[typoon]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,113759,00.html

Businesses are opening, shops are full of merchandise and there’s a lot of hiring and investing going on.

Sounds to me like the lives of People in Iraq are getting better than they were under Saddam. How is this bad?

[Zimphire]

It's Bad because it was Bush that took the initiative.

[Logic]

Who said it was bad?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Logic:
Who said it was bad?

So are you willing to admit that something that Bush caused is turning out good?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
So are you willing to admit that something that Bush caused is turning out good?

If I shoot someone, and they survive and heal, do I take credit for the healing and forget that I shot them?

Just curious.



besides, read the whole article, its short. It doesn't paint a completely rosy, nor a completely bad picture. It basically says the increase in the economy is from contracting to rebuild what was destroyed in the invasion....right?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
If I shoot someone, and they survive and heal, do I take credit for the healing and forget that I shot them?

Just curious.

I would rather take a shot in the foot by Bush than in the head by Saddam.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I would rather take a shot in the foot by Bush than in the head by Saddam.

Are those the only two choices?

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Are those the only two choices?

Have you been paying attention? (rhetorical).

[Logic]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Are those the only two choices?

Of course.

[Troll]

Originally posted by typoon:
Businesses are opening, shops are full of merchandise and there’s a lot of hiring and investing going on.

Sounds to me like the lives of People in Iraq are getting better than they were under Saddam. How is this bad?

Oh right, because under Saddam, business were all closed, shops had nothing in them, everyone was unemployed and no one was investing.

Remind me what the effect of terrorist attacks was on business during 2002. Oh that's right, there weren't any terrorist attacks in 2002.

[typoon]

Originally posted by Troll:
Oh right, because under Saddam, business were all closed, shops had nothing in them, everyone was unemployed and no one was investing.

Remind me what the effect of terrorist attacks was on business during 2002. Oh that's right, there weren't any terrorist attacks in 2002.

i don't think there was much investing by the Iraqi People or other companies going on. I doubt there was much employment.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
Have you been paying attention? (rhetorical).

have you? (condescending)

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by typoon:
i don't think there was much investing by the Iraqi People or other companies going on. I doubt there was much employment.

And you arrive at this conclusion how?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Are those the only two choices?

No of course not. We gave Saddam plenty of choices. He didn't choose them.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
No of course not. We gave Saddam plenty of choices. He didn't choose them.

So the choices of either being shot in the foot by Bush or in the head by Saddam were given to Saddam? That doesn't make any sense.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
So the choices of either being shot in the foot by Bush or in the head by Saddam were given to Saddam? That doesn't make any sense.

Saddam was given a choice to comply with the UN like he said he would.

He did not.

12 years later of more non-complying he was given the opportunity to leave Iraq or surrender so Iraq wouldn't get shot in the foot.

Saddam said no. He felt his own personal worth was worth more than the people of Iraq.

So yes, there was other choices. Saddam just choose to worst one.

Sad it had to come to that.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Saddam was given a choice to comply with the UN like he said he would.

He did not.

12 years later of more non-complying he was given the opportunity to leave Iraq or surrender so Iraq wouldn't get shot in the foot.

Saddam said no. He felt his own personal worth was worth more than the people of Iraq.

So yes, there was other choices. Saddam just choose to worst one.

Sad it had to come to that.

I'm aware of that, but that's not what you said. You said that you'd rather be shot in the foot by Bush than in the head by Saddam. Lerk asked if those were the only choices available, and your response was "No of course not. We gave Saddam plenty of choices. He didn't choose them." That doesn't make any sense. There's no logical connection.

[thunderous_funker]

Yes. Iraq is now almost as nice as Afghanistan. In fact, it is so nice, I think some of you should move there immediately.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
I'm aware of that, but that's not what you said. You said that you'd rather be shot in the foot by Bush than in the head by Saddam. Lerk asked if those were the only choices available, and your response was "No of course not. We gave Saddam plenty of choices. He didn't choose them." That doesn't make any sense. There's no logical connection.

I don't think you are understanding what I said.

