Politics: A new beginning

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Maybe I'm crank-addled again, but I give up -- what does this mean? Not Me said the majority of abortions are for "convenience" and you're attacking my characterization of "the point in contention"? Que?

Sorry, that post got all screwed up, with entire sections disappearing due to HTML-illiteracy.

The second sentence should have appeared in this format:

It's also patently obvious that they're not the same as a matter of fact.

Once again, . . . . and so on.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
Sorry, that post got all screwed up, with entire sections disappearing due to HTML-illiteracy.

Righto. I will now stop editing my posts to conform to your unrevised posts, and give you a sporting chance to catch up.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Babies are different from fetuses in several significant respects. Google it.

(bilmore: this is not an "assumption")

How is a fetus that would be viable outside the womb different then?

BTW - Yes it is an assumption.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
Then, they were asked to make a contribution monetarily, just a few weeks ago, and they said (basically) no.

Not Canada. "Although it refused to send troops to Iraq, Canada - unlike France, Germany and Russia - has been one of the largest contributors to Iraq's reconstruction, handing over C$250 million (£109 million)." But Wolfowitz decided to fuck 'em anyway, eh? I guess the problem is that some of them speak French.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
How is a fetus that would be viable outside the womb different then?

BTW - Yes it is an assumption.

I accept your gracious concession.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I accept your gracious concession.

Redux.

First you say:

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
And yet it's plainly not the same as killing a baby, even if you think it's morally equivalent.

Then I say:

Originally posted by Not Me
That depends on what you mean by "not the same." If you mean not the same legally, then you are right.

Then you say:

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
It's also patently obvious that they're not the same as a matter of fact.

Then Bilmore says:

Originally posted by bilmore
Once again, you (the generic "you") assume the point in contention to make the point in contention.

Then I say:

Originally posted by Not Me
Please elaborate on how.

Then you say:

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Babies are different from fetuses in several significant respects. Google it.

(bilmore: this is not an "assumption")

Then I say:

Originally posted by Not Me
How is a fetus that would be viable outside the womb different then?

BTW - Yes it is an assumption.

Then you say:

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I accept your gracious concession.

Beautiful.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
The benefits go to American corporations, but this doesn't help you unless you own their stock. I'm not going to villify Halliburton, but I also don't any stock.

Oh, and the money is going to private companies, not governments.

Or they are your employer. Or you own their debt. Or you buy their products. Or . . .

The Administration was in a no win situation. Either they did what they did (yes the timing was bad) or they put these countries on this list and be open to the claim of "why is our tax payer money going to countries that didn't support us."

The other points to note are that these countries are not barred from Iraqi contracts (other than those paid for by the US). So they are eligible for all the Madrid conference money. They also can contract directly with the Iraqi government. They also can be sub-contractors under all of the above.

Frankly, other than the timing (which isn't THAT bad) the perhaps unintended consequence of this is that maybe it will bring the French and Russians to the table. You want $X billion in contracts? OK, now let's talk about some debt restructuring and some troops.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Not Me
I was a fetus in 1973.

I thought you were arguing the anti-abortion side.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Not Me
Aside from that quote above, the part of your post that jumps out at me is "excluded those countries and others from $18 billion in American-financed Iraqi reconstruction projects." I am trying to understand why we should give American tax payer money to those countries that refused to help us in the Iraqi conflict. I am trying, but I cannot understand it.

Because WE ARE NOW AT THIS VERY MOMENT TRYING TO CONVINCE MANY OF THOSE COUNTRIES TO HELP US IN IRAQ -- i.e. , by forgiving debt, and/or sending troops, and/or ponying up money for reconstrction, and/or cooperating with us in the U.N. on resolutions giving sanction to a U.S-led international military force in Iraq. Therefore, it is absolutely fucking stupid to shove a thumb in their collective eyes.

(E.g. Last month Germany had declared itself open to debt forgiveness, Canada has already ponied up $190 mm for reconstruction, Russia isn't forgiving debt -- but is agreeing to the concept of a U.S.-led international force in Iraq.)

For that reason, I oppose the policy in toto -- regardless of the timing of the announcement.

It is also somewhat childish for the Administration to operate this way, given that the purpose is supposedly to reconstruct Iraq and get the job done as cheaply and effectively as possible.

