[Zeronet]

Actually, the US government LOSES even more money with these reconstruction contracts. By going to war, the US probably hopes to deliver democracy to it, rid itself of a nuisance dictator who was killing thousands upon thousands of people.

http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/iraq99h.htm

The US incidently, if it were after all oil, could of simply bought it dirt cheap from Saddamn. The company in question did contracts both in Bosnia and Kosovo and bid in 2001 for the contract it received in Iraq.

[Zeronet]

Originally posted by Gank


Talk some sense, are you saying the chinese were policemen? Thats stupid, Iraqs policeforce are Iraqis. They were migrant workers, same as the Indian, Pakistani, Nepalese, Filipino and Turks that got kidnapped.

Umm, the US isnt in as good a position as it'd like to be either, does that mean they're on the run too?

Does that mean they're on the run? Nope. I actually said Al-quada are not on the run.

not that, that means they're on the run.

See? See? Not that means they're on the run. The use of the negative, not, implies i said they were not on the run.

See unlike some on this board, when im wrong as i clearly was when saying Al-aquada was scared of Europe, i actually admit it, unlike some who go on arguing for the sake of face.

People claimed the US was stealing all the jobs from iraqis, when in actual fact, its trained many to work as security guards and policemen, giving them jobs. The migrants travelling to the region are unfortunate. Forgive the sarcasm, but you used it to. Also notice the use of the negative, not again, which implies the statement wasn't true.

Course, the US isn't doing as good a job as it should, they're pretty much useless at peacekeeping, too heavy handed and accident prone.

[Janos]

Investing money is one way to earn money. Which company would get itself into a problem area if it would just lose a tremendous amount of money, and would US back it up if it did not except any return of the investments? I wouldn't, and I think neither would US.

And of course if they were in it just for oil, they've bought it - they're buying it from Niger and Saudi-Arabia, who are not definately the cleaniest little birdies. I disagree with the posse who enthustiacally chants "all about oil, all about oil", but securing long-term oil productions propably played some part in the decision of going to Iraq (I wonder where we derailed this thread this bad ).

But off to the terrace I go, you guys have fun.

[Zuljin]

Originally posted by Zeronet
Actually, the US government LOSES even more money with these reconstruction contracts. By going to war, the US probably hopes to deliver democracy to it, rid itself of a nuisance dictator who was killing thousands upon thousands of people.

http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/iraq99h.htm

The US incidently, if it were after all oil, could of simply bought it dirt cheap from Saddamn. The company in question did contracts both in Bosnia and Kosovo and bid in 2001 for the contract it received in Iraq.

A nuisance dictator who killed thousands of people with chemical weapons he received from the US.
A nuisance dictator who continued to get support from said country for up to half a year after these incidents.
A nuisance dictator who got the weapons in the first place to use them on Iranians with the blessing of the US.

And why exactly would the US be able to buy oil dirt cheap from Saddam?
If I were gonna sell oil to make a profit for my country, I would atleast make sure I got a decent profit. (no I'm not saying Saddam would have done that for his country, I'm just stating an example).
And wether you like it or not, the US will  make good use of the oil supplies in Iraq.

[Gank]

http://www.uuiraq.org/english/23.html

Uh, Iraq had a policeforce before the US invaded, not creating any jobs there, and if its training Iraqis to be security guards how come theres over 10,000 foreigners doing the job in Iraq? Just for the record, theres approx 18 million unemployed Iraqis I think you're going to have to come up with some better examples than whaqt you've posted.

As for the negative, I presumed you were going by what you originally said, ie the european intelligence services had them on the run.

[Rictor]

America goes in to Iraq and demoslishes everything. Someone has to rebuild it, and that someone is the likes of Bechtel, Haliburton and Kellog, Brown & Root. The American people pay for the reconstruction through taxes, which is then paid to the conrtactors for the work they do to rebuild Iraq.

Net result: Several billion dollars of money, from the taxpayers to the corporations. Its a nice scheme, I must admit. Essentially, you have the American public paying for Bechtel CEO's new house and private lear jet. Not a new trick, mind you, but hey - if it ain't broke don't fix it. And if it is broke, no skin off their back.

