards.  I don't present the United States as perfect or utopia, but I sure as hell know they're our best friend and biggest trading partner and the reason life in Canada is so good is because of our location next to them.   :satisfied:
Favourite Coda thread quotes.....

(1)  Yes. Bad Trance! Wicked, Evil Trance!

(2)  Stayed purple.   (3)  Bad, bad Trance!

(4)  Love and Blowing Things Up continue forever. The universe wins

#52 Gilgamash

Gilgamash

    FoW

  • Demigod
  • 528 posts

Posted 13 December 2003 - 02:10 AM

MuseZack, on Dec 13 2003, 05:05 AM, said:

Okay, one more time:  the issue is not the morality of the policy or the fairness in penalizing some French or German megacorporations.  The issue is that the policy as announced and implemented is stupid and counterproductive because it works against James Baker's very necessary efforts to engage these countries in the reconstruction policy and get them to write off the Iraqi debt. 

Don't believe me?  Here are those noted left-wing radicals William Kristol and Robert Kagan writing in that commie rag The Weekly Standard (note: for the sarcasm-impaired, Kristol and Kagan are prominent neoconservative intellectuals and leading proponents of the Iraq War)--
The problem with Kristol's solution is that it advocates a direct violation of federal law and federal acquisition regulations.   Kristol has been wrong before, ("and ... will be again -- that's the beauty of it!") and he's wrong now.   He also hardly represents any particular political bent on this issue, though it should be noted that the esteemed WFB agrees with him.

That said, the truth of the matter is that we have already made several overtures to get these malcontent buttheads to do the right thing on Iraqi debt and they have made it clear on each occasion that they intend to continue to be malcontent buttheads.  The bid restrictions change absolutely nothing about the reality on the ground -- diplomatic, military or economic (take your pick).  France, Germany and Russia can cry their little hearts out, but are we really supposed to believe that they were on the verge of coming around until this happened -- if only we had given them "fair" access to $18B in cold, hard American cash, dammit, they might have seen the light?

Puh-lease, Mister Kristol.  Who's really the dumb one, here?  Paul Wolfowitz... or you?

[BTW Zack, in order to be a neo-con you have to be a liberal first.  Bill Kristol was never a liberal.  Rumor has it he refused his mama's milk as a babe because he never believed in entitlement programs.  :) ]

"Ashley is a machine for turning Diet Coke™ into screenplays."

#53 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 13 December 2003 - 08:25 AM

MuseZack, on Dec 13 2003, 01:05 AM, said:

Okay, one more time:  the issue is not the morality of the policy or the fairness in penalizing some French or German megacorporations.  The issue is that the policy as announced and implemented is stupid and counterproductive because it works against James Baker's very necessary efforts to engage these countries in the reconstruction policy and get them to write off the Iraqi debt. 
I have to agree with Gilgamash. Giving these countries prime contracts in Iraq wouldn't have made them decide to forgive the Iraq debt. All it would've shown them was that they could do whatever they pleased and not have to deal with any negative consequences.

Sorry, real world doesn't work like that.
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#54 Munrock

Munrock

    As for the monkey there is a wood

  • Islander
  • 166 posts

Posted 13 December 2003 - 11:35 AM

StarDust, on Dec 12 2003, 06:09 PM, said:

No one is taking anything from Iraq.

It's American money, period.

There is other money involved and that can be handled anyway the people who control that money want.

Our money is our money.
Iraqi land.

Iraq consumers.

Iraqi empoyees.

Anyone who thought the invasion was as much about expanding America and it's followers' economies and expanding American influence is being proved right.
Lies: the real WMDs

"When minds have fed on falsehood for generations, these falsehoods constitute a prison from which it is difficult and painful to break out."
-Renato Constantino

#55 Gilgamash

Gilgamash

    FoW

  • Demigod
  • 528 posts

Posted 13 December 2003 - 11:45 AM

Munrock, on Dec 13 2003, 04:35 PM, said:

Anyone who thought the invasion was as much about expanding America and it's followers' economies and expanding American influence is being proved right.
Ridiculous on its face.  Anyone who argued that from the get-go had their heads literally in the sand, and if they think it now it's time to come up for air.  Not only does it reflect a shocking ignorance of the political-military and humanitarian reality, it demonstrates a shocking ignorance of economics.  

It's also very off-topic.

Edited by Gilgamash, 13 December 2003 - 11:59 AM.


"Ashley is a machine for turning Diet Coke™ into screenplays."

#56 MuseZack

MuseZack

    132nd S.O.C.

  • Demigod
  • 5,432 posts

Posted 13 December 2003 - 08:04 PM

Gilgamash, on Dec 13 2003, 07:10 AM, said:

Puh-lease, Mister Kristol.  Who's really the dumb one, here?  Paul Wolfowitz... or you?

