Politics: A new beginning

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Not Me
he is the kind of guy who I would be friends with but never date.

please

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
please

Please what? I don't date femmy men. NTTAWWT.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Not Me
Please what? I don't date femmy men. NTTAWWT.

My kind of girl.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
My kind of girl.

We should arrange a meeting IRL. And film it. I just hope Not Me's career is a short as Jaye Davidson's.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
We should arrange a meeting IRL. And film it. I just hope Not Me's career is a short as Jaye Davidson's.

Won't white women be bugged if Club starts seeing someone who's not a white woman?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
We should arrange a meeting IRL. And film it. I just hope Not Me's career is a short as Jaye Davidson's.

Why the hostility? Because we don't see eye to eye on everything? Seriously, if you have to resort to ad hominem attacks it means that you have lost the debate on substance.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Won't white women be bugged if Club starts seeing someone who's not a white woman?

Umm, you need to go reread my posts on that topic because you clearly don't get it. You are one of these annoying types who screams racism everytime anyone says anything unflattering about a black person, (or even a partly black person who doesn't like to admit it).

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Not Me
Umm, you need to go reread my posts on that topic because you clearly don't get it. You are one of these annoying types who screams racism everytime anyone says anything unflattering about a black person, or even a partly black person who doesn't like to admit it.

I just meant you are a white man, I was using the prior post as a smile. The time when I did the response about my Calabrese mom, Jewess wife etc, the only reason was so I could say Will Farrell fans are retards. I can't reread that which I never read.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I just meant you are a white man

Well, I'm not. Shows how good you are at reading people.

Not everyone who is interested in politics is male. Sexist.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by bilmore
We've already let Canada back in, so it's obvious this isn't a non-negotiable item. Look at the ruling itself- it only affects prime contracting. The main French and German companies who could bid on this stuff most all have subsids in Coalition countries. They can bid, and then bid back down to their parent companies in the homelands - no prohibition on that. No, this is for effect - screw with us, and see consequences - but the consequences are more for show, and possibly specifically for the big political contributors in France and Germany who have an interest in contracting in Iraq. Think this kind of shot across a bow will put any pressure on the internal politics of those countries? I do.

Just for clarity, according to the White House Canada has not been "let back in," so what is obvious to you may not be so obvious to others. In fact, the conversation with Chretien has caused the admin to reemphasize its position re: prime contractors:

But U.S. officials said Bush was referring to sub-contracts when he told Chrétien that there would be business opportunities for Canada in Iraq.
When asked about Chrétien's comments, White House spokesperson Scott McClellan reiterated the administration's position that the 63 countries involved in the U.S.-led coalition into Iraq will participate in the contracts. He said Canada was not on that list.

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/12/11/chretien031211

The remainder of your post above does point out that there are these subcontracting avenues available, but I think the face-slap is still being delivered to our snowy neighbor to the north. Perhaps for effect, perhaps for a bargaining chip, but a country that sent troops to Afghanistan and who unlike many nations has offered cash to the Iraq reconstruction effort is being lumped in with those lousy frenchies. At least at this point.

As I said yesterday, I am really hoping to see the headline that says we dropped these contracting provisions in exchange for debt relief. I'm just not optimistic.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
As I said yesterday, I am really hoping to see the headline that says we dropped these contracting provisions in exchange for debt relief. I'm just not optimistic.

I heard a pundit on a news talk show saying that was part of the strategy - to use the contracts as a carrot to get debt relief.

I also heard reports of just how large the debt is and was shocked. It is huge. Does anyone know the total?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
Just for clarity, according to the White House Canada has not been "let back in . . .

Yeah, that changes things some. Hadn't seen that "clarification". Bulk of the point is still valid, I think, but it doesn't support the flexibility I was propounding.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man

To club, and all who said the contracts policy was a negotiating ploy -- not if you believe our President:

"But Bush was unyielding in defending the policy. 'It's very simple', Bush told reporters after a Cabinet meeting. 'Our people risked their lives. Friendly coalition folks risked their lives, and therefore the contracting is going to reflect that, and that's what the U.S. taxpayers expect.'

"Bush said even a decision by countries such as france and Germany to forgive Iraqi debt would not enable them to compete for contracts in Iraq."

[Me: This reasoning breaks down when you consider that most eligible countries did NOT send troops to Iraq. I will not reiterate my criticisms of yesterday, but I think it's a fifth-grade playground approach to policy.]

However, Bush's spokesperson hinted that negotiation was possible: McClellan: "'If countries want to join our efforts in Iraq,' he said 'circumstances can change, and we'll make that very clear.'"

[Me: So, this is just a clumsy and humiliating public attempt at bribery?]

S_A_M

[edited -- typos]

Oh I see. If you want to negotiate you should first take a hard position and the next day tell everyone that you didn't really mean it, because, after all, credibility really doesn't matter in negotations? You are obviously not a transactional lawyer.

What really bothers me though, is those that are continually taking an America is wrong, the "international community" (whatever that is) is always right approach. I don't mean to insinuate that you personally fall in this cap (actually, I have trouble predicting where you will be on issues), but there are many others that do.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
I heard a pundit on a news talk show saying that was part of the strategy - to use the contracts as a carrot to get debt relief.

I also heard reports of just how large the debt is and was shocked. It is huge. Does anyone know the total?

I have read that the biggest debts are owed to other Arab nations -- Saudi Arabia, in particular. Not that the sums owed to France, Germany and Russia are insubstantial, but if Baker's trying to get troops on the ground in Iraq, India would seem like the place to go, and if he's trying to get debt forgiveness, the Saudis are at the top of the list. So what can we give them? These contracts are peanuts compared to the dollars involved in the debt relief.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
These contracts are peanuts compared to the dollars involved in the debt relief.

I'm thinking that an "in" with the developing Iraqi government will be worth a lot more down the road then the simple value of the present recon contracts. France is being shouldered out of one of its largest and most lucrative world customers, and not simply for the present.