Lerk said

If I shoot someone, (Bush <> Iraq) and they survive and heal, do I take credit for the healing and forget that I shot them?

I said I would rather get shot in the foot (Bush <> Iraq) than get shot in the head (Saddam <> Iraq)

Lerk asked if there was any other choices available.

I said indeed there WAS other choices available. Saddam just refused them.

There was the choice to not get shot in any part of the "body" (Iraq) But Saddam didn't want to take that route.

Meaning, Saddam alone could have stopped the war before it began by simply leaving.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I don't think you are understanding what I said.

Lerk said

If I shoot someone, (Bush <> Iraq) and they survive and heal, do I take credit for the healing and forget that I shot them?

I said I would rather get shot in the foot (Bush <> Iraq) than get shot in the head (Saddam <> Iraq)

Lerk asked if there was any other choices available.

I said indeed there WAS other choices available. Saddam just refused them.

There was the choice to not get shot in any part of the "body" (Iraq) But Saddam didn't want to take that route.

Meaning, Saddam alone could have stopped the war before it began by simply leaving.

ummm... I hesitate to try to explain this to you, as it may confuse you further than you are already, but....

If the choice for the Iraqi people is to either get shot by Bush or Saddam, then Saddam is not in a position to make the choice, rather he is one of the choices (according to the binary you yourself set up) that the people could make.

My point was you have set up a binding binary system where there are only two choices, both bad. In both choices something painful or damaging is done to you against your will.
My question was, are these the only two choices? Obviously, they might have been the only two choices because Bush forced the issue, but up until then there was more avenues that one could go down than brutal dictator or foreign occupier.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
ummm... I hesitate to try to explain this to you, as it may confuse you further than you are already, but....

You demeaning tactics just make you look like an ass Lerk.
There is no confusion here. No matter how hard you try to project it, or belittle me to make you look "superior"
That top wont spin either. And you WILL get busted for it like you just did.

If the choice for the Iraqi people is to either get shot by Bush or Saddam, then Saddam is not in a position to make the choice, rather he is one of the choices (according to the binary you yourself set up) that the people could make.

No the Iraqi people HAD no choice. Saddam didn't GIVE them one.

Saddam HAD a choice to "save" his town and people. Saddam choose HE was more important.

My point was you have set up a binding binary system where there are only two choices, both bad.

I have set it up? really? I never set those choices up. I just said I would rather get shot in the foot by Bush, than in the head by Saddam. It was YOU that kept trying to make it more than it was. And it's silly.

In both choices something painful or damaging is done to you against your will.
My question was, are these the only two choices?

And I told you in this instance. NO.

Obviously, they might have been the only two choices because Bush forced the issue, but up until then there was more avenues that one could go down than brutal dictator or foreign occupier.

Yes Lerk, and made those other choices for 12 years. How much longer did you think we should continue to make the same bad mistakes over and over again?

Seems to me you guys think that if we'd have just continued doing what we were doing the past 12 years, Saddam would suddenly comply.

That is very idealistic. And Saddam had shown differently.

Again, in the end, the choice was up to Saddam. He choose poorly.

But don't let that stop you from Blaming Bush for everything. Because I know you will.

[tie]

Originally posted by typoon:
Businesses are opening, shops are full of merchandise and there’s a lot of hiring and investing going on.

It is not worth $150 billion from our economy to help the Iraqi economy.

Where are the WMD? We didn't go to war to give Iraq an economic stimulus.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by tie:
It is not worth $150 billion from our economy to help the Iraqi economy.

Where are the WMD? We didn't go to war to give Iraq an economic stimulus.

They owe us some oil.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
They owe us some oil.

Since when?

[angaq0k]

(...)Yes Lerk, and made those other choices for 12 years. [/B]

Correction: According to Said K Aburish (Saddam Hussein, The Politics of Revenge, Bloomsbury Paperbacks, 2000), Saddam made these choices as early as 1958 for the Ba'ath party.

The list is very long to enumerate here.

