Kindergarden behaviour by the US

[Stuart Mackey]

All fear the almighty fleet of Rhine Barges led by the Magic Space Bats.

Oh you dont think that if Germany dominated Europe with out challange that that their comparitive naval weakness would be a serious issue

Didn’t they gurantee the independence of Poland? And did the USSR not
violate the independence of poland by invading in concert witth Germany
to carve up Poland? You know, the guys who had a joint parade in Warsaw with Red Army and Wehrmacht generals standing side by side?

Aren’t you supposed to fight the aggressors in this case?

And who never had any intention of actually being bestest freinds, hmm?.

[C.S.Strowbridge]

That's not the point. It's U.S. Taxpayer money, we can give to whomever we want and exclude whomever we want, too.

You are a fucking idiot. By restricting who can bid, there will be less competition for the jobs, thus a higher price. The U.S. Taxpayer is going to have to spend more.

Add in the fact that the U.N. was willing to help rebuild, IF the bidding process would have been open.

So now you have the U.S. Taxpayers stuck with an $87+ billion bill when it could have been a smaller bill shared by many nations

In conclusion, the U.S. is being run by a bunch of morons and anyone who votes for Bush next year is twice as stupid.

[MKSheppard]

In conclusion, the U.S. is being run by a bunch of morons and anyone who votes for Bush next year is twice as stupid.

We're not the morons who are scrapping our entire tank force in favor of
a total fuckjob that doesn't even work at all, and rolls over, and is a
virtual death trap (Styker MGS)

[Darth Wong]

We're not the morons who are scrapping our entire tank force in favor of a total fuckjob that doesn't even work at all, and rolls over, and is a virtual death trap (Styker MGS)

Nobody in Canada claims that our military is well-run. We were talking about the civilian government. Your civilian government spends a third more per capita than Canada does on universal healthcare, while leaving 40 million people uninsured and forcing the entire middle class to insure themselves. That fact alone proves that your civilian government is seriously fucked up. Your seemingly endless foreign policy SNAFUs are just icing on the cake.

[Joe]

Wow, I wish I hadn't taken that knock out pill, I would've liked to participate.

In any case, I know it's late, but as for the U.S. government being brought down by massive debt, there's this:

http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/004214.html

Basically, it predicts that 12 trillion in revenue from pensions, IRAs, 401ks and such could offset the budget time bomb we're currently facing. It could be true, it could be untrue, but it's something good on the horizon, I suppose.

Most likely it's just going to become 12 trillion dollars of new spending.

[Vympel]

Diplomatic incompetence or internal power struggle?

The restriction of Iraq contracts to coalition members is all about internal US power struggles.

James Baker sets off to negotiate Iraqi debt forgiveness with the United States' estranged allies. At that very moment the Deputy Secretary of Defence releases a "Determination and Findings" on reconstruction contracts that not only excludes those allies from bidding, but does so with highly offensive language.

Maybe I'm giving Paul Wolfowitz too much credit, but I don't think this was mere incompetence. The Administration's hardliners are deliberately sabotaging reconciliation.

Surely this wasn't just about reserving contracts for Administration cronies.

There are deeper motives here.

Wolfowitz's official rationale for the contract policy is astonishingly cynical: "Limiting competition for prime contracts will encourage the expansion of international co-operation in Iraq and in future efforts" - future efforts? - and "should encourage the continued co-operation of coalition members". Translation: We can bribe other nations to send troops.

But I doubt whether even Wolfowitz believes that. The last year, from the failure to get UN approval for the war to the retreat over steel tariffs, has been one long lesson in the limits of US economic leverage. Wolfowitz knows that allies who could provide useful help won't be swayed by a few contracts.

If the contracts don't provide leverage, however, why torpedo potential reconciliation with the allies of the US? Perhaps because Wolfowitz's faction doesn't want reconciliation.

These are tough times for the architects of the "Bush doctrine" of unilateralism and preventive war. Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld viewed Iraq as a pilot project, one that would validate their views and clear the way for further regime changes.

