12 Points of American Liberal Hypocrisy

[emprworm]

Edric, you seriously don't think that the U.S. is financially benefitting from Iraq...

do you?

[Edric O]

The US as in the American people? As in taxpayers like yourself? As in the federal budget? No way. You're losing big time.

But the US as in the people at the top? The government and the corporations? They're making huge profits out of it.

[emprworm]

Haliburton...one US corporation making big money here.

US government?  LOL!  Hardly.  We ran up a HUGE deficit doing this.

so who else Edric?

Last I recall, Australia, Spain, Poland...all have contracts in Iraq.  Contracts that the UNITED STATES is paying for.

WE ARE PAYING POLISH COMPANIES to rebuild.  Same with other coalition countries.  They are getting FUNDS FROM US!

Heck Turkey got a ton of cash just to let us use their airspace.

We are paying anyone and everyone...except ourselves.

we aren't getting anything out of it, except the warmth of knowing 25 million oppressed people are free.

i'm sure that bothers you.

And France is COMPLAINING that they dont get a share of the pie.  Fat chance my tax dollar is going to pay a french company to help rebuild.

[Edric O]

Again, you don't seem to make the distinction between the American people (the ones paying the taxes and supporting all those costs) and the private special interest groups who are reaping the benefits. Bush is not America.

[emprworm]

whos reaping benefits again?

is this more socialist baseless finger pointing?

who is 'reaping' benefits???

do you think it good or bad that Iraq gets rebuilt at AMERICAS expense?

[SurlyPIG]

Either I have grossly misjudged you, emprworm, in past, or in your time away you lost all capacity for participating in a healthy, civilized, reasonable discussion.

Do you really believe that Edric hates Iraqis?  Do you really think it serves a purpose to say so?

[emprworm]

"Do you really believe that Edric hates Iraqis?

[SurlyPIG]

And where, exactly, did he say he wanted US troops to pack up completely and leave?  I don't even have to ask him to know that he'd be happier with an multilateral interim government to do the things like establish democracy and decide who is to be part of the rebuilding process than total abandonment of the country.

[Edric O]

Emprworm, have you visited your psychiatrist lately? Because you seem to be arguing against your imaginary friend, not me.

You take the art of putting words into people's mouths to a whole new level. "Edric says that, Edric believes that, Edric thinks that"... So tell me, are you familiar with the concept of the Straw Man fallacy?

I didn't even touch the subject of what should be done in this topic. I only stated a fact: That US corporations are profiting from the rebuilding of Iraq at your taxpayers' expense.

Pulling out of Iraq would be a ridiculously stupid idea - one that I never supported.

Ace is right: What I want is a multilateral interim government, independent from Washington, which would go about establishing democracy and enabling the Iraqi people to take their own decisions about the reconstruction of their country.

I also want to see a UN-endorsed peacekeeping force instead of coalition troops.

[Wolf]

Ecric, as a follow-up, do you think America can repair the diplomatic relations they once had with other nations if the above can be accomplished while the United States decides to calm down? However, do you feel that this would be giving in to the control of other nations, as quite a few Americans would see it?

[emprworm]

"Emprworm, have you visited your psychiatrist lately? Because you seem to be arguing against your imaginary friend, not me."

quit flaming and spamming Edric.  Move your own bigoted post if you start moving mine.  But if your doublestandard makes you feel good, go ahead. 

"That US corporations are profiting from the rebuilding of Iraq at your taxpayers' expense."

well duhh!!!  Its not like I am going to be the one rebuilding Iraq.  Obviously Edric you are old enough to understand that to build a highway system, you need workers and resources.  Then who should pay for it?  US Taxpayers are ok with paying for it.  We are also smart enough to understand (takes an IQ of 10 edric...minimum) that companies with resources are necessary to do this.  Who else will do it?  You?  If Americans are going to pay 70 billion to do this, its best if we use our own (and coalition) companies.  Like....duh!

[Edric O]

quit flaming and spamming Edric.