Get the book in a library, or buy it; it is very cheap and very instructive. The writer is not tender with Hussein yet, he explains very clearly why Saddam Hussein was seen for a long time as a hero, and how people got very disappointed in his ways.

Saddam Hussein was know as a dictator for a very long time and most industrialized countries did NOTHING about it as long as he was either:

1) selling the oil
2) buying weapons

And whoever had cash was a client...

Saddam Hussein was a dictator who got fat not only from exploiting Iraqis, but from the monnies we were all so generous to provide.

[angaq0k]

The people of Iraq owe NOTHING to ANYONE.

WE owe them.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by tie:
It is not worth $150 billion from our economy to help the Iraqi economy.

I agree. But well worth it for the people that will be saved from Saddam and his sons brutal dictatorship in the future.

[typoon]

Originally posted by tie:
It is not worth $150 billion from our economy to help the Iraqi economy.

Where are the WMD? We didn't go to war to give Iraq an economic stimulus.

So what about the 15 Billion from our economy sent to Africa to fight AIDS?

[theolein]

Man, I am so tired of this crap. If the economic situation is getting better in Iraq, then I for one welcome it and wish the Iraqi people well. God knows, they deserve it. Getting their a$$es bombed out of existence the one day by Sunni lunatics and caught in the crossfire the next by nervous American soldiers is probably not a nice way to live and prosper. I wish them well.

As for them paying back the US, isn't it just a tiny bit early to start putting Iraq even further into debt and therey ruining the supposedly recovering economy before it even gets off the ground?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by theolein:
Man, I am so tired of this crap. If the economic situation is getting better in Iraq, then I for one welcome it and wish the Iraqi people well. God knows, they deserve it. Getting their a$$es bombed out of existence the one day by Sunni lunatics and caught in the crossfire the next by nervous American soldiers is probably not a nice way to live and prosper. I wish them well.

As for them paying back the US, isn't it just a tiny bit early to start putting Iraq even further into debt and therey ruining the supposedly recovering economy before it even gets off the ground?

I agree.

[eklipse]

Wake me up when Iraq's economy is up to or surpassing 1990 levels and the majority of it's infrastructure is actually owned and controlled by Iraqis.

(let's not forget that this optimism is all based on a vague FOX News article)


theolein expresses the right sentiment, but, it is naive for people to believe that economic growth in Iraq was only possible once Saddam was gone and Americans were in control.

[Troll]

Originally posted by typoon:
So what about the 15 Billion from our economy sent to Africa to fight AIDS?

What are you talking about? First you make bold statements about the Iraqi economy, now you claim that the US has sent $15Bn to Africa to fight AIDS! I'm sorry but whatever source you're using for your information; change it.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Troll:
What are you talking about? First you make bold statements about the Iraqi economy, now you claim that the US has sent $15Bn to Africa to fight AIDS! I'm sorry but whatever source you're using for your information; change it.

No we haven't. But it's in the planning.

http://www.terradaily.com/2004/04022....n74a2ic3.html

[Troll]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
No we haven't. But it's in the planning.

http://www.terradaily.com/2004/04022....n74a2ic3.html

Bush made that statement in January 2003. He said "UP TO $15Bn over 5 years." Some questions for you knowledgable chaps:

* How much money was actually requisitioned in 2003? $450 million. That's quite a way short of $3Bn!!

* Where did it go? Mostly into setting up agencies in the US apparently to dole out the money in future. Most of these agencies duplicate not only their own work but the procedures that the UN already has in place.

* Who's in charge of managing the money? Randall Tobias. Tobias has no experience working on AIDS or in Africa. However, he is a former executive with the giant pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly!

* What does the enabling legislation say? Hmm, countries that receive AIDS funds from the U.S. must be required to import genetically modified grains from the US despite safety concerns! They also need to jack up legislation to respect drug and GM food patents if they want money!

* Who actually takes this plan seriously? No one. Certainly not the families of the 30 million people that died of AIDS since Bush made this statement.