Instead, the venture has turned sour - and many insiders see Baker's mission as part of an effort by veterans of the first Bush administration to extricate George W. Bush from the hardliners' clutches.

Blow-ups by the hardliners, just when the conciliators seem to be getting somewhere, have been a pattern. In August, it seemed Colin Powell had finally convinced Bush it made sense to negotiate with North Korea. But then John Bolton, the under-secretary of state for arms control, gave a speech about Kim Jong-il, declaring: "To give in to his extortionist demands would only encourage him and, perhaps more ominously, other would-be tyrants."

In short, this week's diplomatic debacle reflects an internal power struggle, with hawks using the contracts issue as a way to prevent Republican grown-ups regaining control of US foreign policy. Initial signs are the ploy is working - the hawks have again tapped into Bush's fondness for moralistic, good-versus-evil formulations.

"It's very simple," Bush said on Thursday. "Our people risk their lives. Friendly coalition folks risk their lives. The contracting is going to reflect that."

In the end the Bush doctrine - based on delusions about the US's ability to dominate the world by force - will collapse. What we've just learned is how hard and dirty its proponents will fight against the inevitable.

The New York Times

[Stuart Mackey]

Diplomatic incompetence or internal power struggle?

snip

Well the US has never been able to fight the world, guess the young fellas are learning that now...or maybe not..

[SirNitram]

A disturbing possibility, Vympel... Disturbing, perhaps, because it makes quite a bit of sense. Right down to manipulating Bush.. Hell, we can see the man isn't too smart, doesn't it make sense he'd like the simple black and white one group of this theorized power struggle hand him. Not necessarily the real answer, but chilling because I can see it being so.

[Darth Wong]

Bush seems to view countries the way a young boy views friends:

"If you won't play by my rules, then I won't be your friend any more!"

"I'm gonna get him back for saying mean things about me!"

"I've got the candy, and you don't! Nyaa nyaa nyaa!"

Those who want to maintain good relations with the Bush Administration would do well to keep that in mind.

[SpacedTeddyBear]

I can imagine 20 years later when or if Iraq gets rebuilt, that there will be a dispute in which the U.S is preventing France from establishing a French cafe around the corner because there is already a plan for the construction of a Starbucks.

[Knife]

How horrible of them. Raising support against a political opponent, what a crime against humanity.

Oh for crying out loud. Reread the post Iceberg. I went out of my my to mention that I don't think its any big conspiracy nor morally or ethicly wrong with France working against us. But by god, turn it around and its appearently a big issue if the US actively works against France.

[Chardok]

You are a fucking idiot.

By restricting who can bid, there will be less competition for the jobs, thus a higher price. The U.S. Taxpayer is going to have to spend more.

Did you figure that out all by yourself? I'm impressed. It's almost as if you are familiar with the concept of living in a capitalist society, where competition drives the price of everything![/sarcasm]

Add in the fact that the U.N. was willing to help rebuild, IF the bidding process would have been open.

And?

So now you have the U.S. Taxpayers stuck with an $87+ billion bill when it could have been a smaller bill shared by many nations

Mmm hmm. Again you are demonstrating your superior knowledge of the concept of competition driven economics. (But would it not have been more efficient to omit this statement as it is but a reiteration of your previous statement?

In conclusion, the U.S. is being run by a bunch of morons and anyone who votes for Bush next year is twice as stupid.

Oh, I won't hide the fact that I think Bush is a moron. but the fucking point is, that that 87 billion dollars is The AMERICAN Taxpayer's money. As president Bush currently is the representative to the world of the American people, my point that we can exclude anyone we want from the contracts for rebuilding Iraq still stands. We are under no obligation to give contracts to ANYone. We could have ALL AMERICAN COMPANIES to go in and six shit if we wanted to. IT IS OUR MONEY. It's like you go car shopping, and the salesman shows you a Mercury Sable and a Ford Taurus. the sable is 2000.00 USD more. BUT IT'S THE SAME CAR (with different badging). You pick the Sable. The Salesman tells you they are the same car, and it's cheaper to buy the Taurus. "Fuck you. It's my money, I want the Sable."
Is it a good idea? Is it the most efficient way to spend the Taxpayer's money? I NEVER claimed it was. But since when has the U.S. been about Responsible, efficient fiscal policy? In Conclusion, Keep your strawman attacks to yourself.

