What were they thinking

[Pie]

Yea... "coincidence".

I agree with the war.. but that part was just a little... too coinciding.

[Stan]

The fact that this has resulted in numerous, highly paid, development projects for US construction firms (let alone oil extraction firms) Is, I suppose, entirely just a fortunate coincidence of the occupation.

Come on HF. Really is it a coincidence? Since when has war not resulted in big construction contracts? And why should contracts be awarded to companies in countries that made no sacrifice? Do you need me to pull out the data that shows the benefit for UK and Australian firms? How about Japanese and others that supported the effort? They are all getting contracts.

Several of those excluded from contracts benefitted from the Oil for Food program as well as fat oil deals before Hussein was knocked out. Why should they benefit from rebuild contracts? Can you really say with a straight face that they should?

Would you give them contracts?

And, oh by the way, who's money is being spent on these Fat Contracts? Mine and other American taxpayers. Why shouldn't the government award the contracts to American firms? Give ONE good reason why we shouldn't spend the money putting Americans to work.

[Savanik]

The fact that this has resulted in numerous, highly paid, development projects for US construction firms (let alone oil extraction firms) Is, I suppose, entirely just a fortunate coincidence of the occupation.

Come on HF. Really is it a coincidence? Since when has war not resulted in big construction contracts? And why should contracts be awarded to companies in countries that made no sacrifice? ... Why should they benefit from rebuild contracts? Can you really say with a straight face that they should?

I think HF was actually being semi-sarcastic. Like, 'oh, look what just happened, out of sheer coincidence, where I am sure there is no collusion between private parties'.

I, on the other hand, am not, when I say, yeah, sure, why not? If non-American companies are getting the contracts, it must be because they're better at the job or better situated for it, at least. I mean, we're the ones hiring them, right? I'd guess that American firms just don't want to take the risk of rebuilding infrastructure in a war zone.

And, oh by the way, who's money is being spent on these Fat Contracts? Mine and other American taxpayers. Why shouldn't the government award the contracts to American firms? Give ONE good reason why we shouldn't spend the money putting Americans to work.

Other than the above point... if you think criticism of the war is bad now, just imagine what kind of PR you'd get if you shipped a bunch of U.S. civvies over there to rebuild a power station and had it get blown up.

I'm surprised, though. Usually when you talk about Iraq and companies getting contracts, Halliburton gets fingers pointed at it. I'm sure at least some American companies are getting contracts. Maybe they're just being quiet about it, trying not to draw attention.

Sav

[Stan]

I think he was being a bit sarcastic for effect. My point is simple. America and American allies sacrificed for the freedom of Iraq. Things get blown up during war and someone has to rebuild them

It only makes sense that American companies and companies in Allied nations get contracts for 2 reasons:

1. They sacrificied and got in the game so they get first chance to play.

2. America and it's allies are paying for the rebuild so why shouldn't they hire American and ally firms? It's obvious that they should. How could someone argue that someone else should get contracts.

[Nick]

1. They sacrificied and got in the game so they get first chance to play.

Excuse my ignorance, but how many Haliburton employees/investors served in the "war"?

2. America and it's allies are paying for the rebuild so why shouldn't they hire American and ally firms? It's obvious that they should. How could someone argue that someone else should get contracts.

Why not let the Iraqis rebuild themselves? If you're having Americans pay for Americans to do the labour, Iraq will never get to do things on their own. Of course I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing for most Americans, but at least for humor, they should pretend to consider the Iraqi point of view.

[Stan]

I don't know how many Halliburton investors served in the war. I'm not sure it's public knowledge. But, Americans served in the war so why not hire Halliburton and other American companies.

As far as letting Iraqis rebuild, I'm not sure they're not. I was only responding to the point HF made about Americans hiring Americans for rebuilding contracts. I have no idea whether or not there are Iraqi's building roads, buildings, sewage and water systems. I assume there are, wouldn't you?

I do know that there are American firms doing those jobs and I think it's a reasonable decision to spend some of the Billions of American tax dollars on American companies that hire Americans and have American investors. How many other companies even exist that do work that Halliburton does? Who else is there to hire?

Not to mention, what kind of press would we get if we didn't help in the reconstruction of Iraq? You and others would be the first to complain that we broke but won't offer to fix it. By your suggestion we're damned if we do and damned if we don't. There is no answer. I think the best solution is help rebuild.

You disagree with that?

[Stan]

Sorry for the double post, but I just read this from President Bush's speech today:

'We adjusted our approach'

The president said U.S. strategy to rebuild Iraq's cities was shifted because the cities couldn't be controlled after U.S. forces left. "So we adjusted our approach," Bush said.