Make no mistake, the US is not the worst of the lot. I applaud the American people for having the political will to give so much money to the fight against AIDS. But the money is being so badly mismanaged and the people you've entrusted to dish it out are so corrupt that it's not really making any difference.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Troll:
Bush made that statement in January 2003. He said "UP TO $15Bn over 5 years." Some questions for you knowledgable chaps:

* How much money was actually requisitioned in 2003? $450 million. That's quite a way short of $3Bn!!

* Where did it go? Mostly into setting up agencies in the US apparently to dole out the money in future. Most of these agencies duplicate not only their own work but the procedures that the UN already has in place.

* Who's in charge of managing the money? Randall Tobias. Tobias has no experience working on AIDS or in Africa. However, he is a former executive with the giant pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly!

* What does the enabling legislation say? Hmm, countries that receive AIDS funds from the U.S. must be required to import genetically modified grains from the US despite safety concerns! They also need to jack up legislation to respect drug and GM food patents if they want money!

* Who actually takes this plan seriously? No one. Certainly not the families of the 30 million people that died of AIDS since Bush made this statement.

Make no mistake, the US is not the worst of the lot. I applaud the American people for having the political will to give so much money to the fight against AIDS. But the money is being so badly mismanaged and the people you've entrusted to dish it out are so corrupt that it's not really making any difference.

Now that's a **SMACKDOWN**

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by Troll:
Bush made that statement in January 2003. He said "UP TO $15Bn over 5 years." Some questions for you knowledgable chaps:

* How much money was actually requisitioned in 2003? $450 million. That's quite a way short of $3Bn!!

* Where did it go? Mostly into setting up agencies in the US apparently to dole out the money in future. Most of these agencies duplicate not only their own work but the procedures that the UN already has in place.

* Who's in charge of managing the money? Randall Tobias. Tobias has no experience working on AIDS or in Africa. However, he is a former executive with the giant pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly!

* What does the enabling legislation say? Hmm, countries that receive AIDS funds from the U.S. must be required to import genetically modified grains from the US despite safety concerns! They also need to jack up legislation to respect drug and GM food patents if they want money!

* Who actually takes this plan seriously? No one. Certainly not the families of the 30 million people that died of AIDS since Bush made this statement.

Make no mistake, the US is not the worst of the lot. I applaud the American people for having the political will to give so much money to the fight against AIDS. But the money is being so badly mismanaged and the people you've entrusted to dish it out are so corrupt that it's not really making any difference.

Well put. And that is very sad.

[angaq0k]

From this site:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3500324.stm

The US Defense Department has awarded seven Iraq reconstruction contracts worth a total of about $130m (£72.3m) to consortia of US firms.

The contracts cover management projects in six sectors ranging from oil to electricity and are part of a package worth $5bn.

Payment will come out of the $18.6bn in funds for Iraq set aside by the US.

Companies from nations that opposed the war in Iraq were not allowed to bid for these contracts.

Good business indeed.

I can't wait to see the job offers in the U.S. Newspapers...

[macvillage.net]

Great. Now we have to hear Bush campaigns about how he created millions of jobs, then as a footnote it will say "in Iraq", and improved the economy "in Iraq".

[hyteckit]

Going by Bush Campaign line of thought, Pres. Bush plans to raise taxes by $15 billion dollars.

[angaq0k]

From this site:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3176934.stm

"You can't get rich on government contracts"

Cliff Mumm, Bechtel project director for Iraq

Bechtel was involved in water privatization in Bolivia.

It was illegal for any person to have water without buying it from Bechtel.

Rainwater was also submitted to those conditions. Up to 25% of the monthly family income was dedicated to the purchase of water. The population reacted in some cities. The Bolivian Army intervened. People were killed for the right to have water.

People won. Or did they?

From this site:

http://www.earthjustice.org/urgent/display.html?ID=107

Bechtel is suing the people of Bolivia for $25 millions.

More here:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security...echtelrule.htm

Business has no frontiers...

Viva la liberacion...

[Spliffdaddy]

Bechtel has handed out 70% of its subcontracts to Iraq firms, although Mr Mumm says there is a lot of "complaining" among the 2,000 firms who unsuccessfully bid for contracts.