No comment. I think Emprworm's posts and his behaviour over the past few days speak for themselves.

You've got to love the irony...

Move your own bigoted post if you start moving mine.  But if your doublestandard makes you feel good, go ahead.

In case you haven't noticed, I gave you that reply after you spewed out garbage in industrial quantities and started putting words in my mouth like your whole life depended on the number of Strawmen you could fit in a post.

And I have a mind to delete ALL these idiotic flame topics, with my posts as well as yours, so don't tempt me.

well duhh!!!  Its not like I am going to be the one rebuilding Iraq.  Obviously Edric you are old enough to understand that to build a highway system, you need workers and resources.  Then who should pay for it?  US Taxpayers are ok with paying for it.  We are also smart enough to understand (takes an IQ of 10 edric...minimum) that companies with resources are necessary to do this.  Who else will do it?  You?  If Americans are going to pay 70 billion to do this, its best if we use our own (and coalition) companies.  Like....duh!

Sure, now that Iraq is in ruins and its infrastructure has been blown to hell by American missiles, you don't have much choice, do you? Someone has to rebuild it...

But if you'll remember, there were two points we were discussing:

1. The motivation behind the war. You said Bush is such a cute and cuddly teddybear with a big heart, that he decided to go and liberate Iraq at his own expense. So what if he told a big fat lie about WMD's? It was all in a good cause! ::)

I say this whole war was motivated by profit - just like the vast majority of wars. Let me explain it so that even your meager intellect can comprehend the situation:

Iraq gets blown up at taxpayers' expense. American corporations move in and start rebuilding at taxplayers' expense. Taxpayers get screwed. Corporations make big money. And they all live happily ever after.

2. What is going to happen to the Iraqi economy AFTER the reconstruction? Will it stay in corporate hands? That makes Iraq a de facto colony.

[emprworm]

Sure, now that Iraq is in ruins and its infrastructure has been blown to hell by American missiles, you don't have much choice, do you? Someone has to rebuild it...

.

I rest my case.  Now let us finish rebuilding it and butt out.

[Inoculator9]

It's not that American companies handled the reconstruction, it's that it could have been handled better by others. Especially considering our wonderful Vice President's former oil company not only stole money from Iraqis, they stole it from the American Government :P

[emprworm]

It's not that American companies handled the reconstruction, it's that it could have been handled better by others. Especially considering our wonderful Vice President's former oil company not only stole money from Iraqis, they stole it from the American Government :P

If you want a non-american company to handle it, then who should PAY that company for its services?

If a french company wanted to rebuild the Bagdhad hotel...who should pay them? 

I can darn well tell you that no american wants to pay a FRENCH company to rebuild Iraq...they have been opposed to us since day one.  So...since America is footing the bill...we are hiring AMERICAN companies...and COALITION companies to do it.

makes total sense. 

would be a terrible thing to just pack up and leave.  Iraqi's would fall into anarchy.

[Anathema]

would be a terrible thing to just pack up and leave.

[Inoculator9]

They certainly should. Not only would it be better for Iraq now, it would be better to get lots of economic bases from other countries in there now, for the sake of their future economy.

[emprworm]

Truer words never spoken, but don't you think it would be better if the US would actively involve more countries in building up Iraq economicly and otherwise?

as long as WE are not paying for it.

why would any company go into Iraq and rebuild, say, the Bagdhad hotel for free?  You have to PAY a company if it is  going to send workers and resources over there to rebuild.  Who pays for it?  IRAQI'S?  Goodness, I hope not.

America is paying 70 billion.  If another country wants to contribute without getting paid, by all means the US wouldnt oppose.  The US is not going to pay non coalition companies for services.  If France will cough up some money and come help out, the US would gladly allow them too.  Just not on our dime.

[Inoculator9]

The fact of the matter is, the Coalition is making it intentionally more difficult for other companies to come to the aid of Iraq.

[emprworm]

because those other companies want to be PAID by the US.