"We increased the amount of money commanders had at their disposal for flexible use. We worked with Iraqi leaders to provide more contracts directly to Iraqi firms," Bush said.

So, it looks like we hire Iraqi's and ally national companies, including American companies.

[formerly known as hf]

The logic you suggests sounds similar to an out of work undertaker turning serial killer in order to get more jobs.

Thena agin, that is the logic that Governments have stood by for Centuries. It is well known that War is an option that States take when faced with economic downturn. It's what the British Empire was all about. Huge initial outlays on military expenses are easily covered by the commercial and economic gains over the following years that will result from an increased market (McDonalds plan to open their first store in Iraq next year) and a cheaper workforce.

Now, I'm not suggesting that US Army lives were lost just for some US companies to make a buck or two, or the odd million.
No, actually, I am suggesting that.

That and other things, of course, like 'freedom'

Oh and stopping unreliable people have WMDs.

On that note, when should the US invade Iran? It seems like they are much closer to having nuclear WMDs than Saddam ever was. I say we move in there ASAP and bring them down.

[formerly known as hf]

Bush said

Bush says a lot. But, of course, everything that man says is true.

EDIT: Yes, some Iraqi firms are being sub-contracted. Many Iraqis are being employed. My point stands. To every cloud there is a silver lining. The silver lining, for others, but especially the US, is loadsa money for reconstruction.

Paid for by the US government and US taxpayers?
No
Paid for by the Iraqi Government, or at least it will be, in retrospect, with interest, of course.

[Stan]

Sorry...got to disagree. Paid for by me and other American taxpayers. We'll get about as money as we ever had from reconstruction efforts.

The UN said Hussein had WMD, didn't they? Didn't Hussein use WMD on Kurds?

How can you be any closer to having them than well...having them?

What do you suggest is done with Iran? I don't foresee an invasion there, but what would you do? What would Amnesty Intl and Greenpeace do?

It is interesting how none of the facts that I've laid out regarding the results of this war have been negated by discussions.

All I hear about from dissenters of my post is that America is hiring Americans, and Bush is a liar and Hussein didn't have WMD. It looks like you WANT to hate the American policy whether you have reason to or not. In fact, Nick even suggested not helping rebuild Iraq....

I can't begin to understand why you even disagree with this war. I'm serious. I don't think I'm dumb. I might be stubborn, but I'm trying to hear what you're saying, but it doesn't add up.

[Pie]

BECOUS THERE LIBERALS WHO BELIEV IN EVOLUTION NOMATER WHAT PROOF I HAVE GIVEN THEM!!!

And you KNOW I won that debait.

*Me dresses up like nepolian* EVOLUTION IS RONG, AND NEPOLIAN CAN PROVE IT... somhow....

[nitefyre]

Just a clarification on a certain point. The UN IAEA agency was rewarded the Nobel Peace Prize this year (just a month or so ago) because they stood up to the United States and reported its findings, that Iraq essentially no longer had capability for weapons of mass destruction.

I haven't been keeping up with the topic, but this is what I think. When the war was initiated for the reasons given by the Bush administration, I was for the idea of toppling Saddam and his WMDs. The case for war was not made for taking out a dictator or an inherently evil regime, as there are many out there who could also do with such a response. Or better yet, perhaps the US should respond more actively respond to the areas like the Darfour region (excuse my spelling on this).

During the '04 elections, I don't think either party could've handled the war much better by this point. The US soldiers are pretty much stuck there, although troop withdrawals were announced for mid '06. I felt as if I was lied to by the Bush administration, as the people of New Orleans have been lied to, as a good deal of politicians have taken the practice of. This does not necessarily mean I hate this guy named Bush, as I know quite a few people who do, I think that's ridiculous. He's given a certain amount of information and tries to act accordingly. Now, are there members in his administration that are trying to take advantage of the situation? Sure.

Do I think he should be in office for another four years? No. I don't think he's as intent on resolving international relations as he could be. He could've made a much better choice in who he decided to represent the US to the UN. The UN is subject to how the (stronger) members participate, and how much they give. In the short run, a member state may see its advantages to do otherwise, or ignore it, but we only need history as a reminder. The original League of Nations was deemed a failure (although it did a deal of social good: from stopping a typhus spread and dismantling a series of other crises, fighting opium, slavery, and managing the post WWI refugees), because of how the members decided to ignore it, and how it was not backed by the power that had ultimately created it, the US (represented by Woodrow Wilson). Coincidentally, it was the Republican party in the senate that failed to ratify the covenant for the League of Nations, thus leaving the US out, and to simplify things, allowing WWII to occur. It does not serve the US to be the odd member out, nor does it serve the rest of the world to ridicule a certain individual.

