House votes to limit French role in Iraqi reconstruction?

[Timexwatch]

Originally posted by Sava

Ask the Iranians how they liked the leaders the US gave them 20 years ago.

The Iranians gave themselves the Ayatollah. Are you refering to the Shah?


0.5/10

[Sava]

oops
EDIT: I meant the US installed the Shah... something like the Ayatollah is something the US can look forward to in Iraq in a few years.

Anyways, its good to know that only American companies will be profiting from the war.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Sava
Anyways, its good to know that only American companies will be profiting from the war.

Where's our cut?

[Sava]

Originally posted by Big Crunch


Where's our cut?

Where are your from? I might be able to put in a good word to D1ck Cheney for you.

[Drogue]

I doubt that is true. Sure the US won't send any tax dollars to France, etc. to help rebuild Iraq, but, as someone has said before, Iraq will rebuild itself financially. I think a lot more of the reconstruction will come from the UN held account set up with Iraq oil proceeds, to help rebuild Iraq. To be honest, I don't think the Bush Administration really care about after the war, and I think this bill was just passed to spite France. If The US won't buy anything from France, that that's its business, and the main country that loses is Iraq. However, with regards to the

US Congress bans France, Germany, Russia, Syria from rebuilding Iraq

that isn't the US's decision. That will be the decision of Iraqi companies that want to rebuild. I think forcing inferior products on the Iraqis (not using GSM mobile network for example, as most of the rest of the world uses) just to spite France is a little silly.

If the US want to increase Anti-Americanism then they're going about it the right way. You may say the US doen't care what the rest of the world thinks, but then what's it doing in Iraq? It ios there because of terrorism brought out from Anti-Americanism. If they are indeed there for national security (doubtful, I fail to see how it helps it) then they will have the opposite effect. More Anti-Americanism would mean more terrorism.

Besides, wasn't the idea of Powell's speech (the one about Iraq looking at those that helped in it's liberation, and those that hindered, and rewarding accordingly) that the US would not need to restrict who they could buy from, since they would reward the US with contracts? Also, I thought the US was pro-free-market? Can their companies not compete on the world market? It seems, with their UN bribes, there reparations like this against France et al, that they only believe in the Free Market when they gain from it.

Sorry about the rant, needed to say that though. Since it's the US's money we're talking about, they can do what they want with it, however, if they stop the Iraqi's from buying other goods, then it will be a problem

Is this pretty certain now that the US will get it's way and administer Iraq post-war, pre-election? I know Blair was pushing the UN route, but with little success it seems.

[Victor Galis]

Considering Bush was against the proposal, is it really fair to blame him for the House?

-Note that I did not at any point implicate Bush in this. I appreciate for once that he has at least one advisor who can talk some sense into him.

It's all moot anyway. The same amendment was rejected by the Senate.

-That doesn't mean that it's dead. It just means a conference committee is going to have to work out some compromise.

Victor's a commie, not a real Democrat, but even commies are sometimes right.

-Just because I own a fur hat with a hammer and sickle inside a red star attached on it, doesn't make me a commie, but I do tend to be left-of-centre in a European sense, which I guess from an American point of view is virtually communie

You know, what we seem to be doing now reminds me about a phrase I read in a book on the French revolution about the phase in the late 1790s, when the French army was successfully invading neighboring countries and toppling monarchs of all sorts and "imposing democracy at bayonet point."

whether it is symbolic, or atleast partially successful, i can't see how this is a bad idea. France was making money off iraq before the war. Then they avoided the war so they wouldn't have to spend any money there, and now they want to make (our) money off of them again?! I mean seriously, that is a bit rediculous...

-Of course not wanting to piss off Arab countries, who (here's a big surprise don't really hate France the way they hate the US) was never a factor in the French decision to give diplomacy a chance to work. I'd like to remind you that at the time the war started, some tangible progress was being made in disarmament. Was it fast? Hell no. Was it something? Yeah. Bush could have at least waited until the process stalled again. Or could he? His approval ratings dipped to 54% on the eve of the war... couldn't allow that could he?

Take your racist comments somewhere else...
You are restricted for a week.

-I can already see sarcasm doesn't work here, unless accompanied by a .

[Sandman]

The Iraqi 'reconstruction', paid for by oil, is just a way of funneling cash to American corporations by the back door. Despicable.

[LoneWolf]

Originally posted by Sandman
The Iraqi 'reconstruction', paid for by oil, is just a way of funneling cash to American corporations by the back door. Despicable.

Sorry, I always find stupid opinions hilarious. But you are certainly entitled!