The headline from the NY Times this morning:
Too bad Bush talked about this issue, and that was the exact opposite of what he said...the article goes on to claim:
When the President spoke on this issue, he didn't have that tone at all...which makes me wonder why the Times got this story wrong. You might remember their bleak holiday outlook the day after Thanksgiving, while every other major newspaper was reporting the exact opposite...now, we have this- add both of these to the scandals that have rocked that newspaper in the past year...I'm starting to see why so many people attack the Times.
Speaking of the issue- the Russians and the Canadians have said they won't write off Iraq'd debt, which is highly unfair to the people of Iraq, since the regime that mounted that debt is now gone. The international community is basically telling the Iraqi people that they don't care about their situation. These fools refused to help the U.S. and allies in taking out Hussein, now they're refusing to write off Iraq'd debt...stepping in the way of the United States at every turn.
There is no way these countries that stood in our way (they didn't just oppose the war, they blocked our actions in the UN, they refused to send military support, they refused to send money to Iraq, etc) should get any of the contracts paid for by the American taxpayers. That's only fair, and for the banned countries to get this attitude that we owe them something for nothing, is ridiculous. The countries that paid in blood should get the contracts in Iraq, not the countries that decided they would sit back and let the rest of the world take Hussein down, freeing 20+ million people.
Posted by Josh at December 11, 2003 10:44 AM | TrackBackCanada NEVER blocked the US at the UN (We're not on the Security Council, so how could we?)
Canadian Generals worked along side US Generals during the war (helping make key strategic decisions). Canadian Soldiers fought along side the US 101st...
Our Prime Minister even supported Bush to a certain degree.
Our warships escorted US ships in the Gulf during the war.
Canada selfslesly gave 300 Million in aid to the US to help the re-construction of Iraq.
Canada has been a STRONG ally during the war on terror.
Canada doesn't have a HEUGE army like the US, but we have the most troops in Afghanistan as part of ISAF. Out of 31 NATO Nations in the country, we have the largest amount of soldiers.
We have lost our men in the field.
Our PM did more fence sitting during the whole Iraq/UN fiasco, but he never made it hard on Bush. Only at the last minute did he choose not to join the war, and that was out of public opinion.
Last I heard, our PM works for the Canadian public, not the Bush administration, so you could see where his decision came from.
Then Bush goes and pulls this stunt? Especially after a month ago saying, and I quote: "It's time to put our differences aside and work together to re-build Iraq"
And it wasn't just the Times that said that either. CNN, BBC, FOX News (the first release of the story. Then it changed a few hours later), Global News.
I just didn't find it fair.
I understand it's 18 billion in US taxpayers money, but why leave it in the hands of countries like Rwanda when it could be given to more sophisticated, high tech firms from Canada that could do the Iraqi people better?
Isn't that what this is all about? Doing the right thing for the Iraqi people?
Painting opponents of the war as obstructionists is hardly fair. Countries like Germany urged a peaceful removal of Saddam so that they wouldn't have to send troops in, which, in addition to resulting in casualties, also tends to cost a lot of money. Gerhard Schroeder himself advocated substantial debt relief for Iraq after the Madrid donors' conference (which was hosted by the US) failed to address the issue. The notion that the US alone has Iraq's best interests in mind is ludicrous.
Furthermore, it's rediculous to say that countries that "stood in our way" (which somehow implies that we had some sovereign right to wage war) should not be able to engage in the bidding process. As a US taxpayer, you should demand that contracts be given to the most worthy bidder, even if they are from--ghasp!--France. Funny how the free market doesn't seem to apply when face is at stake.