The ideals of the Iraq war, if based on the right conditions to begin with (bringing a tyrant to justice) and if the case were made based on that, would certainly be more justified. If the US is successful in creating a functional, stable democracy, which lasted longer than the British's stay of 10 years way back in the day of Imperialism, then good. A number of Iraq's neighbors could certainly do with a change in governing groups, and if the policy of democracy by difusion works, excellent. However, I have my doubts. The forced exportation of democracy is a risky business and has often failed (the Cold War: Vietnam, a number of South American states). Help them when they (by majority) want to be helped (i.e. during the Kurdish uprising in the early 90s or closer to home, Haiti, the second democracy of the Western Hemisphere), but otherwise, I think the US should set an example by working through the UN. Just look at how much better the first Gulf War went.

Finally, I think the best way to avoid such a mess in the future would be to stop relying on tradition sources of energy (i.e. oil from the Gulf), and the US would have a much better world image and save a buck back home, too. The US would have to stop relying on the oil tycoons headed by ulterior motivated individuals with deep pockets and certain corrupt princes of the Middle-East.

[formerly known as hf]

I deeply disagree with the lying that has gone on around it.

If, for a moment, I put all my cynicism aside and I assume that the cause for the war was to topple a horrendous dictatorship. Fine, all good.
I'd disagree that the only way to go about it is through (direct) war. The US and the UK are very experienced in toppling regimes and displacing dictators without direct military involvement. But, I guess I'd rather see it done out in the open like this.

So, on those merits - toppling Saddam's regime - the war is a good thing.

For some reason, everyone who supports the war always goes back to the argument that 'well, isn't it good that Saddam's awful regime has been toppled?'
Yes, it is good. But the problem is, that was not the specified reason for the war. We were lied to. We were told there was nuclear capability, that their WMDs were extensive, that they supported Al-Qaida, that terrorists were there etc etc. None of this is true.
If they had stood up from the start and said 'we want to bring down a disgusting regime of torture and brutality', maybe they'd have had some more of my support.

Bush and Blair didn't want to come out and say that - they couldn't - if that was their sole reaosn for the war, everyone would be asking, as they ask those who use that excuse, well, why Saddam, why not the other horrendous Dictatorships?

The issue I have, is that I think I can see why they picked on Saddam's regime - Oil.
I do think it's that simple.

[Pie]

Ehem.... maby they chose it for a different reason?

MAby, bush didn't know either. How could he have known? If he did know that there wern't no Wepons of mass destruction or WOMD as i like to call it(YOU JUST GOT WOMD!!!!) if he did know that, you think he would really invade on that reson alone? REally, he might have made mistakes, but hes not stupid. If he didn know thay got no WOMD, then he would have invaded for different resons, So can you really blame a man for making the mistake of telling you what he was told? Can you really blame a person for saying to you"E=SE2" If thats what his teachers taught him? NO!!!! well.... IF YOUR A LIBERAL YOU CAN!!!!!!!!!!!

darn stubborn liberals.

[Stan]

I think I agree with what Pie is saying.

First, let's assume George Bush (or the administration) was lying. Then don't you think France, Germany, The Netherlands, Brussels, Sweden, and the rest of Europe should be ashamed of themselves for not knowing any different and believing what this one person (or small group of people) in the whole world knew to be a lie? If someone wants to blame America for being the big brother of the world perhaps they shouldn't rely on them for information...this being if GB was lying. (Let me make clear that don't think it was a lie and therefore I don't think the rest of the world should be ashamed, but they should be IF he lied).

Now let me agree with Pie in that IF he did lie, first it would be stupid. He would know that the whole world would find out, wouldn't he? What kind of person would lie KNOWING they were going to be exposed? Now say what you want about Bush and the administration but I don't think they can be labeled as people who miss such an obvious downside of lying. Pie, says he's a 13 year old boy, and he understands this. (I sometimes think he's a smart, if poor spelling, 13 year old, though.) Secondly, well hell I can't remember my second point.

Now as far as the Nobel Peace Prize...come on. Arafat won the Nobel Peace Prize and now Tookie Williams the founder of the modern American street gang who sits on death row for murdering 4 people has been named a finalist for a peace prize for writing children's books. If that organization hasn't lost all credibility then I'm not sure how you can lose credibility. You have to admit there have been some pretty kookie peace prizes given out.

And if the IAEA knew there were no nukes that's one thing, but why didn't Saddam Hussein tell the UN where the chemical and biological weapons went? Remember it was the UN that drew the line in the sand which Hussein crossed and is now paying for. The UN would not enforce it's own resolution so how can anyone depend on them. If any organization does not back up what it says it may not as well exist.