France, Germany Criticize Iraq Resolution

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by lightblue
Not necessarily, the amounts and percentages are though. It does seem that they bought their contracts (Bechtel was also the primary contractor in the Boston Big Dig project which USAiD (the body going over the contracts) admin Andrew Nastios headed).

And it is not surprising. Disgraceful perhaps... companies subsidizing political parties and then meing rewarded for it just leaves this nasty taste in my mouth. Anyone seen the second series of 24 by the way?

i think you miss my point - the oil companies and oil service firms give to the GOP not for contracts (their customers are usually private sector) but cause the GOP is more favorable to the oil industry - especially on environmental stuff. Social service firms donate to Democrats cause the dems will increas spending on social services. Heavy construction companies give to both, cause they want to keep both in line for infrastructure spending, and maybe also to get contracts.

I suspect youd have a hard time finding a major oil services firm in the US that mainly donated to Democrats. Or a reputable social services consultant that mainly gave to Republicans. Of a major heavy construction company that didnt give to both.

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


We went to war with the authorization implicit in 1441. Clearly 1441 meant war if there was non-compliance.

There was no authorization in 1441. 1441 means war as one possible consequence, if and when yet to be determined by the SC. The French (and with them several others in the SC) said "Not yet", especially as Blix gave a mixed report on Iraqi compliance.

[Japher]

reputable social services consultant

Well, anyway, your right LotM... Democracy was built on bribery

[Defiant]

Originally posted by GePap


That 3% boost will not remain, since most of the upcoming costs will sink in Iraq.

I have heard figures that to keep the forces in Iraq as they are costs about 2 billion A WEEK, or 8 billion a month approximately. that does not included things like airforce planes and Navy forces which are returning home (if they have not already done so). So, about 2 billion a week, 8 billion a month, 12*8 or 96 billion a year.. (which falls in line with the 90-120 billion a year estimate).

All of it coming straight out of the Treasury. Note as well that when the CBO estimated the nudget deficit to have hit 480 billion this year, it did not include ANY of the costs of the Iraq war.

GePap,
I am not saying your wrong but I would like to see the breakdown, it's hard to believe 2 billion a week,[incrementally], also it did cost THE USA money for maintaing the no-fly zone and other blockade costs, which are now either not needed or cannot be counted in the incremental cost because they were already a sunk cost, is that taken into account?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler


There was no authorization in 1441. 1441 means war as one possible consequence, if and when yet to be determined by the SC. The French (and with them several others in the SC) said "Not yet", especially as Blix gave a mixed report on Iraqi compliance.

1441 called for complete compliance. No one disputed that complete compliance was absent. The "not yet" was in complete disregard of UNSC 1441. Ergo the US and UK acted under 1441, which clearly intended war if complete compliance were not achieved.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler


. 1441 means war as one possible consequence,

Powell said in the UNSC that "everyone knew" that serious consequences meant war - if anyone on the UNSC contradicted him, please share the citation.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

So guys, where are the weapons of mass destruction? We've spent more time in there looking for them then the UN inspections team has and we havnt found them. The only weapons of mass destruction we've found is macdonald's kitchen.

Where's saddam? thats the million dollar question. First he's dead, now he's gone.
Chemical Ali was supposed to be dead, but looks like Allah loved him so much, he sent him back to finish his job.

I'd say this whole adventure is one big cluster****. Saddam was obviously no threat to us since there are no weapons of mass destruction. The army cant even get the water running. Didn't bush say 'No nation building'? Yes he did. What a liar.
Now we are billions into debt, and we want to spend more money on Iraq. maybe we should increase taxes on those who support the war and make them pay for rebuilding iraq.

Not likely since those who are willing to spend the governments money are unlikely to want to give more of their own.

Pathetic Hipocrites.

[Japher]

Pathetic Hipocrites.

Pathetic?

Yup Sadam is AWOL, for now

As for WOMD... That is Sadam. He was the one killing billions! of people, hows that for a F*****g weapon?

[HershOstropoler]

"The "not yet" was in complete disregard of UNSC 1441. Ergo the US and UK acted under 1441, which clearly intended war if complete compliance were not achieved."

12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

The SC threatening war does not mean the US acted under 1441 when it went to war. 1441 did not authorize a war against Iraq. End of story.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
"The "not yet" was in complete disregard of UNSC 1441. Ergo the US and UK acted under 1441, which clearly intended war if complete compliance were not achieved."

12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

The SC threatening war does not mean the US acted under 1441 when it went to war. 1441 did not authorize a war against Iraq. End of story.

You still have not cited anything in the UNSC debate that responded to Powells assertion.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
So guys, where are the weapons of mass destruction?

Yup. where are they? Iraq had them in the early '90's - no one disputes that - what do you say happened to them?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
Chemical Ali was supposed to be dead, but looks like Allah loved him so much, he sent him back to finish his job.

Theres no such person as chemical ali. You must be referring to "conventional Ali" , since Iraq never had any chemical weapons.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

As for WOMD... That is Sadam. He was the one killing billions! of people, hows that for a F*****g weapon?

So is Kim Il Jong, but we arnt about to invade them. Same with Somalia, but we arnt there, same with Congo, but we arnt there. Killing billions is no longer a reason, expecially when you ignore some and choose others.

[Defiant]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
So guys, where are the weapons of mass destruction? We've spent more time in there looking for them then the UN inspections team has and we havnt found them. The only weapons of mass destruction we've found is macdonald's kitchen.

Where's saddam? thats the million dollar question. First he's dead, now he's gone.
Chemical Ali was supposed to be dead, but looks like Allah loved him so much, he sent him back to finish his job.

I'd say this whole adventure is one big cluster****. Saddam was obviously no threat to us since there are no weapons of mass destruction. The army cant even get the water running. Didn't bush say 'No nation building'? Yes he did. What a liar.
Now we are billions into debt, and we want to spend more money on Iraq. maybe we should increase taxes on those who support the war and make them pay for rebuilding iraq.

Not likely since those who are willing to spend the governments money are unlikely to want to give more of their own.

Pathetic Hipocrites.

Larry, take your sub par grades from school and go away, don't go away mad, just go away.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
The army cant even get the water running.

Wheres this? What city in Iraq doesnt have water now?