Posted by: shawn at December 12, 2003 04:57 PMtheres a difference tho. france and germany stood in our way- being supposed alies, they blocked everything we tried to do in the UN, not in principle, but to do it because they could. france and germany both said they would veto anything we brought to the council- if that isnt standing in our way, i dont know what is.
the council promised serious consequences- which, in the eyes of most of the member states meant, go ahead and do what you want...well just keep inspecting forever. the US went thru with 1441- it promised serious consequences and only the US and britain (well, mainly those two nations) stood by the resolution and carried out the consequences. hussein had 12 yrs of the UN letting him get by with whatever he wanted...post 9/11- letting him continue to get by with whatever he wanted, no matter what that was, is not an option.
i surely dont think that france and germany- who promised to veto any resolution by the US, no matter what it called for, shouldnt take any of the US taxpayer money...and canada, tho obstructing to a lesser degree, announced they would refuse to turn over any of the hussein regime...even hussein himself- again, standing in our way, not because of principle, only because they could.
i, personally, dont want any of my tax money going to nations that said they would block our efforts in the UN no matter what we did...they had to protect their illegal contracts with Iraq, and now theyre paying for that decision, as they should.
Posted by: Josh Bozeman at December 12, 2003 06:16 PM"the US and britain (well, mainly those two nations) stood by the resolution and carried out the"
- Just to clarify, it was the British GOVERNMENT that supported the war. The majority of the British people were against the war at the beginning, as were the majority of the Italians. Makes you wonder how much Bush co cares about the democratic right of the people.
Posted by: lowdown at December 12, 2003 08:52 PMbush doesnt care about the "democratic right of the people," because the govt supported the war, and many in the public didnt? thats a rather odd assertion.
Posted by: Josh Bozeman at December 12, 2003 09:44 PM"and canada, tho obstructing to a lesser degree, announced they would refuse to turn over any of the hussein regime...even hussein himself- again, standing in our way, not because of principle, only because they could."
No Josh, you're wrong. Canada would not have handed over renegade Iraqi officials NOT BECAUSE THEY COULD, but because we were following the GEVEVA CONVENTION.
It states any combatants wanted for war crimes would be turned over to the Hague for proper trial.
The US wanted them for their own independent trial, and that is violation of international law.
So Canada didn't do it to piss off the US, Canada did it to follow international law (the very law the US claims to cherish by the way)
"bush doesnt care about the "democratic right of the people," because the govt supported the war, and many in the public didnt? thats a rather odd assertion."
-Yes, that assertion would most definitely be an odd one... had I actually stated it. What I said was that the "MAJORITY" of the people in the aforementioned countries disapproved of the war, so the fact that Bush expected the governing bodies of sovereign nations to ignore their own people and go along with his war mongering shows a clear contempt, or at least indifference, towards democracy. I hope I cleared things up.
Posted by: lowdown at December 13, 2003 03:11 PMso, now he's a war monger who doesnt care about the will of the people or democracy? funny...more blind hatred for the man. too bad it makes it so easy to ignore anything you say, since you wouldnt support what he did, no matter what it was. i mean, a war monger who clearly hates democracy- no way id support anything a fool like that would do.
nice...
Posted by: Josh Bozeman at December 13, 2003 04:04 PM"so, now he's a war monger who doesnt care about the will of the people or democracy? funny...more blind hatred for the man."
- I don't hate the man. And the accusations I've made concerning Bush have been anything but "blind". I've provided ample evidence, on numerous occasions, to support anything I've said about the US government. If you'd like to see more, all you have to do is ask.
- May I ask why you keep using the term "blind hatred" in your posts and blogs? Do you have any idea what the term means? Its implication is that anybody who criticizes the president is doing so without any kind of evidence, and has so little control over their emotions they don't realize it. That's quite a serious accusation, isn't it? And despite the numerous instances I've seen of this charge, I can't recall a single instance of you supporting this critical allegation with any kind of substantiated proof. Have I missed something? Josh, if you can't confirm such an assertion without some kind of evidence, you shouldn't make it. Otherwise, you're the one guilty of "blind hatred".
Posted by: lowdown at December 14, 2003 10:49 AMBush is a complete retart when it comes to this war. We are at war basically because of his own family afairs with osoma bin laden and the gulf war. He needs to stop livin the past and move on already with this and pull are troops out of there.
Posted by: blind hatred at May 12, 2004 12:51 PM