Candletwit said : "Doubter by name, doubter by nature? "
My statement is 'Once a twit always a twit ?'
freealways
My statement is 'Once a twit always a twit ?'
freealways
POLL: The repercussions of a US attack on Iraq
- Thread starter candletrader
- Start date
US firms vie to rebuild Iraq
Five companies have been invited to bid for contracts to put Iraq's infrastructure back together after a decade of sanctions and the expected US-led war.
Among the five is a subsidiary of Halliburton, the oil and construction giant run by US Vice President Dick Cheney for five years till 2000.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2837477.stm
Five companies have been invited to bid for contracts to put Iraq's infrastructure back together after a decade of sanctions and the expected US-led war.
Among the five is a subsidiary of Halliburton, the oil and construction giant run by US Vice President Dick Cheney for five years till 2000.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2837477.stm
Hitch hits the nail on the head-
http://slate.msn.com/id/2079860/
Excerpts:
One wonders what it would take for the Vatican to condemn Saddam's regime. Baathism consecrates an entire country to the worship of a single human being. Its dictator has mosques named after himself. I'm not the expert on piety, but isn't there something blasphemous about this from an Islamic as well as a Christian viewpoint? I suppose if Saddam came out for partial-birth abortions or the ordination of women or the acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle he might be hit with a condemnation of some sort. (Until recently, one might have argued that his abuse of children would get him in hot water with the Vatican, too. But even that expectation now seems vain.)
In one way, the church's "peace at any price" policy is a historical improvement. The last instance I can find of Rome supporting a war was when it blessed Gen. Franco's invasion of Spain, at the head of an army of Muslim mercenaries who were armed and trained by Hitler and Mussolini. And everybody knows of the crusades, which were launched against Christian heretics as well as against Muslims and (invariably) the Jews. But one wonders how the theory of "just war," largely evolved by Catholic intellectuals such as Augustine and Aquinas, ever managed to endorse the use of force. As applied these days, it appears to commit everybody but Saddam Hussein to an absolute renunciation of violence.
Carter announced himself as "a Christian and as a president who was severely provoked by international crises." More accurate would have been "who provoked several severe international crises." It was the Carter administration that green-lighted, and later armed and aided, Saddam Hussein's distinctly unilateral invasion of Iran in 1979, an invasion that cost about a million and a half casualties, many of them civilian. I don't recall Carter being "provoked" by that at all. Incidentally, he describes the present American posture as "substantially unilateral,"
Speaking of casuistry, Carter helpfully added that "American efforts to tie Iraq to the 9/11 terrorist attacks have been unconvincing." This might be narrowly true, with respect of the planning of the last attacks and given the use of the weak word "unconvincing." But the same day's New York Times carried a report with persuasive evidence of a substantial number of Bin-Ladenists on Iraqi soil. It's as hard to get into Iraq as it is to get out, and no Baathist official would make such a safe-haven decision without referring it to the leader.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2079860/
Excerpts:
One wonders what it would take for the Vatican to condemn Saddam's regime. Baathism consecrates an entire country to the worship of a single human being. Its dictator has mosques named after himself. I'm not the expert on piety, but isn't there something blasphemous about this from an Islamic as well as a Christian viewpoint? I suppose if Saddam came out for partial-birth abortions or the ordination of women or the acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle he might be hit with a condemnation of some sort. (Until recently, one might have argued that his abuse of children would get him in hot water with the Vatican, too. But even that expectation now seems vain.)
In one way, the church's "peace at any price" policy is a historical improvement. The last instance I can find of Rome supporting a war was when it blessed Gen. Franco's invasion of Spain, at the head of an army of Muslim mercenaries who were armed and trained by Hitler and Mussolini. And everybody knows of the crusades, which were launched against Christian heretics as well as against Muslims and (invariably) the Jews. But one wonders how the theory of "just war," largely evolved by Catholic intellectuals such as Augustine and Aquinas, ever managed to endorse the use of force. As applied these days, it appears to commit everybody but Saddam Hussein to an absolute renunciation of violence.
Carter announced himself as "a Christian and as a president who was severely provoked by international crises." More accurate would have been "who provoked several severe international crises." It was the Carter administration that green-lighted, and later armed and aided, Saddam Hussein's distinctly unilateral invasion of Iran in 1979, an invasion that cost about a million and a half casualties, many of them civilian. I don't recall Carter being "provoked" by that at all. Incidentally, he describes the present American posture as "substantially unilateral,"
Speaking of casuistry, Carter helpfully added that "American efforts to tie Iraq to the 9/11 terrorist attacks have been unconvincing." This might be narrowly true, with respect of the planning of the last attacks and given the use of the weak word "unconvincing." But the same day's New York Times carried a report with persuasive evidence of a substantial number of Bin-Ladenists on Iraqi soil. It's as hard to get into Iraq as it is to get out, and no Baathist official would make such a safe-haven decision without referring it to the leader.
skeptic123
Guest
Good!!!!
French and German companies need not apply.
You mean the brits and the yanks can do a better job than the Germans or the French? Get serious, all that they are able to do is destroy. It has never been their forte to build, look at their own countries and you know what I am talking about.Quote from skeptic123:
Good!!!!
French and German companies need not apply.
Talking about rebuilding a country? Yeah right, McDonalds or Hungry Jack's at every street junction. Or, for the British contractors the high tech installation of a fish-n-chip-shop in central Bagdad.
Poor Iraqis!
So I take it you are not going to answer my question MSFE.
That of why Saddam is not in front of the World Court for his Criminal Behavior in Attacking IRAN and KUWAIT.
Also, what about those bloated bodies in the Streets of Northern IRAQ where he used GAS in the 80s.
No World Court Action there either, HUMMMMMMMMM.
And you have the bald faced gaul to say the "if the United States" Tries to Disarm Iraq by Force, the United States will be International Criminals, you thinking is slanted and totally beyond explaination.
You frigging IDIOTS in EUROPE need to get a clue!
That of why Saddam is not in front of the World Court for his Criminal Behavior in Attacking IRAN and KUWAIT.
Also, what about those bloated bodies in the Streets of Northern IRAQ where he used GAS in the 80s.
No World Court Action there either, HUMMMMMMMMM.
And you have the bald faced gaul to say the "if the United States" Tries to Disarm Iraq by Force, the United States will be International Criminals, you thinking is slanted and totally beyond explaination.
You frigging IDIOTS in EUROPE need to get a clue!
agin1415, from now on we will have to start calling you by your new user name 'The Optimist'.
You actually expect Msfe to stand still enough to answer a question ? He is much too busy finding, cutting and pasting.
Big job you know.
freealways
You actually expect Msfe to stand still enough to answer a question ? He is much too busy finding, cutting and pasting.
Big job you know.
freealways
skeptic123
Guest
Dear Roe,
I regret to inform you, but your request to reconsider exclusion of French and German companies from future reconstruction of Iraq has been denied.
Despite your objections we continue to believe that the job will best be performed by US and British companies. We also have no doubts whatsoever that this will be of the greatest benefit to the Iraqi people.
The decision is final and non-negotiable, there is not need to re-apply.