This is another example of a sort of tone-deaf, "blinders-on" approach to foreign policy among the civilian heads at DOD and the mid-level of the Administration (White House) that has hurt our image in the past.

Examples? Consider the policy/law under which the U.S. suspends or cancels all military aid to any country that won't sign a waiver guaranteeing that U.S. forces were exempt from the ICC. This whole issue is black helicopter-style paranoia in my view. But consider these specifics: Several countries who WERE U.S. ALLIES IN IRAQ (i.e. Lithuania, Bulgaria, and at least two others) couldn't sign the waivers because they were awaiting accession to the EU -- and the waivers violated EU policy. They explained, and asked for the U.S. to exempt them. Nonetheless, the Administration refused to grant the exemptions this summer-- and passed the issue to a "study group" -- cancelling millions in aid to those countries in 2002 and 2003 while they were giving positive aid to our war effort in Iraq.

The administration backed down and recently granted exemptions only after a bipartisan, unanimous revolt in the Senate Armed Services Committee -- which was going to specifically insert/earmark that aid into the budget. Still -- the whole thing makes me wonder -- WhoTF are these people, and WhatTF do they think they are doing, and HowTF could they possibly be in charge of anything?

S_A_M

[edited -- typos]

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Gattigap tends to wear his panties on his head, where they do not get bunched.

That's only on Tuesdays.

(You said you wouldn't tell, dammit. No more free Rancho Zabaco for you!)

[Gattigap]

Jim Hoagland in WaPo is reading a good bit into the appointment of Jim Baker to deal with the debt relief issues, together with "a discreet effort to broaden and deepen serious consultations with its European allies on war and peace. The talks include discussion of NATO's taking on a dominant command role in Afghanistan and of the alliance's eventually becoming much more involved in Iraq and perhaps elsewhere in the Middle East."

Apparently, Bush's personal engagement in Iraq and in foreign policy signals a willingness to get past the bickering between Defense and State over the last 2 years, and find a new love for transatlantic cooperation in the context of a reelection year. Good on him.

What I don't get is how this is new cooperation is supposed to square with the request for debt relief and the spoils system of the reconstruction contracts. The simultaneuous combination of the outstretched hand, request of a favor, and a kick in the nuts is an impressive physiological feat, but I'm not sure what the receipient is supposed to think of it.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Gattigap
What I don't get is how this is new cooperation is supposed to square with the request for debt relief and the spoils system of the reconstruction contracts. The simultaneuous combination of the outstretched hand, request of a favor, and a kick in the nuts is an impressive physiological feat, but I'm not sure what the receipient is supposed to think of it.

Wouldn't our real allies that supported us view it as a "kick in the nuts" if the contracts were open to everyone?

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Wouldn't our real allies that supported us view it as a "kick in the nuts" if the contracts were open to everyone?

Perhaps, but I don't think that they should. Surely, club, our allies operated only from the highest principles of concern for national and international welfare with no thought of financial reward -- just as did the United States.

Moreover, how could they complain if the contracts were open for bidding to all firms? Let the firm with the best bid win -- in the interests of preserving U.S. taxpayer money and aiding the efficient and effective reconstruction of Iraq.

P.S. The U.S. has "real allies" that did not support the Iraq war. Canada is surely a good example. So are Jordan, and Pakistan.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
It is also somewhat childish for the Administration to operate this way, given that the purpose is supposedly to reconstruct Iraq and get the job done as cheaply and effectively as possible.

I think I've figured out the man behind the Administration's policy for rebuilding Iraq.



Otto “What was the middle thing?” West.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Perhaps, but I don't think that they should. Surely, club, our allies operated only from the highest principles of concern for national and international welfare with no thought of financial reward -- just as did the United States.

Moreover, how could they complain if the contracts were open for bidding to all firms? Let the firm with the best bid win -- in the interests of preserving U.S. taxpayer money and aiding the efficient and effective reconstruction of Iraq.

P.S. The U.S. has "real allies" that did not support the Iraq war. Canada is surely a good example. So are Jordan, and Pakistan.

SAM, is there any disagreement with the concept that our not-so-much-friends are only complaining that they will miss out on some large profits, and not some participation in the concepts of rebuilding?