Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Policy Discussion Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (6218)	12/11/2003 11:07:13 PM
From: kumar	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15987

US Taxpayers are undertakin an 18B cost to help Iraq. I think it is fair for US taxpayers to dictate how their money is spent.

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (6218)	12/12/2003 8:17:29 AM
From: ChinuSFO	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15987

Hawk, Bush has lost control of his Administration. The WH has been taken over by Cheney and right wing extremists and he is constantly being sabotaged. CIA leaks is one example. I am sure if Bush had his way, he would not have allowed someone to go and leak it. He did not have his way. It was the extremists (Cheney and Co.) who did so deliberately to challenge Bush. Then when you had Bush depute Uncle Baker to Europe to talk to countries about Iraq's debt, those same extremists pulled the rug from under Baker's efforts by announcing the contract deals. It was Wolfowitz who came and announced before Bush clearly indicating that the extremists pre-empted Bush's efforts. And today we have the newswires reporting about Halliburton overcharging the Defence department. Why Halliburton and Defence department is being mentioned. Crossfire is it not? So what do you want to wager on as the circus unfolds in the White House. I think the extremists want to negotiate with Bush to toe their line in the face of his upcoming elections. The White House is in a mess. I dare Bush to let Colin Powell go. I dare him let Paul Bremmer go. My friend there is much to it than what meets the eye. There is a split on Bush's Iraq policy within the White House. You have one camp, the extremist camp of Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz who want to hold onto Iraq, get their buddy's pockets fat with those contracts, thumb their noses at the Allies and the world. Then you have those like Powell/Rice/Bremmer/Jim Baker who are advocating that Iraq be returned to the Iraqis soon and US get out of their to start mending relations with the world. And by the way, I will throw a party in Nov. 2004 when Bush gets voted out since the Americans will be tired of 4 years of WH politiking. And off you are invited if you want to come. And I will invite Powell, Rice, Bremmer, the French President Chirac, German Chancellor, Russian prime minister etc.

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (6218)	12/13/2003 7:29:17 PM
From: ChinuSFO	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15987

An ugly division of spoils of war Australia should take no satisfaction from its inclusion in the US Defence Department's list of nations considered fit to bid for $24 billion worth of prime contracts to rebuild Iraq. The Prime Minister, John Howard, says: "You're dealing with American dollars and I can understand exactly what the Americans are getting at." Yet the point, surely, is that the rebuilding of Iraq is not a prize of war to be shared by the United States among its closest allies or withheld to settle old scores. It is an international responsibility to assist the people of Iraq - the ones who have suffered most - and to restore their land to them free and whole. One part of the US Administration seemed to understand the need for broad international co-operation in the reconstruction task. James Baker, who served as secretary of state under George Bush snr, was appointed to begin a mission next week to persuade Iraq's biggest creditors - which include Russia and France - to forgive or alleviate as much as possible of Iraq's enormous foreign debt. The debt is about $US128 billion ($173 billion), or roughly 10 times Iraq's economic output this year. Yet the December 5 directive of the US Deputy Defence Secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, will hardly encourage Iraq's creditors to co-operate. By disqualifying countries which opposed the US invasion from tendering for prime reconstruction contracts in Iraq, it smacks of vindictiveness. By saying that the exclusion of such countries "is necessary for the protection of the essential security interests" of the US, it implies such countries pose some threat to the US. Mr Wolfowitz's directive implies that the exclusion of some countries as tenderers for the reconstruction contracts is meant as a financial incentive for them to send troops to Iraq. It may also be a warning to others, like Australia, with troops there, to think twice before withdrawing them. This has been a clumsy, counter-productive exercise. It retards the nation-building effort needed in Iraq. It is a reminder of the risks the US took by going to war without the fullest international support, and confirms how imperfectly it understands the need to mend fences now. smh.com.au