Thanks for nothing, Mr. Bush!

[CrushingBore]

So, in spite of our government's unstinting support for the US-led war, Australian companies are excluded from bidding for the first Iraqi reconstruction tenders! So it's beggar thy friend, beggar thy enemy.
And the US wonders why so many around the world perceive it as arrogant and self-interested.
Not wanting the UN to have any role in the post-war phase only serves to underline the point.

 

[saving the world from retards]

isn't it ironic how those who bash france for seeking to help rebuild iraq are the same people who deny that the united states has any economic motivations for this war? talk about not seeing the forest for the trees!

 

[Jack the Racer]

> So, in spite of our government's unstinting support for the US-led war,
> Australian companies are excluded from bidding for the first Iraqi
> reconstruction tenders! So it's beggar thy friend, beggar thy enemy.
> And the US wonders why so many around the world perceive it as arrogant
> and self-interested.
> Not wanting the UN to have any role in the post-war phase only serves to
> underline the point.

The reasons? The facts? They are excluded now, excluded in what areas?

State the facts before spewing your sh*t.

 

[CrushingBore]

> State the facts before spewing your sh*t.

Ummmmm, well .... how about the fact that all contracts so far tendered for Iraqi rebuilding programmes were put to tender on the basis that only US companies were eligible to apply.

So, it's not shit, it's the bare-arsed truth, but I suppose they didn't tell you that on Fox News? Check the facts before you act like a beligerent idiot. I hope you are suitably embarassed.

 

[Mindy's ghost]

are you kidding, bore? these people have no shame. i think they're proud of never having put any critical thought into anything in their lives. why else would they go along with everything bush and blair say, even when they're caught telling outright lies? (remember, the best comment oaf could muster about the forged intelligence dossier was that it was "troubling." just a tiny understatement, right?)

 

[LoafingOaf - AIPAC conspirator]

> are you kidding, bore? these people have no shame. i think they're proud
> of never having put any critical thought into anything in their lives.

Well, we're supposed to listen to you, who asserted in another thread that unless inelligence information can hold up to the beyond-reasonable-doubt standard of proof in a court of law, we can't believe it's true or act on it(re: Saddam's links to Al Qaeda). Which, in other words, means that we must throw out 99% of all credible intelligence information collected!

 

[Mindy's ghost]

> Well, we're supposed to listen to you, who asserted in another thread that
> unless inelligence information can hold up to the beyond-reasonable-doubt
> standard of proof in a court of law, we can't believe it's true or act on
> it(re: Saddam's links to Al Qaeda). Which, in other words, means that we
> must throw out 99% of all credible intelligence information collected!

well there you go again, twisting my words. good job, oaf! i didn't say that it meant it was false if it wouldn't stand up in a court of law. i said that was hardly an endorsement for its veracity. i don't think it was an unreasonable statement to make, especially considering the number of fake documents and evidence that the bush and blair administrations have already foisted onto the public (or the security council or congress). i think it shows a great deal of critical thinking on my part that i don't assume that, since the government says it, it must be true. i don't assume it's false either, but i do take it with a grain of salt and do my own supplementary reading on the subject so that i can form an opinion on it.