Perhaps you are putting the cart before the horse. Consider the possibility that people may dislike Bush *because* he corrupted the Supremem Court, deceived the American people time after time, and embroiled the US in a senseless and dangerous military adventure to no good purpose. I mean, that is enough for me.
I don't say these things because I dislike the man. He seems quite sincere in his beliefs, and if he were a member of my chuch I might invite him to dinner. That doesn't make his beliefs less dangerous. Nor does it mean that he is not being used, or possibly allowing himself to be used.
Personally, I rather dislike the Clintons. I still have a reluctant admiration for them. Both of them are great populists.
>Clearly, if you hold this perspective, then you ought to fight to ensure that
>NO US businesses are allowed to bid or be paid for any activity there.
>
>However, the tough love thing is a bit much. Is it possible that you hate the
>current administration with a passion and want it to be hurt, embarrassed at
>any cost? If so, this could be clouding your reasoning.
>
>Given the current reality, it makes no sense to allow any country that did not
>support the current efforts to bid or profit. In fact, there is a solid
>argument that if France and Germany had supported the US that the war may
>never have been needed. Sadaam, seeing the writing on the wall, would have
>capitulated. However, this is seer speculation that is not were we are now.
>Just like this continuing anger over Bush(can we hear about the stolen
>election again?).
>
>So, lets think about what needs to happen given where we are today, shall we.
>First, we need to world to start participating. While Bush is not doing
>everything I would like him to do, both France and Germany are still pouting
>about being made irrelevant. There refusal to contribute anything to the
>rebuilding effort underscores this. Perhaps this total exclusion, which is a
>response to their previous actions may slap them into the here and now. They
>will have to deal with Bush, must likely for more than 4 years.
>
>Andy
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kevin Graeme [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 9:59 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Bush gives the finger to the world again
>
>
> Personally, I want America to feel this economically. I want the us to have
> to pay the price for lying and attacking with no provocation.
>
> I say that as a staunch supporter of America. It's tough love. If we do
> something wrong, we shouldn't reap the benefits. It's that simple. I don't
> want the US to be the Mafia of the world.
>
> -Kevin
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Stanley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 9:52 AM
> Subject: RE: Bush gives the finger to the world again
>
> > the us and the other sixty-odd countries who helped us get to bid. now I'm
> > not arguing the fact that the us companies may get the bulk of the
> > contracts, but I as a taxpayer would rather my money go to US companies
> than
> > another countries.
> >
> > i am also not arguing that there wont be corruption in the contract
> process,
> > ahem Halibuton, but it is still better than the French getting my money.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kevin Graeme [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 10:46 AM
> > To: CF-Community
> > Subject: Re: Bush gives the finger to the world again
> >
> >
> > Why should US companies benefit from a war manufactured by our own
> country?
> > When organized crime does that it's called a "protection racket".
> >
> > -Kevin
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "John Stanley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 9:32 AM
> > Subject: RE: Bush gives the finger to the world again
> >
> > > The countries in question can still do business with Iraq, they just
> cant
> > > bid on the contracts that the US taxpayers are paying for. They can be
> > hired
> > > as subcontractors for the contracts as well. I dont see why this is such
> a
> > > huge deal? Why should the US taxpayers pay french companies to rebuild
> > Iraq
> > > when they werent willing to support the US efforts in the first place?
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Kevin Graeme [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 10:28 AM
> > > To: CF-Community
> > > Subject: Bush gives the finger to the world again
> > >
> > >
> > > Former top U.S. officials are blasting the Bush administration for
> > reopening
> > > a rift with Europe by excluding critics of the war from prime contracts
> > for
> > > Iraq's reconstruction.
> > >
> > > http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,105433,00.html
> > <http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,105433,00.html>
> > > <http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,105433,00.html>
> > >
> > > "I thought we were in the process of acquiring support rather than
> > > alienating it," former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright (search)
> > said.
> > >
> > > So let me get this straight.
> > >
> > > 1. Economy is bad.
> > > 2. Find a patsy country and accuse them of something unfounded.
> > > 3. Get called on it by other countries.
> > > 4. Attack anyway
> > > 5. Deny reconstruction contracts to countries that wouldn't help in an
> > > illegal war.
> > >
> > > And people are complaining? I don't get it. It looks like a perfect plan
> > to
> > > boost the economy by giving local companies big contracts.
> > >
> > > -Kevin
> > > _____
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > _____
> >
> >
> >
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