[Symmetry]

I'm all for punishing those miserable shits in the French and Germany government, but this doesn't appear to be a good policy.

Don't compare the French and the Germans! The French stabbed us in the back over that whole vote thing, but Germans just refused to help us, and were almost apologetic about it at times. The later is quite forgivable.

[Crown]

I'm all for punishing those miserable shits in the French and Germany government, but this doesn't appear to be a good policy.

Don't compare the French and the Germans! The French stabbed us in the back over that whole vote thing, but Germans just refused to help us, and were almost apologetic about it at times. The later is quite forgivable.

Stabbed you in the back? They told you flat out, bring it to the security council and we will use the veto. They didn't sucker punch you or anything.

[Symmetry]

I'm all for punishing those miserable shits in the French and Germany government, but this doesn't appear to be a good policy.

Don't compare the French and the Germans! The French stabbed us in the back over that whole vote thing, but Germans just refused to help us, and were almost apologetic about it at times. The later is quite forgivable.

Stabbed you in the back? They told you flat out, bring it to the security council and we will use the veto. They didn't sucker punch you or anything.

They said that after they said that that violation of UN revolution foo would be good enough cause to support us in the Security council. So we got a resolution passed to that effect and then they say "Nope, we're still not voting for you." I actually shouldn't be blaming anyone but the current administration, which by all acounts was only elected because the alternative was a worse.

[C.S.Strowbridge]

Oh, I won't hide the fact that I think Bush is a moron. but the fucking point is, that that 87 billion dollars is The AMERICAN Taxpayer's money.

You are still not getting it.

It will cost you more money.
It will further alienate the world.
It serves no useful purpose.
It is childish.

I never said the US can't do it. I'm saying they shouldn't. It's stupid and so is anyone who votes to keep these children in power.

In Conclusion, Keep your strawman attacks to yourself.

Strawman Attack?

[Graeme Dice]

We could have ALL AMERICAN COMPANIES to go in and six shit if we wanted to. IT IS OUR MONEY.

So is Iraq your country as well? I wasn't aware of that fact. Do you think it's a good thing to be implementing so blatantly a colonial policy?

[MKSheppard]

So is Iraq your country as well?

We're running the damn place right now, with the british handling
some in the South. So yeah, it's effectively ours until we hand it over to
the new Iraqi government. If you don't like it, go cry to the UN that
the evil Americans are controlling Iraq...nevermind that such a thing worked
wonders for Japan after WWII, with one country controlling the occupation,
rather than the mess that was post war Germany, with four zones of
occupation.

[Chardok]

So is Iraq your country as well? I wasn't aware of that fact. Do you think it's a good thing to be implementing so blatantly a colonial policy?

Gimme a freaking break, Graeme, Did I SAY it was our country? And how is the U.S. deciding how the U.S. will dole out the U.S.'s money colonial? I will say it again:

I NEVER said it was economically responsible, nor did I say it was a good idea, I said it was OUR FUCKING PREROGATIVE to dish out the fundage to whomever we please, like it or not. Unfortunately the U.S. is in such a position to abuse it's power by doing that. We can effectively say "Don't like it? Kiss our ass." and be none the worse for wear (Except that even MORE countries hate us).

You are still not getting it.

Yes, I am. Show me one thing I've said that shows I don't get it.

It will cost you more money.

No, It MIGHT cost us more money, but that's another argument I don't feel like getting into, and anyway, it can't be proven, since many countries aren't even being allowed to BID on the contracts, so at this point, it would all be conjecture, anyway. I will say, for the sake of argument, however, that it WILL cost the U.S. more money.

It will further alienate the world.