[BTW Zack, in order to be a neo-con you have to be a liberal first.  Bill Kristol was never a liberal.  Rumor has it he refused his mama's milk as a babe because he never believed in entitlement programs.  :) ]
Given Wolfowitz's spectacular track record of being wrong, from his puclic bitch-slapping of Shinseki over needed force levels in postwar Iraq to his declaration that Iraq would be easy to govern because it had no history of ethnic strife to his touching faith in convicted conman/exile Ahmed Chalabi all the way back to his 1970s "team B" estimates of Soviet military strength, I'd say that while the guy's an indisputed math whiz with a superhigh I.Q., he's said and done some pretty amazingly dumb things.  Though Kristol's no slouch.  As conservative pundits go, give me David Brooks, who at least coins amusing neologisms like "patio man" and "bobos."  That dude can write.  BTW, here's Brooks' amusing take on the controversy:

The U.S. administration is confronted with three nations that have stabbed it in the back with alacrity. The German leader vowed not to run a re-election campaign based on anti-Americanism, then turned around and did just that. The French government has done all it could to ensure that the U.S. effort to transform Iraq would fail. Russia was also willing to let the Iraqis rot in their slave state.

The U.S. now has roughly $18 billion to spend on the effort to rebuild Iraq, and it must figure out whether to allow companies from these countries to profit from the effort.

The wise course is obvious. You loudly announce that all is forgiven, that, of course, the companies from the wayward nations will be allowed to bid for contracts. And then behind the scenes you stiff them cold.    

This policy is hypocritical, so it is probably the right policy to enact. It acknowledges that the United States has important business to do with powers like Germany, Russia and France, and cannot afford continued bad relations. It acknowledges that good-hearted people in the United States and abroad do not want to see the U.S. acting like a bully. But it recognizes  that people who undermine U.S. policy must pay a price.

But the Bush administration, drunk on truth serum, has done the exact opposite. It has declared in public that countries that did not help overthrow Saddam do not get to benefit from the aftermath. But then in private White House officials seem to be offering every assurance to the offended nations. Moreover the U.S. is still allowing the offending nations to bid on the subcontracts, where there is much money to be made...

(snip)

...Sometimes you've got to be slippery to accomplish real good. The Bush administration is thus facing an insincerity crisis. It has become addicted to candor and forthrightness. It needs an immediate back-stabbing infusion.

Perhaps Al Gore could be brought in to offer advice.  


Zack

P.S.  Shouldn't the two of us be doing something more useful than debating Iraq policy on a silly messageboard? :p

Edited by MuseZack, 13 December 2003 - 08:34 PM.

"Some day, after we have mastered the wind, the waves, the tides, and gravity,
We shall harness for God the energies of Love.
Then, for the second time in the history of the world,
we will have discovered fire."
--Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

#57 the 'Hawk

the 'Hawk
  • Islander
  • 5,281 posts

Posted 13 December 2003 - 08:45 PM

^ Oh, by all means, please continue. To coin a phrase, "this is the most fun I've had in six months." ;)

:cool:
“Now is the hour, Riders of Rohan, oaths you have taken! Now, fulfil them all! To lord and land!”  
~ Eomer, LotR:RotK

#58 tennyson

tennyson
  • Islander
  • 6,173 posts

Posted 13 December 2003 - 08:49 PM

Yeah, I have no problem with this,its both fun and educational. Although if you want something to do I have a thesis that needs writting.
"Only an idiot would fight a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts."

— Londo, "Ceremonies of Light and Dark" Babylon-5


#59 Munrock

Munrock

    As for the monkey there is a wood

  • Islander
  • 166 posts

Posted 14 December 2003 - 06:38 AM

Gilgamash, on Dec 13 2003, 04:45 PM, said:

Ridiculous on its face.  Anyone who argued that from the get-go had their heads literally in the sand, and if they think it now it's time to come up for air.  Not only does it reflect a shocking ignorance of the political-military and humanitarian reality, it demonstrates a shocking ignorance of economics. 

It's also very off-topic.
The PNAC was advocating establishing a permanent military presence in the Arab world long before 9/11.  There are no illusions as to the PNAC's ideal of a world.

Topic is 'Companies in anti-war countries barred'.  I'm questioning whether this is in the Iraqi people's interests or not.
Lies: the real WMDs

"When minds have fed on falsehood for generations, these falsehoods constitute a prison from which it is difficult and painful to break out."
-Renato Constantino

#60 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 14 December 2003 - 08:09 AM

Munrock, on Dec 14 2003, 07:38 AM, said:

Topic is 'Companies in anti-war countries barred'.  I'm questioning whether this is in the Iraqi people's interests or not.
How wouldn't it be? I mean, let's face facts, Iraq IS going to be rebuilt; one way or the other. Only question remaining is which companies, from which countries, get the contracts...So, the argument that preventing companies that actively tried to prevent the US war is somehow not in the best interest of the Iraqi people, just doesn't hold true.
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Iraq, Anti-war, Foreign Countries, Barred

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users