Politics: A new beginning

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
to Afghanistan. we accidently bombed some, killing I think 4.
Canada was pretty squarely against Iraq, although a few Canadian troops assigned to some joint mission did end up there. this was a cause of much outcry in Canada.

Oh, yeah, that's right.

Maybe the chance to profit in the rebuild will change some outcrying.

[Hank Chinaski]

at 9998..........

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
at 9998..........

It's unsustainable.
There are no new jobs.
This only helps his rich friends.
How does this help us in Iraq? Not at all!
Haliburton is responsible for at least 94% of the rise.
If Gore had been elected by the Supreme Court, it would be at 14,000. Easily.
Another Bush lie. It's really only at 4000.
Yeah, but is France sharing in this boom? No. It's an isolationist boom.
How can we celebrate such a thing in the face of Kyoto?
This can only exacerbate global warming.
OK, so NOW can we fully fund rich seniors' drug bills? Why not?!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
It's unsustainable.
There are no new jobs.
This only helps his rich friends.
How does this help us in Iraq? Not at all!
Haliburton is responsible for at least 94% of the rise.
If Gore had been elected by the Supreme Court, it would be at 14,000. Easily.
Another Bush lie. It's really only at 4000.
Yeah, but is France sharing in this boom? No. It's an isolationist boom.
How can we celebrate such a thing in the face of Kyoto?
This can only exacerbate global warming.
OK, so NOW can we fully fund rich seniors' drug bills? Why not?!

You're so shrill.

Am I doing this right?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by bilmore
It's unsustainable.
There are no new jobs.
This only helps his rich friends.
How does this help us in Iraq? Not at all!
Haliburton is responsible for at least 94% of the rise.
If Gore had been elected by the Supreme Court, it would be at 14,000. Easily.
Another Bush lie. It's really only at 4000.
Yeah, but is France sharing in this boom? No. It's an isolationist boom.
How can we celebrate such a thing in the face of Kyoto?
This can only exacerbate global warming.
OK, so NOW can we fully fund rich seniors' drug bills? Why not?!

Don't forget all those work-force drop outs who got very sad because of the lack of manufacturing jobs and had to get an education instead. Or worse yet, get married.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
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?

I think not. Given that this issue is all about what companies can bid to be the prime contractors for the projects that the U.S. DOD -- I think it is a purely economic issue, not an overall policy issue.

There certainly is also a sort of "screw you" aspect to it -- hearkening back to the days of the "forgive Russia, ignore Germany, punish France" formulation - which is a significant part of what pisses the other countries off (and, I think, part of why we did it). I just think that is unwise and unnecessary.

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I don't think comments like these will help, either.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...cts/index.html

Asked whether the exclusion of those countries from bidding on construction contracts violates international law, Bush said, "I don't know what you're talking about by international law. I better consult my lawyer."

I guess someone either hacked CNN or put up a dummy page behind that link. I'd swear that quote wasn't there the first time I read the story. The return of TempSock??

S_A_M

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
But I don't think this sort of one-liner will play well internationally.

How many electoral votes do you get for winning France?

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
Entirely consistent with his long-standing theme that he governs America for the good of America, and not some paradigm of world government. I'd rank it as a good line.

Hmmm. If he said it, its way too flippant for my taste -- on a serious issue where we already have image problems. I'd hate to see that line coming back at us the next time we intervene somewhere, and some foreigner is filmed skinning a captured U.S. soldier.

Also, some people would say (including the bulk of the U.S. political establishment until this Bush Admin.) that the continuing development of and adherence to international law is indeed "for the good of" the nation state that sits atop the world economically, socially, and militarily (in the long term).

S_A_M

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
-- on a serious issue where we already have image problems.

Consider the idea, though, that, while Bush (and others) may agree with you that "we have some image problems", the agreement may not extend to the identity of those problems, and this kind of funny, casual comment is viewed, (by Bush, and others), as a direct and relevant means of addressing those problems.

I'm just saying that the comment does not work well at all if you accept that Chirac's good wishes should mean something more than squat to us in the face of current events and alignments. But, with a different viewpoint, it works rather well.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I guess someone either hacked CNN or put up a dummy page behind that link. I'd swear that quote wasn't there the first time I read the story. The return of TempSock??

S_A_M

I wish that were true because it was a stupid thing for Bush to say, and because I wish to be celebrated for my novel theories in evolutionary biology.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
Consider the idea, though, that, while Bush (and others) may agree with you that "we have some image problems", the agreement may not extend to the identity of those problems, and this kind of funny, casual comment is viewed, (by Bush, and others), as a direct and relevant means of addressing those problems.

I'm just saying that the comment does not work well at all if you accept that Chirac's good wishes should mean something more than squat to us in the face of current events and alignments. But, with a different viewpoint, it works rather well.

I understand that Bush and many in his administration, for example, disagree with me on this. I'm not suggesting he said it by mistake.

I think that POV is misdirected -- as the FU approach to foreign relations is usually ill-advised. It isn't just Chirac who matters. There is a whole world audience -- most of which we should have no desire to PO or to cause to believe that America considers itself to be above the well-established norms of international conduct. There is the matter of day to day relations to consider, not just the war on terror.

(In that vein, after all, we took pains to attempt to justify and define the Iraq excursion as a lawful preemptive war under Article 51 (?) of the UN Charter and the centuries-old norms of international law. Bush's core domestic audience, I suspect, didn't realize this, and largely missed the significance of the key code-words and justifications that the Administration kept using. The tough-guy rhetoric is designed to play to that audience.)

S_A_M

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
The tough-guy rhetoric is designed to play to that audience.)

I like how you slip it in that Bush's tactics are designed for the ignorant rednecks who disagree with you.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
If it's a competitive bid process and low bid wins, how are the French soaking us if they only get Ks if they underbid the American, Brit, Spanish, Italian etc. companies?

Don't say it's because the K money should all go to U.S. companies to get cycled back through American pockets, because that's manifestly not the alternative --- money will go to U.K., Spanish, Italian etc. companies under the "Bush friends only" policy.

That's not the point in my mind. The point is that the French (via these companies) should not directly be receiving any American tax payer money given the spoiler roll they have been playing.

As for flip and FU comments, how about the French comments regarding the toy helicopters they agreed to provide to NATO? This is not a one way street where America is all wrong and the French are victims.

[SlaveNoMore]

sgtclub
As for flip and FU comments, how about the French comments regarding the toy helicopters they agreed to provide to NATO? This is not a one way street where America is all wrong and the French are victims.

To use the parlance of our times (or at least John Kerry):

"Fuck" the French.