[Zeronet]

Well according to this,
http://www.dawn.com/2004/02/25/int10.htm they are trying to create jobs.

Also, the 10,000 foreigners are a supplement, surely you can admit, that there are iraqis being trained to be security guards and policement, which is new job creation, they're might not be many but they exist.

I'll admit there's a lot more work to be done to improve the job situation, but there is some progress and i'll leave it at that. take it as a concession if you want, i havent got all day to argue.

Though, quite a lot of these services have been in disrepair long before the coalition arrived, the sanctions saw to that, bloody useless sanctions, just harmed the iraqi people more than anything, stupid UN.

[Kazan]

Libby is rather explosive - hey liberator, got read "****whacked"

[ionia23]

Originally posted by Rictor


They breed sheep well these day, don't they? You don't even *attempt* to give some sort of reason, because you believe that no reason is necessary. You could at least try to think of something creative, but no. What the masters say, goes.

He killed him because he killed him. The world is flat becuase the world is flat. Haliburton got the job becuase Haliburton got the job.

I'm not even going to dignify name-calling with a reply.

[ionia23]

Originally posted by Kazan
Libby is rather explosive - hey liberator, got read "****whacked"

And these leftist, terrorist supporters around here aren't?

[Kazan]

"Leftist" = "Terrist Supporter" now?

you'd do **** proud - dissention = support of terrorism by your statement

you disgust me you - THAT is antiamerican you civil rights stomping pig

[01010]

Originally posted by ionia23


And these leftist, terrorist supporters around here aren't?

So anyone that questions the motives of their government (which I believe is a perfectly acceptable action) is a terrorist sympathiser? What kind of crack are you smoking?

::Edit::

Damn Kazan, just beat me to it.

[Rictor]

Leave them alone. They had a rough few years during the 90s. They couldn't call people Commies anymore, and terrorism wasn't in style yet. But now, things are looking up. You've got your "terrorist supporters" on one hand, the "appeasers" and "cowards" on the other, and when all else fails, you still have good ol' reliable "Liberal peacenicks" to fall back on. Ah, life is good.

[01010]

Originally posted by Rictor
Leave them alone. They had a rough few years during the 90s. They couldn't call people Commies anymore, and terrorism wasn't in style yet. But now, things are looking up. You've got your "terrorist supporters" on one hand, the "appeasers" and "cowards" on the other, and when all else fails, you still have good ol' reliable "Liberal peacenicks" to fall back on. Ah, life is good.

I don't think I fall under any of those labels though, which is amusing to me at least.

[ionia23]

Originally posted by Kazan
"Leftist" = "Terrist Supporter" now?

you'd do **** proud - dissention = support of terrorism by your statement

you disgust me you - THAT is antiamerican you civil rights stomping pig

Oh, I see how it is.  So anyone who doesn't support the idea of nuking America out of existence for it's horrid track record is a warmongering nazi.

If you can't take it being thrown back at you, don't throw it in the first place.

[Tiara]

Suddenly I understand Meag's position on political threads a lot better...

You people are unable to argue without calling eachother names, eh?

[Zuljin]

Originally posted by ionia23


Oh, I see how it is.  So anyone who doesn't support the idea of nuking America out of existence for it's horrid track record is a warmongering nazi.

If you can't take it being thrown back at you, don't throw it in the first place.

I fail to see the connection between the "warmongering nazi" thing and what Kazan said.
AFAIK he didn't even get close to mentioning that or something like that.

[Zuljin]

Originally posted by Tiara
Suddenly I understand Meag's position on political threads a lot better...

You people are unable to argue without calling eachother names, eh?

So it seems, although it usually goes well until some people gets a little too hot headed to have a decent debate about the subject

[ionia23]

Originally posted by Zuljin


So it seems, although it usually goes well until some people gets a little too hot headed to have a decent debate about the subject

Guilty.  I withdraw my earlier statements.

[Liberator]

There is a big difference between dissention and out-and-out hateful flaming.  

I have not, as yet, seen someone on the opposite side of mine suggest a course of action that is more than pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking.  All I see is more and more Dubya & Co. bashing.