He says the process of bidding is open, with the only people excluded being those with close links to the previous regime or former state-owned companies.

In general, the only jobs that are tendered to non-Iraqi firms are security, and specialist tasks like dredging the harbour or running the air traffic control system.

The article you linked makes the US look good.

Might wanna read before you post.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Bechtel has handed out 70% of its subcontracts to Iraq firms, although Mr Mumm says there is a lot of "complaining" among the 2,000 firms who unsuccessfully bid for contracts.

He says the process of bidding is open, with the only people excluded being those with close links to the previous regime or former state-owned companies.

In general, the only jobs that are tendered to non-Iraqi firms are security, and specialist tasks like dredging the harbour or running the air traffic control system.

The article you linked makes the US look good.

Might wanna read before you post.

Nothing to do with the U.S.

Has to do with the U.S. actual government and it's policies, on one hand, and the corporation scams involved with the IMF and its original ways to help "underdevelopped" countries.

Bechtel's history does not look so good. Hopefully Iraq will benefit from it.

[tie]

Originally posted by typoon:
So what about the 15 Billion from our economy sent to Africa to fight AIDS?

My point exactly. There are much better humanitarian uses for the money than spending it on Iraq. Yes, there was a humanitarian argument for freeing the Iraqis (although Bush emphasized Iraq's imaginary WMDs because people wouldn't have supported the war otherwise), but there are much better uses for the money.

As Troll pointed out, we spent $450 million in 2003 to fight AIDS in Africa. We spent approximately $100 billion on the war in Iraq. Was the humanitarian situation in Iraq 200 times more urgent than the crisis in Africa? It's a judgement call, but I'd say no.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Bechtel has handed out 70% of its subcontracts to Iraq firms, although Mr Mumm says there is a lot of "complaining" among the 2,000 firms who unsuccessfully bid for contracts.

He says the process of bidding is open, with the only people excluded being those with close links to the previous regime or former state-owned companies.

In general, the only jobs that are tendered to non-Iraqi firms are security, and specialist tasks like dredging the harbour or running the air traffic control system.

The article you linked makes the US look good.

Might wanna read before you post.

Sure.

From this website:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB107/index.htm

Cable from U.S. Embassy Baghdad to State Department, "Minister of Industry Blasts Senate Action," September 13, 1988
Source: Freedom of Information Act request.


This cable from U.S. Ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie reports on a haranguing by Saddam Hussein's Minister of Industry and son-in-law, Husayn Kamil, to representatives of construction giant Bechtel following the U.S. Senate's passage of the "Prevention of Genocide Act of 1988." The Senate's move, on September 8, came on the heels of a series of Iraqi chemical weapons assaults against Kurds - most notably in Halabja in March of that year - atrocities Kamil denied had taken place. Kamil "vented his spleen for one and a half hours," according to the report. The reason for his vehemence was that the Senate Act called for strict economic sanctions against Baghdad including blocking all international loans, credits and other types of assistance - actions that "caught his government completely by surprise." Kamil, the report notes, "insisted that a clear pattern of 'Zionist undermining of Iraqi-U.S. relations' is now apparent." Two days later, representatives of Bechtel, which remains a major presence in post-Saddam Iraq, met with Glaspie to describe Kamil's outburst. Glaspie made note of the fact that as "one of Saddam Hussein's closest advisors, some say his closest … we take Kamil's angry reaction … to be an accurate reflection of Saddam's own reaction." But the ambassador failed to comment on Bechtel's intention to move ahead with its $2 billion project in Iraq regardless of the provisions of the Act. "Bechtel representatives said that if economic sanctions contained in Senate Act are signed into law, Bechtel will turn to non-U.S. suppliers of technology and continue to do business in Iraq." In April 2003, Bechtel won USAID's largest grant at the time - worth up to $680 million - to help in the reconstruction of Iraq.

Here is the cable: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/...107/iraq11.pdf

There are other interesting documents on that site as well...