I know.

It serves no useful purpose.

It serves a purpose. It shows the world that if you don't go along with us, you don't get our cashola. More dickwaving by Shrub and his lackeys.

It is childish.

Your grasp of the obvious is truly astounding.

I never said the US can't do it. I'm saying they shouldn't. It's stupid and so is anyone who votes to keep these children in power.

See Above.

[Graeme Dice]

Gimme a freaking break, Graeme, Did I SAY it was our country? And how is the U.S. deciding how the U.S. will dole out the U.S.'s money colonial? I will say it again:

Of course it's colonial behaviour. The U.S. is selling off the right to make money off of Iraqis.

It serves a purpose. It shows the world that if you don't go along with us, you don't get our cashola. More dickwaving by Shrub and his lackeys.

I see, and since you think that this is a justifiable purpose there's really not much more point in dealing with you.

[KrauserKrauser]

2 Things:

1) Bush's denial of the debts: It would have happened anyway. There is no way that the new Iraqi government would have paid those debts. Sorry France/Germany, can we talk about you paying us back for WW2 and the Marshall Plan now?

2) Bush executed his normal tact-light approach with the dealing of the contracts. Canada was against the war. They also cooperated in Afghanistan. Hmmmm interesting. The absolute denial of these contracts to anyonbe but all comers is a bit harsh, but since this is American money that is funding these contracts a justifiable preference for American/Coalition companies should be present in determining who gets the contract. To those of you that kep belying the fact that the UN has not gotten into the rebuilding I direct you to Bosnia, Somalia, etc. Man that UN can really ummmmm fuck things up even more. Bullshit to those demanding turning this over to the UN. If we do that we will just have to come the fuck back to Iraq after they fuck it up again. Sorry, I have just about ZERO confidence in the ability of the UN to get anything done. When I think of their ability to act I just think of how long it takes me to get something done in the US beauracracy and then multiply that time by an indeterminately large number due to the insanely larger system that is present in the UN.

I'm always glad to hear those foreigners and liberals that continuly decry every act that the US ever does. To the liberals, man I sure do hope that you get your wish and the economy tanks, someone nukes the US and everybody dies just so you can get back in power. To the French, I'm sorry you couldn't work with us in the liberation of Iraq, I hope we get to agree on the next international decision that you continually change your mind and actions on. To everybody else + Canada: Lots of work still to be done, hopefully that area will cool down and westernize a bit.

Wheeeeeee

[C.S.Strowbridge]

I never said the US can't do it. I'm saying they shouldn't. It's stupid and so is anyone who votes to keep these children in power.

See Above.

See what above? Your defense of something you admit is childish?

BTW, what strawman? You said I used a Strawman Attack and I want you to point it out.

[C.S.Strowbridge]

but since this is American money that is funding these contracts

AAARRRRRrrrrrrgh!

You fucking morons. If you would have opened up the bidding process the U.N. would have stepped in and helped to pay for the rebuilding of Iraq.

Don't you understand, you're argument in circular.

By not allowing outside countries to bid on contracts you are forced to pay for the rebuilding of Iraq.

Because you are forced to pay for the rebuilding or Iraq it justifies not allowing outside countries to bid on contracts.

[KrauserKrauser]

You fucking morons. If you would have opened up the bidding process the U.N. would have stepped in and helped to pay for the rebuilding of Iraq.

Because you know UN involvement in a situation always leads to great results, see Bosnia, Somalia, etc.

UN has resources that would be nice but I would rather not see the results that inevitably come from UN involvement.

[Dahak]

2 Things:

1) Bush's denial of the debts: It would have happened anyway. There is no way that the new Iraqi government would have paid those debts. Sorry France/Germany, can we talk about you paying us back for WW2 and the Marshall Plan now?

Those debts have nothing at all to do with that Marshall Plan.
There is no payback clause.
Those debts exist, until either we forgive them, or they're paid. No wand-waving of Bush will make them go away. So the new Iraq will have to pay those, and rightly so.