Fattwins 0 Posted October 25, 2003 Share Posted October 25, 2003 So the war is over. Lies have been exposed. Now who should pay for it. According to the US government we should all chip in. Tell me why? Why do my Tax dollars have to go to a country that is now more than likly making more terrorists? Link to post Share on other sites
Pedro 0 Posted October 25, 2003 Share Posted October 25, 2003 Perhaps you should try writing to your elected representatives about that. I'm angry at the captial gains tax myself. Link to post Share on other sites
Fattwins 0 Posted October 25, 2003 Author Share Posted October 25, 2003 PS in this country I have no vote Link to post Share on other sites
Fattwins 0 Posted October 25, 2003 Author Share Posted October 25, 2003 Pedro why did you go to war! Do you except the lies and the BS. Link to post Share on other sites
slimeypete 0 Posted October 26, 2003 Share Posted October 26, 2003 He went to war? I think the people who approved the way should pay for it, not helpless us. Link to post Share on other sites
Stefan 0 Posted October 26, 2003 Share Posted October 26, 2003 Well the size of the US contribution and the continuing cost of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan suggest that America more than anyone else is 'paying for it'. More of a concern to me is the fact that Congress has turned down proposals of a $87 billion grant toward the military and rebuilding of Iraq Afghanistan and wants to convert about $40 billion into a loan (my figures maybe a little out). That is unless other countries write off the debt that Iraq owes them from Saddams regime. If those countries write off that debt, why not the rest of the third world countries already crippled by foreign debt burdens???? Link to post Share on other sites
grungy-gonads 54 Posted October 27, 2003 Share Posted October 27, 2003 Why not indeed. Link to post Share on other sites
Pedro 0 Posted October 27, 2003 Share Posted October 27, 2003 I didn't go to war. Never served in the military. It's over though and a country/region needs a lot of help. It's irrelevant wether or not I accpeted the lies and BS. Bush and his crew hold temporary positions. I don't care about them. But A country needs rebuilding and a region needs stabilizing. I don't mind my tax dollars going to help. I also don't mind my tax money going to unknown aids victims in Africa even though I may find their countries leadership to be idiots. You don't want to help out. that's fine. Do what you got to do in order to keep those yen to yourself Mr. Twins. Link to post Share on other sites
neversummer 0 Posted October 27, 2003 Share Posted October 27, 2003 I think you missed the issue there Pedro. The country/region needs rebuilding because Bush and his cronies decided it would be a better place without Saddam. The fact that they lied to the world to convince themselves of the justification is reason enough to not want any part of the reconstruction process. They made their bed now they must lie in it. Is it justifiable that every US person be held accountable the injustices of a select few, a select few with no justification for attacking another country except for the propaganda created by people employed by those select few. It seems quite clear now that the US was so keen to invade Iraq without UN authorisation because they knew that if they allowed the weapons inspectors more time to search for the elusive WMD, they would indeed find nothing. Why should you or any other person foot the bill for that? As for the remarks about AIDS/third world problems, they have nothing to do with war and are not the problem of an 'us against them' mentality. They are worldwide problems that can't be fixed with an extra 87 Billion dollars. Link to post Share on other sites
miteyak 0 Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 Quote: Originally posted by neversummer: They are worldwide problems that can't be fixed with an extra 87 Billion dollars. I beg to differ. 87 billion would go a long way to eliminating third world debt. Isn't it ironic that the US is passing the hat around for an oil rich nation so that US corporations can be paid for reconstruction, while destitute countries, struggling under the burden of debt, toss in a bit of spare rice... Link to post Share on other sites
Pedro 0 Posted October 29, 2003 Share Posted October 29, 2003 No, I didn't miss any issues. I just see things differently than you. I don't find it justifiable for the whiners out there, especialy Americans, to blame everything on Bush and his 'Evil Empire' to the point that now we don't have to do anything! Help reconstuct Iraq? "NO!, Bush is a liar, I won't help!" I'll bet a lot of Americans weren't too keen on helping to fix up Germany and Japan back in the day. "it wasn't our war...they started it..why do we gotta help?" Because it's in our best interest and it's in yours too, that's why. Link to post Share on other sites
big-will 7 Posted October 29, 2003 Share Posted October 29, 2003 Consider us told Link to post Share on other sites
Ocean11 0 Posted October 29, 2003 Share Posted October 29, 2003 > I'll bet a lot of Americans weren't too keen on helping to fix up Germany and Japan back in the day. "it wasn't our war...they started it..why do we gotta help?" There's really no comparison that can be made between that war and this one. Link to post Share on other sites
miteyak 0 Posted October 29, 2003 Share Posted October 29, 2003 I heard that haliburton is selling gas to the US army in Iraq at four times the market price (under monopoly conditions). Maybe the real cost of reconstruction is actually only $23 billion. Now that sounds more reasonable. Link to post Share on other sites