France would gladly send in some French companies if their services are paid for by Americans.  But if France has to fund those companies, suddenly there is strange silence.

The coalition is not forbidding other nations from being involved if they want to foot their own bills.  Bush has only said that we will not FUND non-coalition companies contracts

[Wolf]

Just a quick note, I am currently emanored with the notion that all wars are the result of economics and population pressures. Even the Crusades; since, at that time, the expanding Muslim empire was threatening Christendom's trade routes militarily and threatening their markets economically, while Christianity's population is booming and needs the resources currently in the Muslim dominion. I think that, in some way, every war is motivated by economic/population pressures. At the same time, I also feel that good can come of a war; such as liberation, or a revolutionary war to secure ones' rights and liberties. Even though many people argue that even the American revolution was sparked by rich men who wanted to be the richest men, I feel that, in many ways, there were individuals who fought truly for idealistic and altruistic ideals. It is for these people that we should seek to preserve the ideals they fought for; for, to paraphrase Patton, we mourn them at the same time thank God that they had lived. A just (or, if you believe no war is truly just, the most just) war is a war in which good principles are established for the long-term while economic and non-idealistic gains are short-term if even present.

[Edric O]

Once again, I find myself in almost complete agreement with Wolfwiz.

Although I believe that the personal interests of a country's ruling class can also play a significant role in starting a war. Many wars were started for the personal ambition of various leaders, or various governments.

As for the "corporations in Iraq" issue, Emprworm is still missing the points:

1. The motivation behind the war. You said Bush is such a cute and cuddly teddybear with a big heart, that he decided to go and liberate Iraq at his own expense. So what if he told a big fat lie about WMD's? It was all in a good cause! ::)

I say this whole war was motivated by profit - just like the vast majority of wars. Let me explain it so that even your meager intellect can comprehend the situation:

Iraq gets blown up at taxpayers' expense. American corporations move in and start rebuilding at taxplayers' expense. Taxpayers get screwed. Corporations make big money. And they all live happily ever after.

2. What is going to happen to the Iraqi economy AFTER the reconstruction? Will it stay in corporate hands? That makes Iraq a de facto colony.

[Wolf]

Well, I think that Iraq had corporate influence even before the war. I recall an article on CNN.online where it was mentioned that a destroyed Pepsi factory was being rebuilt by Coalition forces. In addition, I think that Saddam Hussein's "friendly" relations with the US back in the '80s garnered him a good deal of corporate notice. Iraq was one of the more technologically and industrially built-up Middle Eastern nations, as I recall. So, while the war may increase corporate influence in Iraq, its not like Iraq was some virgin corporate-free paradise beforehand. In the end, I think the US government will pull out of Iraq once the government has been established, and wash their hands of the situation, as politicians are wont to do. However, I think that the corporations will stay, because they have already stayed for more than 20 years. In the end, Iraqis will be working in Iraq with a free Iraqi government, but for American-owned corporations. In addition to some French ones (well, French ones which were there prewar, no new French ones are going to be built, I can tell you that much), and some British ones, and some Polish ones, etc., etc.

[HasimirFenring]

Excuse me?  The Democrats are being hypocritical???  If I remember correctly, the republicans were bashing clinton for taking down another dictator to help that country's people (I believe it was called nation building in Kosovo).  Amazing how conservatives (and yes, many liberals too) ignore the lessons of history...

[Edric O]

There's not all that much difference between liberals and conservatives in America...

But speaking of Emprworm's original post, I just found a glaring, ridiculously stupid error:

If liberals were in charge during WWII, they would have let Hitler finish the holocaust.  Liberals in 1942:  "GIVE PEACE A CHANCE!  STOP THE WAR AGAInST HITLER!  LEAVE HIM ALONE!  LETS TRY TO UNDERSTAND HIM, YOU WARMONGERS!"  I have seen no evidence that they care about human lives.

Reality check: Liberals WERE in charge during WW2! Remember Roosevelt and his administration? Remember how they were liberals from the Democratic Party?