neversummer 0 Posted October 29, 2003 Share Posted October 29, 2003 Why does that country need rebuilding and stabilising? It didn't attack another country, it didn't move any of its forces into another country..it was attacked against all international laws. It wouldn't have needed rebuilding and stabilising had the above event not happened. That's my issue with the whole thing. My tax payer $$ is going the help something that wasn't necessary in the first place and as someone who isn't US, I don't have the ability to oust teh Bush Government. I've got no problem with providing $$ for causes like AIDS and famine because the need to be addressed and systems need to be put in place to address these problems, real problems that won't go away in my lifetime. Link to post Share on other sites
Fattwins 0 Posted October 29, 2003 Author Share Posted October 29, 2003 First off my name is not mr. twins, Fattwins is fine enough. What I have a problem with is being lied to and then, lied to again. instead ofbeing forthright and saying crap we really messed this up. We get more lies. I sure dont want to give more money for more lies. Where is the money going to go to an American corp. who has ties to Bush and his funny men. I think its very important who runs the government it reflects the people and the choice they make. Are we making more terrorists? I think yes as does rumsfield at the moment. So the willing warriors went to war to defeat terror instead we have more. You cant ever kill all the terrorists do you think they are scared to die? Link to post Share on other sites
Siren 0 Posted October 30, 2003 Share Posted October 30, 2003 I think Neversummer and Fattwins more or less summed up the view of most people. I am just surprised that advanced democratic/political systems like the US and UK (Blair seems to be in a bit of a fix with the inquiry) allow such a thing to happen and, worse, continue. Link to post Share on other sites
miteyak 0 Posted October 30, 2003 Share Posted October 30, 2003 What, pray, is advanced about the US system. Correct me if i'm wrong, but the 'checks' and 'balances' seem perversely intertwined. How can high court judges be politically appointed if they are the check on the excesses of govt? The corruption currently plagueing the US. is undoubtedly the largest state level corruption so far seen on this planet. Astoundingly, it's not even being covered up, but played out in full view of the world. Advanced political system... It would be funny, if only the consequences were contained to thise who (didn't?) voted for it. Just to clarify the UK position. At least THERE IS AN ENQUIRY!!! Blair, personally and financially for the UK, got very little out of the war as far as I know. I don't think his 'agenda' can be compared to the bush one. Link to post Share on other sites
Siren 0 Posted October 30, 2003 Share Posted October 30, 2003 Haha, Mitayak, thanks for spelling out what I was saying. For Blair, what a pity. Greater love hath no man than this, that he should lay down his career for helping others settling old family score. Needless to say, it is also a bit credulous to entertain for even a scintilla of moment that motivations for the invasion and reconstructions are purely altruistic i.e. 'to help'. Otherwise you will see the US (and its Willing Partners) invading or interferring in many African or Third-World (is it still politically correct to use this term?) countries to 'rescue' their brothers and sisters from 'dictators' (or whatever you want to call them) or misery in other forms. But we all know that already. To be fair, the UK Lord Chancellor is the head of the judiciary, the executive as well as the Parliament (House of Lords). Link to post Share on other sites
damian 0 Posted October 30, 2003 Share Posted October 30, 2003 I borrowed this from another source: Quote: Here are some extracts from George Bush Senior's book A World Transformed, written five years ago. It was co-authored with his former national Security Adviser, Brent Scowcroft. Bush Senior wrote the following to explain why he didn't go after Saddam Hussein at the end of the Gulf War: "Trying to eliminate Saddam... would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible.... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq.... There was no viable 'exit strategy' we could see ... Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land." Link to post Share on other sites
Siren 0 Posted October 30, 2003 Share Posted October 30, 2003 Apparently some eminently sensible policies have fallen by the wayside one generation down. Link to post Share on other sites
Ocean11 0 Posted October 30, 2003 Share Posted October 30, 2003 Yes, but then that 'story' by George the elder contains some prominent lies too. There were plenty of statesmen around the world (indeed, within Bush's government) who believed that Saddam could be got out without further aggression from anybody. The first Gulf War did "incur incalculable human and political costs" anyway. Whatever United Nations mandates there were were exceeded by a long way. There were alternatives to rooting out Saddam that were squandered in favour of a Bush's war to cure the 'Vietnam Syndrome' so that Americans could go to war happily in future. Etc. etc. etc. Link to post Share on other sites
jared 0 Posted November 1, 2003 Share Posted November 1, 2003 http://onenews.nzoom.com/onenews_detail/0,1227,232371-1-9,00.html Link to post Share on other sites
Siren 0 Posted November 1, 2003 Share Posted November 1, 2003 http://www.bettybowers.com/isbushgay.html Link to post Share on other sites
Pedro 0 Posted November 1, 2003 Share Posted November 1, 2003 Both VERY interesting. Happy Halloween Ya'll Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts