[WT]

Wed, Apr. 27, 2005

By JONATHAN S. LANDAY
Knight Ridder Newspapers


WASHINGTON — The U.S. Army has approved the purchase of more than $29 million worth of weapons for the new Iraqi army from a Chinese state-owned company.

Army Lt. Col. Joe Yoswa, a Pentagon spokesman, said the Warren, Mich.-based U.S. Army Tank-automotive and Armaments Command, approved the contract with Poly Technologies to help equip the new Iraqi army after a check into the company’s background.

Poly Technologies of Beijing is to deliver 2,369 light and heavy machine guns, 14,653 AK-47 assault rifles and 72 million rounds of ammunition worth $29.3 million by Saturday, according to a Pentagon statement.

_________

First it was berets, now its rifles. Maybe we should outsource our fighting to the PLA.

[mnrivrat]

I suppose we ran over all the AK's they had with a tank to destroy them, so that someone can get rich off the US tax payers's again . :banghead:

[Glock Glockler]

If we are going to go through the nonsense of destroying rifles so we can then buy others and give them to the Iraqis why don't we buy them from Poland instead of China? They have cheap labor and they were also an ally with us in Iraq, I don't seem to recall China sending troops.

[308win]

If we are going to go through the nonsense of destroying rifles so we can then buy others and give them to the Iraqis why don't we buy them from Poland instead of China? They have cheap labor and they were also an ally with us in Iraq, I don't seem to recall China sending troops.

This is how the shrub takes care of all his friends eventually.

[DontBurnMyFlag]

17000 rifles out of chinas hands :D

ok so it really doesnt seem right. why not buy them off of russia to keep them happy and from selling any more weapons to our enemies

[Firethorn]

I thought we weren't so much destroying rifles as destroying the heavier stuff like RPG's.

It could also be that the captured weapons were already damaged, excessivly worn, or in danger of sabotage.

Though I agree, it would of been better to buy them from an ally. But then people would be screaming about the waste of money. :scrutiny:

[dasmi]

ok so it really doesnt seem right


No, it really isn't right.
Out of one side of his face Bush tells us we need America to be competitive in the world market, and we need to close the trade deficit, and then...we buy rifles from China.

[boofus]

They should buy Israeli made weapons to really get Bin Ladin's panties in a bunch.

[taliv]

boofus++

iraqis running around with Uzis would be hilarious

[Pointman]

I thought the Iraqi army AK's were coming from Poland? I seem to remember because Russia was ticked off about Poland not have legal rights to build their patented AK design :rolleyes:

[nonquixote]

Another thing that ticks me off about this is that it seems to be ok for us as taxpayers to buy 29 million dollars worth of weapons from China for the Iraqi military, but I can't go buy a Norinco because we're "boycotting" chinese weapons?

Nonq

[dasmi]

Another thing that ticks me off about this is that it seems to be ok for us as taxpayers to buy 29 million dollars worth of weapons from China for the Iraqi military, but I can't go buy a Norinco because we're "boycotting" chinese weapons?


A damned fine point my friend.

[Sir Aardvark]

Another feather in the cap of government stupidity.

Of course, you all realize that someone brokered a deal somewhere along the line here.......maybe a kickback, or the person who approved this has a wife that will be hired on as a "consultant" for big bucks at some Chinese owned firm. Everything happens for a reason...........

[jdberger]

Russia was ticked off about Poland not have legal rights to build their patented AK design I would think that the patent for the AK has expired. 7 years, if I am correct, some drug manufacturers get extensions.

[Glock Glockler]

jdberger,

What kind of gun do you think the Chinese will be making for the Iraqis?

[jdberger]

my point exactly.

[Hawkmoon]

I suppose we ran over all the AK's they had with a tank to destroy them, so that someone can get rich off the US tax payers's again .
You beat me to it.

We just spent a year-plus destroying as many AK-47s as we could find. Now we're going to buy replacements from the country we're most likely to be going to war against? Doesn't make sense. If the Iraqi's want AK-47s, why not have an American company tool up to make them?

Or just send a couple of squads around the barrios of Bahgdad and buy 'em on the sidewalk. They'd be a heckuva lot cheaper that way.

[bamawrx]

"by Saturday"

Maybe this had something to do with it.

[Pointman]

I would think that the patent for the AK has expired. 7 years, if I am correct, some drug manufacturers get extensions.

In the United States and maybe in Europe. Russia does as they please.

http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/wto/2305.html

Russian arms officials say that no other nation has a valid license to make the AK-47 and its many derivatives and clones, and that to defeat insurgents and terrorists, Washington has been encouraging violations of intellectual property rights. Russia is suffering losses in income, jobs and damage to the Kalashnikov name, the officials say, and would like the United States to shop for the weapons directly from here.

[jdberger]

"Oh, bother" said Pooh, as the tripwire clicked... exactly... :neener: :neener:

Russia, getting the hang of capitalism after putting all the capitalists in jail... :scrutiny:

[Rebar]

I think Russia made enough money off the oil-for-food fiasco, they can suck up the loss.

[Glock Glockler]

Me thinks Russia would rather us give the business to Poland than to China, as Poland is far less likely a potential military threat.

[Byron Quick]

I thought the Iraqi army AK's were coming from Poland? I seem to remember because Russia was ticked off about Poland not have legal rights to build their patented AK design

Patents are for 17 years in the US. I don't know what Russia is claiming for its patent time. But whatever it claims only applies to its territory. Internationally patents' duration is set by the pertinent treaties. I believe that any pertinent patents would have expired on the AK a couple of decades ago.

However, I sure hope that Poly Technology makes a better product than Norinco. My Norinco MAK-90 self destructed after less than half a case of ammo fired.

[Joejojoba111]

Pointman I think I remember what you're talking about, but I thought they were from Bulgaria? or somewhere. Green plastic stock, right? Yea there were pictures of the troops trying them out, and all that.

I think they should have hooked Iraq up with Rob Arms.

The deal about not being allowed Norinco is just BS too.

[jdberger]

how about a nice big fat contract for Barrett? The guy sure deserves it, in my book!! :D

[SUE ROVR]

What about the math of this:

17,000 rifles and 72m rounds for 29,000,000

Ammo should be what? 10cents a round -- thats 7.2m
AK costs what $200 that 3m
Even if the MGs were $2000 a piece it is only $5m

Where is the other half of the money going?

This is chinese crap, not high end stuff.

[dasmi]

Hmm. Sounds like either the source has the numbers screwed up, or China is screwing us. It IS a US gov't contract, so there's bound to be some serious price gouging.
I tend to think that quite a few people are having their pockets lined on this deal.

[c_yeager]

Thats amusing. Bush specifically prohibits Chinese weapons from being imported into this country and then makes up for it by supplying the new Iraqi military with Chinese rifles. Thats lovely. I guess the problem here isnt that the Chinese were making money off the rifles, just that they were ending up in the hands of American Civilians.

I think we should send them the same neutered Mak-90s and Polys that we are stuck with, complete with thumbhole stock. After all, if they are good enough for our own people they damn well should be good enough for the Iraqis.

[saltydog]

Another feather in the cap of government stupidity.

Tank running over AK47's in Iraq was a Dog and Pony show for the News Media and the home front sheeple. As far as purchasing new Ak's from China, well, as long as the Govt has an unlimited tax base, it could really care less what people think. :eek:

[Ohen Cepel]

It doesn't make sense. Better than the lost lot we bought from Syria (or Jordan, not sure now) though!

Would have been much better to buy from the Poles or someone in Europe that has shown us some honest support.

By the way. It was clinton who stopped the importation of stuff from China (and Korea), not Bush.

[gunsmith]

those are going for over 1000$ bucks now because we cant import any more

[Khaotic]

Whoa, hold up a minnit..

The iraqi army gets AK's a proven, reliable weapon that's cheap, easy to use, near indestructible and effective as hell.

And we get the M16/M4 ? :scrutiny:

That's just WRONG.

Well, at least they'll still be able to shoot the enemy while our guys are cussing and pounding on their jammed weapons... that's something, I suppose.

-K

[buzz_knox]

Bush specifically prohibits Chinese weapons from being imported into this country and then makes up for it by supplying the new Iraqi military with Chinese rifles.

I thought that was Clinton, with the prohibition against importing Norinco and other arms made by companies wholly owned by the PLA.

[Kharn]

We just spent a year-plus destroying as many AK-47s as we could find. Now we're going to buy replacements from the country we're most likely to be going to war against? Doesn't make sense.
Iraqi armorers sabotaged lots of weapons, no US soldier is allowed to fire a captured weapon until its gone over by an armorer. They've even found RPKs with holes drilled in the underside of the barrel 2" forward of the chamber, concealed by the handguards. If some fun-loving soldier decided to run a mag through one of those, he'd be without a hand or worse.

Its easier to just destroy everything found and issue all new stuff than hand-inspecting every weapon. Also, then you get definitive serial number ranges, so you can easily tell if insurgents were using arms from the Iraqi army.

Kharn

[dasmi]

Its easier to just destroy everything found and issue all new stuff than hand-inspecting every weapon.
Fair enough.
But how about giving the contract to an American company, or at the very least an ally?

[jefnvk]

Another thing that ticks me off about this is that it seems to be ok for us as taxpayers to buy 29 million dollars worth of weapons from China for the Iraqi military, but I can't go buy a Norinco because we're "boycotting" chinese weapons?

That is my problem with this.

This doesn't seem to be a very big contract at all. Probably would have been better off going to Poland (probably even better off going to Colt or FN-USA), but I am more ticked off about us not being able to buy from the Chinese, but the gov't can.

As for patent violations, I am not aware of any patents that run for nearly 60 years.

The iraqi army gets AK's a proven, reliable weapon that's cheap, easy to use, near indestructible and effective as hell.

And we get the M16/M4 ?

That's just WRONG.

Well, at least they'll still be able to shoot the enemy while our guys are cussing and pounding on their jammed weapons... that's something, I suppose.


People are still whining about this? Clean the dang thing, and you won't have problems. Is time that valabule over there where you don't have five minuets to clean the gun? Having shot both, I'd take an M16 over an AK any day.

[1911JMB]

"What about the math of this:

17,000 rifles and 72m rounds for 29,000,000

Ammo should be what? 10cents a round -- thats 7.2m
AK costs what $200 that 3m
Even if the MGs were $2000 a piece it is only $5m

Where is the other half of the money going?

This is chinese crap, not high end stuff"


We are being told to believe impossible numbers, much like in the book 1984. Another good example of imposible numbers is how there are supposed to be 10,000 Iraqi insurgents, and 23,000,000 peaceful Iraqi's. I don't believe those numbers for a second because the insurgents would be outnumbered 2,300 to 1. A glance at a national sunday paper will often yield numbers like this.

[Kharn]

"What about the math of this:

17,000 rifles and 72m rounds for 29,000,000

Ammo should be what? 10cents a round -- thats 7.2m
AK costs what $200 that 3m
Even if the MGs were $2000 a piece it is only $5m

Where is the other half of the money going?
Spare parts, magazines, etc. The military never just buys equipment, they also buy all the stuff to keep it running for 10+ years.

Kharn

[Joejojoba111]

"As for patent violations, I am not aware of any patents that run for nearly 60 years."

Mickey mouse? CIA invisible ink? Many spy tools are allowed renewals, they just have to show they're still useable.

About the numbers, sometimes, they include all the costs in that, cost of training and maintenance tools and everything. Usually with vehicles, though. More likely that a bunch of people are making $100,000 each, in plain sight.

As far as stealing goes, no finesse at all, rather hard to respect that. The technique is done so often you think they could give it a little effort at ambiguity or concealment. I don't like it, the government is getting sloppy about lieing to us, does it have something to do with less than 1/10 19-34 year olds reading a newspaper even once a week?

[jefnvk]

Wouldn't Mickey Mouse be a TradeMark or Copyright? Different than a patent?

Didn't know about the spy tools, though.

[jdberger]

7,000 rifles and 72m rounds for 29,000,000

Ammo should be what? 10cents a round -- thats 7.2m
AK costs what $200 that 3m
Even if the MGs were $2000 a piece it is only $5m

Where is the other half of the money going?

Postage and Handling!! Just like Columbia House! :neener:

[BlackCat]

First off, why are we buying them? Doesn't Iraq have any money laying around to arm its troops? I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm not at all comfortable with $29 million of our tax money going to one of our enemies. Yeah China is an enemy in my book.

[Hkmp5sd]

but I can't go buy a Norinco because we're "boycotting" chinese weapons?
Thats amusing. Bush specifically prohibits Chinese weapons from being imported into this country and then makes up for it by supplying the new Iraqi military with Chinese rifles. Thats lovely.
Actually, Bush had nothing to do with it. It was Clinton that used "Most Favored Trade Status" as a carrot to get China to stop sending Norinco Aks, SKSs and bulk 7.62x39 ammo to the US. Clinton gives them Top Secret nuclear data, missile data and a few shipments of illegal computers and they cut off arming the gun fanatics.

[Byron Quick]

This doesn't seem to be a very big contract at all. Probably would have been better off going to Poland (probably even better off going to Colt or FN-USA), but I am more ticked off about us not being able to buy from the Chinese, but the gov't can.

I've owned two Chinese weapons. It doesn't bother me a bit that I can no longer buy Chinese

It bothers me that we are arming an Army with inferior weapons and then expecting them to do an effective job.

I've owned Bushmaster AR-15's. I've owned Norinco AK-47 clones. I've shot the East European stuff. Qualified expert with the M-16 in the Army. If you give me Norincos, I'll sell them and buy Bushmaster, thank you very much.

Norinco made the only rifle that I've ever owned that died after firing less than half a case of ammo. I had better service from a Universal M1 carbine and those aren't much.

[NHBB]

I agree the mentality behind it all is somewhat absurd, but establishing good commerce relations with china comes down to the mighty dollar... doesnt seem to make much sense military-wise, but capitalism is king.

in the big picture this is a minor expense really, would we rather equip them with M4's that have shown a mediocre report card in sandy desert environments, and pay twice as much for a rifle?

I agree, give barrett a contract, I always get a kick out of the media reports of ripping insurgents in half with a single round... what better thinly veiled advertisement could you get than that? plus made in america.. the more we produce ourselves the less we leave for the rest of the world, which is how it should be IMO.

[Harry Tuttle]

in 2003, we were planning on buying 20 million dollars of AKs from Poland:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=43172

[Selfdfenz]

This isn't the same China that opposed us going into Iraq and the same Poland that actually sent some troops to support us over there is it?

No.......can't be.....I bet you guys are talking about totally different Chinas and Polands because we would never treat an ally like crap and reward our non-allies will millions in payoffs.

No way, no how. I almost pretty sure of it.

S-

[Talon]

Here's the email I just sent my Senators.

I am a resident of South Carolina, and I would like to
extend my thanks for the fine job you do in our great
nation's capitol.

I would also like to ask you about why, if you know, the
government has now decided that China is the best place to
spend 29 million tax-payer dollars on 17000 Chinese-made
rifles for the Iraqis. There are several reasons why this
does not make sense to me. Among the many is the fact
that there is a supposed boycot being imposed on China's
gun trade, which currently prohibits an American Citizen
from purchasing Chinese made weapon, and yet the U.S.
Government can apparently disregard this boycot at will,
with a very large purchase.

Also, there are allied countries who supported our country
and our decision to go to war who are far more deserving
of such a purchase agreement. For that matter, why not
allow an American company to get the contract?

Please shed some light on what deal was cut with whom on
this particular issue. Thank you, and God Bless.

[dasmi]

Great letter. If you get any sort of meaningful response, I'll eat my keyboard.

[Malone LaVeigh]

Of course, you all realize that someone brokered a deal somewhere along the line here.......maybe a kickback, or the person who approved this has a wife that will be hired on as a "consultant" for big bucks at some Chinese owned firm. Probably collected campaign contributions at a buddhist temple...

[c_yeager]

For everyone that has decided to absolve Bush concerning the import bans on Norinco:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/27/133053.shtml
http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/030530.htm
http://nationaldefense.ndia.org/issues/2005/may/vying_for.htm
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030523-123039-1385r.htm

In 2003 Bush banned all imports from Norinco BY NAME for two years apparently as a result of that company violating trade sanctions against Iran. That import ban should actually be lifting here pretty soon. The point is that YES Bush specifically banned a particular company from selling arms to civilians in this country, and then turned around and awarded the Iraqi arms contract to them.*

Knowing who banned what is kinda important if you want to defend the RKBA.

(*I realize that Norinco and Polytech are technically different companies, but they are both state-owned, so the check ends up in the same place)

[cbsbyte]

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/nation/11504378.htm

[308win]

Rummy must have gotten a deal on the shipping because the Chinese can put the AK's on the same boat they are using to ship the nuclear capable missiles to Iran.

[Talon]

Rummy must have gotten a deal on the shipping because the Chinese can put the AK's on the same boat they are using to ship the nucular capable missiles to Iran.

ROFL!! That was good.

[1911JMB]

Whether you are a Democrat, Republican, or Libertarian like me, the fact of the matter is that 1,573 american GI's have died in a war that has cost our economy well over 100 billion dollars (I don't know the exact figure these days) and has done nothing to make us safer. Librarys in my area are closing forever. The Detroit police department is laying off 600 officers. And meanwhile, the Bush administration and its friends are becoming even more absurdly wealthy. Compared to the billions of dollars that I consider to have been stolen from us taxpayers, this 29 million seems rather insignificant.

[buzz_knox]

Librarys in my area are closing forever. The Detroit police department is laying off 600 officers.

Why would a libertarian cite to these matters when discussing federal matters? Libraries and municipal police departments are strictly local issues, unless you believe that the federal gov't should fund them, which negates the argument you're a libertarian.

As for making the Bushes and their friends "even more absurdly wealthy" please cite examples of how that is being done. Oh, and be sure to exclude Halliburton, which was given sole source contracts for the same reason it was given roughly identical contracts for Bosnia and Kosovo: it's the only company in the world capable of doing what was asked of it.

[HankB]

What bugs me about this is that we're providing machine guns to people who were shooting at US troops just a couple of years ago . . . and I, as a US taxpaying citizen who's never shot at US troops, am PAYING for these weapons to arm our former (and future!) enemies, and yet I'm still not allowed to buy one for myself. :barf: :fire: :cuss:

[1911JMB]

buzz_knox
As a Libertarian, I would indeed like to see massive changes to the way the government is run. The fact is, the feds have your money and mine, and they are, in my opinion squandering it. At this point in time, police departments libraries and schools heavily depend upon federal funding. There is not a lot that the 400,000 Libertarians in the US can do to change that real soon. And as for the idea that I should explain my comments about Bush and friends making money off this war, thats easy, but I can't exclude Haliburton. After all, I believe this whole war is about securing the middle east for big oil companies. I don't believe that the the US would have gone to war had it not been for Haliburton and other oil hogs. As you said, Haliburton is the only company that can handle this task, but the Bush administration is unquestionably tied to Haliburton (Cheney). Whether or not you agree with me about the President lieing about cban (new term for wmd) to start the war and make money for his friends and himself, the fact is our troops are still there, and no cban has been found. And recently Bush has proposed permanent military bases in Iraq. I see no real point to staying in Iraq, because as far as I know from several Iraqi friends, most of Iraq wants the US out, and I would think that the end of this war will be much like the end of Vietnam anyway. I believe that Bush is trying to clear the way for his Saudi Arabian and American friends to use Iraq as a base with which to control the Middle Eastern oil supply. Can I prove this right now? No. But time will tell.

[308win]

it's the only company in the world capable of doing what was asked of it.

At the rates Haliburton is paid the Chimp with the Glock in another thread could do just as capable a job. The fact remains that Cheney and his cabal are making millions (make that billions) off of the blood of the lower and middle class. You don't see any of his sons, daughters, nephews, or his cronies' offspring coming home in aluminum boxes.

[Kharn]

Of course, you all realize that someone brokered a deal somewhere along the line here.......maybe a kickback, or the person who approved this has a wife that will be hired on as a "consultant" for big bucks at some Chinese owned firm. You have the sexes backward. Senator Feinstein's husband had business ties to Norinco for a while. Wouldnt be suprising if he knew people at Polytech too.

Kharn

[Kharn]

308Win:
At the rates Haliburton is paid the Chimp with the Glock in another thread could do just as capable a job. The fact remains that Cheney and his cabal are making millions (make that billions) off of the blood of the lower and middle class. You don't see any of his sons, daughters, nephews, or his cronies' offspring coming home in aluminum boxes.
I think you managed to include every DU talking point in a single post. :scrutiny:

Kharn

[Pointman]

sniff-sniff-sniff... I smell troll :rolleyes:

[45auto]

I think there will be a medium "stink" about this and not for just being stupid about buying Chinese arms...and they are stupid!

Poly Technologies(subsiduaries) has somewhat of a "jaded" past with smuggling ak-47's into the US.

Apparently a Jordanian company was contracted by the US to bid out the weapons and the low bid won.

[Rebar]

The fact remains that Cheney and his cabal are making millions (make that billions) off of the blood of the lower and middle class.
Post proof that Bush or Cheney made even one single dollar off the war. Real proof, not some magical knowledge gleened from DU.

[R.H. Lee]

How is it any different that you all shopping at Walmart? :confused:

[Cosmoline]

The chicoms are pure evil, and whether you buy their stuff at the gun store or the military buys their stuff for the Iraqis, it's the same. Evil gets a boost.

[308win]

I think you managed to include every DU talking point in a single post.

What, Ducks Unlimited says the same things?

[Joejojoba111]

"costing...economy well over 100 billion dollars (I don't know the exact figure these days)"

Last I heard it broke 6 or 8 hundred billion, and people using equipment (especially vehicles) say that it will take doubled spending for at least a decade before the tanks and APCs and trucks are back to normal, it's that bad. In other words the army is in tough times for next 15 years at least, hoping the costs don't go up, and budget doesn't go down.

Cosmoline, the trend is that the Chicoms are looking less communist and more fascist, which is to be expected. They never had any real attachment to particular economic system, just power. And as long as China achieves a 'place in the sun' enough of the populace will support whatever. I don't think they're evil, but they sure as hell shouldn't be supported or encouraged, nor isolated and ignored. And I sure as double hell don't think that corporations without any national allegiance should be given such free reign to meddle with the world's power structure. But what the hell does it matter what I think.

"Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

One entry found for fascism.

Main Entry: fas·cism
Pronunciation: 'fa-"shi-z&m also 'fa-"si-
Function: noun
Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control <early instances of army fascism and brutality -- J. W. Aldridge> "

[1911JMB]

Rebar,
It does seem to be quite difficult to nail down evidence of Bush or Cheney making money off this war, but the article I cut and pasted below does not say much for the Bush administrations motivations. I cut out a lot of the article because its fairly long, but the entire thing can be read here:

http://mediastudy.com/articles/av1-9-03.html

"By Michael I. Niman, ArtVoice 1/9/03

When Iraq presented its weapons declaration to the United Nations last month, the Bush administration immediately attacked the report as being incomplete, hinting that producing a partial report might be a justification to unleash upon that nation the most lethal killing machine history has known.

8,000 Missing Pages

The Bush folks were indeed telling the truth. The report distributed by the United Nations was missing key pieces of information about Iraq ’s weapons programs. That’s because the United States removed over 8,000 pages of information from the 11,800 page report, before passing it on.

The missing pages incriminated 24 U.S. based corporations and the successive Reagan and Bush-Daddy administrations in connection with illegally supplying Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi government with myriad weapons of mass destruction and the training to use them.

According to the report, Eastman Kodak (who seems not to have fundamentally changed since collaborating with the Nazis in WWII), Dupont, Honeywell, Rockwell, Sperry, Hewlett-Packard and Bechtel were among the American companies aiding the Iraqi weapons program leading up to the invasion of Kuwait . The report also reiterated information previously documented by Senator Byrd, and before that, reported in a host of Alternative newspapers and magazines and radio shows around the world, detailing how the U.S. Government directly supplied weapons of mass destruction to Saddam Hussein – weapons he then used against his own people while the U.S. resupplied his arsenal (See Getting a Grip 10/24/02). In addition to biological and chemical weapons components such as Anthrax, various U.S. government agencies, such as the Department of Energy, Department of Commerce, Department of Agriculture and the Livermore, Los Alamos and Sandia nuclear weapons labs, also supplied Saddam’s government with material for its nuclear weapons program and training in how to use that material.

Then of course there’s Dick Cheney’s Haliburton outfit, which got the contract to rebuild Saddam’s oilfields after the 1991 Gulf War. This is a new twist on the old bored child’s game of building up and knocking down blocks, but only with a fat government subsidy and tens of thousands of dead bodies. But that’s another story"

[jdberger]

OH YOU ARE *GOOSING* KIDDING ME!!!

What are you reading and believing? "Street Sheet" ?

Here is a hint, if the article uses a term like "Bush-Daddy" odds are it's crap and you should put it down now.

DO NOT WRAP YOUR FISH IN IT. They'll be contaminated. Don't use the paper to line your bird cage or as a mat to soak up oil when you clean your guns. The fever swamps will INFECT EVERYTHING. :what:

Really? :uhoh: An author that even Salon.com (http://www.salon.com/news/col/sullivan/2002/10/30/wellstone/?x) thinks is from the "loony left".

Golly? Got any sage wisdom from David Duke or International A.N.S.W.E.R.?

:neener:

[jdberger]

and Pointman is right....Troll under the bridge... :scrutiny:

[Rebar]

It does seem to be quite difficult to nail down evidence of Bush or Cheney making money off this war
Bull. If your claim is that they made millions or even billions, you should be able to present actual proof of even just one dollar.

Put up, or shut up.

[jdberger]

^^yup

Factcheck.org (http://factcheck.org/) and Snopes.com (http://snopes.com/) :D

[AirPower]

nother thing that ticks me off about this is that it seems to be ok for us as taxpayers to buy 29 million dollars worth of weapons from China for the Iraqi military, but I can't go buy a Norinco because we're "boycotting" chinese weapons?


MY POINT EXACTLY!

[ninenot]

The problem I have with this transaction is that Poly Technologies is a criminal enterprise, an un-indicted co-conspirator to gun-running for gang-bangers in the USA, and worst: is a Friend of Bill Clinton.

There's nothing wrong with supplying Iraqis w/M 16A2's, or M-4/s.

[cliffy109]

The problem I have with this transaction is that Poly Technologies is a criminal enterprise, an un-indicted co-conspirator to gun-running for gang-bangers in the USA, and worst: is a Friend of Bill Clinton.

There's nothing wrong with supplying Iraqis w/M 16A2's, or M-4/s.


That just about summarizes everything that is wrong with this situation. As a Bush fan, this one really disappoints me.

[1911JMB]

Rebar,
you ignored the point I made about Bush's friends unquestionably profiting from this war, and caught me on a technicality, but ask, and you shall recieve. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe George Bush senior is a member of the Carlisle group, and is therefor making money off this war. If Bush Jr outlives his dad, he will indeed make money off this war. Another good example is that Cheney gets a severens package of a million dollars a year from Haliburton. If you don't believe he will be welcomed back to Haliburton with open arms at the end of this administration to a position where he does little or nothing, and gets literally tons of money, you are a fool.

[Hugo]

Like someone else mentioned earlier "by Saturday" is probably the operative word in the article. I bet everyone on the Allied side would love to give this order to Colt or HK or someone else, but the new Iraqi army needs guns RIGHT NOW to give the insurgents pain NOW. I doubt many rifle companies have a few hundred thousand rifles sitting in their warehouse that can be ready to ship in a week or two. And yeah the prices suck but thats what you get when you rush order a lot of things. Sometimes the buyer wins, sometimes the seller wins.

We will win in the end though. China will probably have a democratic revolution within 10 yrs or so, a lot of people there are still very angry about Tienamin square in 1989 and have had it with the catastrophic corruption from their communist govt. I bet one third to half the army would desert if called up to war. I would bet $ in Vegas on a coup if China is dumb enough to attack Taiwan. What proabably will happen though, is after the 2008 Olympics in Beijing is when the Govt collapses, the people who were kicked out of their homes to build roads to get the city ready are already very ticked off. Every city that has done the olympics lately has lost big $$$, Beijing with its corruption will lose a mountain of $. I'd give it 4 or 5 years.

Iran is neck and neck with China for next big revolution against their crappy govt. 70% of Iranians are under 30 yrs old and sick of the Islamo Fascists running the place living in fancy villas and palaces while crushing their freedoms and leaving them poor. They know the revolution done by Ayatollah Khomeni in 1978 was BS and has screwed their country up big time. I just hope they take over before this BS nuke plant gets any farther. Bet the people of Iran really hate the billions wasted on that junk.

Just my thoughts on it all. Democracy will win in the end, though it's going to take a few more decades if not a century, and it wont be easy. Look at all the changes in the last 40 years? 20 Years?

[Rebar]

you ignored the point I made about Bush's friends unquestionably profiting from this war
You stated that Bush and Cheney were making billions of dollars because of the war, I asked for proof, you present no proof, only inuendo and rumor.

I ask again, provide proof that Bush and/or Cheney has made even one dollar off the war. Real proof, not some conspiracy theory from left-wing nut jobs.

[1911JMB]

Rebar,
Perhaps I was not clear enough. Bush senior is a member of the Carlisle group and is therefor making money off this war. If Bush junior outlives his dad and gets his inheritance, this war will make him quite wealthy. This is a fact, not some "left wing nut job" crap. Even if that were not true, the war in Iraq is at the very least making friends of the Bush administration rich. Let me ask you this, do you really believe that in 2009 big oil companies wouldn't be happy to figure out some way to repay Bush and Cheney like with meaningless high paying executive positions? If not I will repeat myself, time will tell.

[Rebar]

In other words, you don't have even a shred of proof that Bush or Cheney is making money off the war, not even one single dollar.

All you're saying is what you think might happen in the future, when your statement was that they're making BILLIONS right now. Last I heard, Mrs. Cleo is out of business, unless you're claiming some kind of supernatural mystic fortune-telling power, you're talking out your ass. I doubt anyone is making money off Iraqi oil, with the state of their infrastructure now and the forseeable future.

To accuse the President and Vice President of the United States of starting a war to make money, you'll have to do a whole lot better then that. So far, you've presented nothing but typical left-wing DU trolling nonsense. Either come up with real evidence that the Bush administration started the war to make money, or shut the hell up.

[1911JMB]

So rebar, when Bush senior dies, where is the money he made from this war going, charity? I'll tell you what, if it makes you happy, I will take back what I said about Bush and Cheney, I will now assume they are doing this for what they believe are good reasons. The fact remains, people are dieing every day in Iraq, good friends of the administration are making lots of money as a direct result of this war, and no good is coming from any of it.

[Joejojoba111]

maybe you can both be right, politicians get rich after they leave office, but they aren't taking kick-backs right now. And it's not a party-specific thing, it happens in every office in every country, you do favours for rich guys, pass it off as spending on a public service, then are appointed to the board of directors when you leave office.

FYI on a board of directors you get paid to go to a meeting. Thousands of dollars for small companies, tens and hundreds of thousands for larger companies (meeting a couple times a year). It's not even sneaky, it's really out there in broad daylight, it's just accepted practice, politicians do favours and are rewarded later. However you feel about Bush it's not something you can criticize him for, because it's the norm. It would be wierd if he didn't do it.

[Rebar]

when Bush senior dies, where is the money he made from this war going, charity?
I don't know, you'll have to ask him. Since he already had plenty of money before the war, as did his son, this whole obsession with money is only coming from the looney left, not from any place with any credibility.

In fact, the only people who have made money from Iraq, are the corrupt French, German, Russian, and UN politicians who sucked on the billion-dollar teat of the oil-for-food scandal. If money was the objective, I'm sure Saddam would have been more than pleased to cut the Bush administration in on it. Bush could have gotten any oil concessions he wanted from Saddam in exchange for lifting the sanctions, and that would have made Bush and friends real money.

But then, what other lame excuse would you have to invent for your irrational Bush-hate?

[RevDisk]

In other words, you don't have even a shred of proof that Bush or Cheney is making money off the war, not even one single dollar.

Cheney is receiving deferred compensation and is retaining stock options from Halliburton. Both are conflicts of interest, and are probably illegal. Congressional Research Service (CRS) has confirmed this.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/26/politics/main575356.shtml

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/01/cheney.halliburton/

http://www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?fmedia_id=10399&fcategory_desc=Dick%20Cheney%20and%20Halliburton

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/about_hal/ethics.html

There you go. That proves at least one dollar profit by either Bush or Cheney, which was your request. Anything else?




When Cheney was the Defense Secretary, he cut the US Army from eighteen active divisions to twelve. Afterwards, he went to work at Hallibourton which provided contractors to replace the soldiers cut. While this is probably legal, I dispute it's ethics. Gutting the US military as a public official, then selling the Army mercenaries and contractors to replace said soldiers really annoys me. This was back in the 90's, so I only toss this in for historical reasons.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/BG841.cfm

[Rebar]

That proves at least one dollar profit by either Bush or Cheney, which was your request.
Nope. Your first link tells the story:
Democrats pointed out that Cheney receives deferred compensation from Halliburton under an arrangement he made in 1998, and also retains stock options. He has pledged to give after-tax proceeds of the stock options to charity.
The deferred compensation was negotiated well before the war, he would have gotten the same amount regardless. As far as stock options, he hasn't exercised them, therefore he made no money from them, in any case the proceeds would go to charity, therefore he still wouldn't have made a dollar.
When Cheney was the Defense Secretary, he cut the US Army from eighteen active divisions to twelve.
A rediculous suggestion. No Defense Secretary has the power to do any such thing, only congress can do that, not to mention that two more divisions were cut during the Clinton administration.

[1911JMB]

Hey rebar, I find it amusing how you have persistently accused my ideas of being that of the left wing. I am a devout Libertarian. I know several leaders of the Libertarian party, and I even met Badnairik a few times. My ideas are that of the middle, beetween the Republicans and Democrats. If you want to find out where you are on the political map, go to:

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

[Rebar]

I am a devout Libertarian
Not really.

To be a Libertarian, you have to be a critical thinker, which you obviously are not. Just look at your signature:
Bush lies and people die.
Pure left-wing nonsense. There's plenty of things to be critical of about the Bush administration, without spewing moveon.org/DU propaganda and lies. You clearly didn't take the time or effort to find out for yourself if it was true or not.

If you don't want to be accused of being a left-wing ideologue, don't sound like one or think like one.

And I am a Libertarian, who has run for office as one, and I'm running again this November, so there's no need for me to take the test, I took it 10 years ago.

[jdberger]

1911JMB, you really can't be serious, can you? Cheney's ties to Halliburton are and were pretty well known, however he is completely financially insulated from them. He won't make money if they turn a profit and won't lose if they go bankrupt. This was covered pretty well before the election. Perhaps you weren't paying attention. I see that one of the links you neglected to mention was that of Factcheck.org (http://www.factcheck.org/article261.html) .

As far as your assertion that there is a conflicts of interest, and are probably illegal Factcheck.org states: Both the President and Vice President are specifically exempted from federal conflict-of-interest laws, for one thing, as are members of Congress and federal judges. Please take a look at the website. It is a far cry from the fever-swamp examples you've cited.

I find it amusing how you have persistently accused my ideas of being that of the left wing. I guess that the reason Rebar thinks this, is because the ideas and assertions come right out of the DU and MoveOn.org playbook. Ever feel like you are being used?

[RevDisk]

Both the President and Vice President are specifically exempted from federal conflict-of-interest laws, for one thing, as are members of Congress and federal judges.

Uh, what? :scrutiny:


I've read the conflict of interest regs. (Long story, really boring too.) Conflicts are a no no unless they fall under 5 CFR Part 2640. [ Interpretation, Exemptions and Waiver Guidance Concerning 18 U.S.C. 208(Acts Affecting a Personal Financial Interest) ].

http://www.usoge.gov/pages/laws_regs_fedreg_stats/oge_regs/5cfr2640.html

Please show me the line that says the President, VP, congress and federal judges are excused from conflict of interest laws. I'm very curious about it, because I have seen no law saying anything REMOTELY similiar. DeLay is currently being ripped apart over the matter. I'm sure he'd be very happy if you could find his excemption in 5 CFR Part 2640.


I guess that the reason Rebar thinks this, is because the ideas and assertions come right out of the DU and MoveOn.org playbook. Ever feel like you are being used?

You seemed to be responding to my accusations and 1911JMB's, so I will answer this also.

My problem is not with Cheney specifically, although I dislike what he's done to the Army. My main problem is with Halliburton. Their laundry list of crimes is a mile long. My hatred of Halliburton comes from seeing them in action.

I was food poisoned because they bought food that no sane FDA inspector would dare pass. I saw them selling fuel to foreigners and billing the US Army for said fuel. I saw them promise to deliver, get paid by the US Army, and then never deliver.

I am very proud to say I managed to help cancel a number of small communications contracts with Halliburton and get them reassigned to contractors that actually did what they promised. I personally saw this save soldiers' lives because medevac choppers got to the right places quickly. Oh yea, and saved US taxpayers millions. A small thing, but I'm rather proud of it.

I've heard of lists of insane actions on the part of Halliburton in the Middle East. They've stiffed subcontractors, especially dining subcontractors. ( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4480796 ) They have problems with overcharging the US Army for food, fuel, and supplies that they don't deliver. A lot of these contracts have been awarded in ways that have brought FBI investigations. ( http://houston.bizjournals.com/houston/stories/2004/02/02/daily9.html and http://www.ombwatch.org/article/articleview/2520/1/1?TopicID=1 )

Oh yea, and they have the tendency to supply our enemies. They got hit with a fine over selling half a dozen pulse neutron generators to Libya in violation of numerous US bans. They also had a number of contracts to service Iranian oil fields in violation of national security sanctions on Iran. ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A110-2004Jul20.html and http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2005/s299.html )


I do not get my "ideas and assertions" from leftist sources. I get them from my own two eyes, and the occassional google search.

[Blackburn]

Revdisk, you are my favorite person to read political posts by on this forum. It's a shame that the baaing for Cheney will soon drown this thread out. :(

[LAR-15]

Uh the Chinese can make a lot of AKs cheap and fast.

The Iraqis are used to the AK not the M-16.

Not that giving a contract to China is a good thing.

I wouldn't have done it.

But I think a lot of Chicom AKs are already there and therefore that is what the Iraqis use.

Plus a lot of the good AKs seized by Coaltion troops ARE given to Iraqi Army troops.

[Rebar]

RevDisk got off the point, which was the simple and plain fact that Bush and/or Cheney did not start the war for profit, nor have they profited by it. I guess trying to sidetrack is better than admitting you were wrong, eh?

What Halliburton did or didn't do is irrelivent, and in fact is a red herring, because it has nothing to do with Bush or Cheney. Sure, the left loves to throw around baseless accusations, chanting "Halliburton" and "Big Oil", but when someone asks for the proof, it turns to attacking the askers rather than providing answers. Still, no one has provided proof that Bush or Cheney has made even one single dollar because of the war. If there was proof, they'd be posting it on billboards across the country.

The people who are really "baaing" are those who mindlessly repeat these completely baseless and discredited lies, to rationalize their irrational hatred of Bush and his administration. Take that nonsense to DU, please.

[Joejojoba111]

They should have gotten Rob Arms rifles, god damn they're the cat's meow and the guy is just begging for the get-go.

[jdberger]

I've read the conflict of interest regs. (Long story, really boring too.) Conflicts are a no no unless they fall under 5 CFR Part 2640. [ Interpretation, Exemptions and Waiver Guidance Concerning 18 U.S.C. 208(Acts Affecting a Personal Financial Interest) ]. Congratulations. Did you read 18 usc 202(c)? It says that the President and Vice President are specifically exempt by statute. 13 18 U.S.C. 5 202(c). Even before this express statutory exemption was enacted, however, the Department of Justice considered the President and Vice President, as elected constitutional officers of the Government, as exempt from the disqualification requirement since the statutory obligation to recuse could intefere with the performance of their constitutionaly mandated duties. Note: Department of Justice letter opinion to Senator Cannon, Chairman of the Senate Rules and Administration committee, September 20, 1974, concerning the private ownership interests of vice presidential nominee Nelson Rockefeller.

My problem is not with Cheney specifically, although I dislike what he's done to the Army. My main problem is with Halliburton. Then why bring Cheney into it? We've established that he doesn't have any current control over Halliburton. What is your point, beyond bashing the administration? :scrutiny:

And you don't like Dick because what he did to the Army? Besides it already having been established that he didn't have the power, here is a little timeline for ya...RC becomes SecDef in March '89. Berlin Wall falls in Nov. '89--end of communism as we know it. No swarms of Soviet tanks across the Fulda Gap...less need for as many troops. No?

To return to the thread, Arms contract to China? Capitalism at its best. Cheap and available. Why don't you 'libertarians' get that? Sure, it would be great to have RobArms or Barrett do the contract but the Chinese are better positioned for it. Get over it.

[jdberger]

oops...double post

[Glock Glockler]

To return to the thread, Arms contract to China? Capitalism at its best. Cheap and available. Why don't you 'libertarians' get that? Sure, it would be great to have RobArms or Barrett do the contract but the Chinese are better positioned for it. Get over it.

Wrong, Poland is positioned for it just fine and they actually supported us in the war and sent troops. If we are going to give business to someone we should look at our allies first.

[captain obvious]

:cuss: :fire: :banghead:

We've got soldiers being put to tears cause they have to destroy historic weapons in Iraq (StG-44s, etc), the place was described by Tommy Franks as an arms dump, and yet the .gov still sees fit to pay the chicoms to outfit the iraqis? :banghead:

Forget the Iraqi army - i've been saying for years that we could finance the WHOLE $#^(!*! WAR if we would sell the arms we recovered in the sandbox (not even all of them, just the most choice ones, even) stateside.

Does anyone else feel like secession is more of a good idea with every passing day?

[Rebar]

I have to agree with those who stated that Poland should have gotten the contract, even if it cost a little more.

In fact, Poland is switching over to a new rifle, the Beryl:
http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=582

which sounds like a damn fine weapon. Either new Beryls could be made for the Iraqis, or they could ship their now-surplus AKs over.

[Sven]

Was I the only one who - upon reading the headline - hoped the US was buying back some of our M14 tooling sold to the Chinese back in the day?

[1911JMB]

I would never trust Bush, because he lied in the 70's about social security the same way he is now (not that I believe in Social Security). But pretending that Bush or his administration administration has never done anything dishonest, can anybody think of anything remotely positive that has come of this war?

[R.H. Lee]

can anybody think of anything remotely positive that has come of this war?
There hasn't been a terrorist attack on the CONUS since 9/11. Does that count?

[Rebar]

can anybody think of anything remotely positive that has come of this war?
Actually - yes.

-Afganistan was freed from the Taliban and Al Queada.
-Iraq was freed from Saddam and his merry band of murderers.
-Syria has ended it's occupation of Lebanon.
-Libya volentarally gave up it's WMD programs.
-Elections in Afganistan.
-Elections in Iraq.
-Elections in Saudi Arabia.

And as RileyMc stated, no terrorist attacks in America.

I would never trust Bush, because he lied in the 70's about social security the same way he is now
There you go again, stating that Bush lied without any evidence. The simple truth is (and as a Libertarian you should know) is that SS is doomed. No one under the age of 40 is ever going to see a thin dime of the money they're putting into the system as it stands now. Bush's plan, while a small step in the right direction, isn't nearly radical enough. We need full privatization and the elimination of SS. How this is "lieing", when it's self-evident, only shows your true motives.

At this point 1911JMB, I'm calling BS on your so-called Libertarianism. Everything you've posted so far only points in one direction - you're a left-wing DU troll disguising yourself as a Libertarian.

[JohnBT]

"I would never trust Bush, because he lied in the 70's about social security"

Did you know him at Harvard? :)

"Pesident Bush received a Master of Business Administration from Harvard Business School in 1975" - White House site biography

[Waitone]

"Libertarian" my eye. About as libertarian as Bill Mahr who honestly has no clue what a libertarian is or believes. He uses the term as a way to differentiate himself from all the other feather merchants in Hollywood.

[Missourigunner]

M-16/M-4s are good enough for our troops, Buy American, Give the Iraquis M-16s/M-4s. This purchase has gotta be some kind of JOKE. :cuss: :fire:

[Joejojoba111]

Is Iraq still using 7,62 or did they already have some 5.45 kicking? Otherwise if they're starting everything from scratch, may as well get these http://world.guns.ru/assault/as39-e.htm. They already were getting tanks and much more, why not consolidate with one supplier.


Missourigunner -"Buy American, Give the Iraquis M-16s/M-4s."
Ehh, problem with existing support structures, especially cartridges.

Rebar -"Elections in Iraq."
Ehh, not so good. Under strict socialist rule it wasn't free or democratic, but it was a whole lot freer than under theocratic rule. If you're a wealthy or powerful man in Iraq, there's a good chance life is better for you. If you're a poor man things are worse, so you'll put more interest in faith. If you're a woman that's tough, better luck next time. Women not dressing in the Hijab covering them completely are harassed or molested, walking down the street alone is considered rude, and this is just a snap-shot of society, things continue to decline. Compare to before when liberal women occupied positions of power, wore make-up and short skirts, did what they wanted when they wanted.

Elections in Afghnistan or Saudi Arabia seem irrelevant to the Iraq war though, but only the Afghan ones count, because the Saudi ones are trivial attempts to soothe the masses.

And Syria and Lebanon? These places are actually a good distance away from Iraq, seperate countries in fact. Lack of attacks in America, if that's related to the conflict in Iraq at all it's a negative one, taking away a mortal enemy of OBL, and replacing it with a fertile ground of recruits, under direct control of OBL. If you told the soldiers in Iraq that their job is to get shot over there so terrorists don't bother coming over here, I think they'd be a little miffed.


"SS is doomed...We need full privatization"

The first part I agree with, this is getting way off topic, but wth. Social security systems inexorably start off with a gap, which design must account for by continually taking in more than paying out, until the gap has been closed. If this isn't done the system is indeed doomed.

The second part makes no sense - we have a system that is bleeding to death, losing money... What is needed is a bunch of individuals to make personal profits off it too! Lol a private enterrpise has a duty to maximize profits, that's really not compatible with the concept of social security, and it's completely idiotic to think that siphoning more money off will make a losing proposition solvent! lol. If I had a chance to siphon some of that money don't get me wrong, I'd be suckling the profits in a second, but I don't, so I'm going to call them on their lie. I'm not calling them names though, I'd lie too if it would make me millions of buckeroos!

[Rebar]

Buy American
You do know that M-16s and SAWs are made by Fabrique Nationale Manufacturing, a Belgian company?

[Harry Tuttle]

Y'all want to deploy AR15s in Iraq to local conscripts?
St. Eugene Stoner was good, but not that good.

Poland supplied AKs in the first contract to Iraqi police,
the Army contract is bigger,
and there may have been issues with the Polish weapon supply.

Maybe if the Chinese contract goes thru, Walmart might have some new inventory.

:evil:

[jdberger]

If you're a wealthy or powerful man in Iraq, there's a good chance life is better for you. If you're a poor man things are worse, so you'll put more interest in faith. Hmmm...same in most countries. Works well in the US, too. so?

And in case you weren't paying attention, democratic countries don't make war on other democratic countries (neither do countries that both have a McDonalds :D ) so elections in any countryin the Mid-east are very important.

[Joejojoba111]

But if you're a woman you're life is guaranteed to suck now, and if you're a poor father your son is never going to get post-secondary education now, and if you're athiest you had better pretend you're not. There's a lot of benefits they have now, just saying that it's not all rosy, never is.

[jdberger]

But if you're a woman you're life is guaranteed to suck now, and if you're a poor father your son is never going to get post-secondary education now, and if you're athiest you had better pretend you're not. There's a lot of benefits they have now, just saying that it's not all rosy, never is. Hmmm...you are right. It's too hard and perfection isn't guaranteed.

:neener: Quit Now!! Run Away!! :neener:

Compare to before when liberal women occupied positions of power, wore make-up and short skirts, did what they wanted when they wanted. Sounds WAYYY better than the right to vote...short skirts, Hey!! :neener:

[Rebar]

But if you're a woman you're life is guaranteed to suck now, and if you're a poor father your son is never going to get post-secondary education now, and if you're athiest you had better pretend you're not.
First off, the question was:
can anybody think of anything remotely positive that has come of this war?
a free election is a pretty positive thing.

Second, they haven't even written their constitution yet, aren't you being 100% pessimistic over how the new government is going to shape up? It could be quite secular, in the important areas.
Compare to before when liberal women occupied positions of power, wore make-up and short skirts, did what they wanted when they wanted.
Was that before or after they were told to report to the ministry of rape?

[jdberger]

Second, they haven't even written their constitution yet, aren't you being 100% pessimistic over how the new government is going to shape up? It could be quite secular, in the important areas.
The United States had to scrap its first Constitution because it was unworkable. Then we had a nasty rebellion, then a pretty brutal Civil War that some folks still haven't managed to get over....

RELAX, now....give it a chance. Freedom is painful to give birth to, but always worth the pain.

[JJNA]

But if you're a woman you're life is guaranteed to suck now, and if you're a poor father your son is never going to get post-secondary education now, and if you're athiest you had better pretend you're not.The statement is NOT even true, but for the sake of the conversation, let's assume that it is:

Would you choose a place that is perhaps less egalitarian, less "stable," but offers you a chance for self-determination OR would you choose a place that guarantees "post-secondary education" where your 12-year old daughter can be raped at anytime by the police because you slipped out an odd statement or two about the great leader's moustache?

As for this "athiest [sic]" statement:

In Soviet-dominated Poland, everyone was supposed to be atheist. Communism dictated that you could not believe in God. The Church now has more influence in free Poland. People are more religious. That is natural. When you have self-determination, it also means that people are more free to believe in spirituality other than that enforced by the government. But that, I suppose, is "religious fundamentalism" to you.

I have written about Iraq in the press a little bit. Right before the Iraqi election when left-leaning pundits were predicting doom ("mass boycott"), this is what I wrote about one Iraqi politician and the election:

http://realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-1_28_05_JN.html

Later I wrote another piece in the Seattle Times about what the Ba'athists (you know, the folks who supported the regime that gave free "post-secondary education" that seem to impress you so much) did to this man's sons:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2002201059_na09.html
(or: http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=na09&date=20050309&query=%22James+J.+Na%22)

If you do not think that this is noble, I don't know what else to say. And this has been made possible by the blood of our brave men and women as well as by the political and moral leadership of the Bush administration.

Oh, yeah, the main topic of the thread: I am all for free trade, but I am, to put grossly mildly, not excited about awarding military-related contracts to communist Chinese "businesses" that are tied to the Party. However, I need more information than found on this rather vague and short report before I can render a view.

[buzz_knox]

But if you're a woman you're life is guaranteed to suck now, and if you're a poor father your son is never going to get post-secondary education now, and if you're athiest you had better pretend you're not. There's a lot of benefits they have now, just saying that it's not all rosy, never is.

Now that's funny. Actually, hilarious. If you're a woman, you've got an entire portion of the legislature guaranteed to your sisters. If you're a father, your son might be attending school for the first time in years, after they were allowed to run down under Saddam's rule. And if that son gets sick, he can actually get medical treatment. And if you're an atheist, whoop de crap. Join the others, along with the various Christians, Sunnis, Shiites, etc. running the place.

But hey, never let facts get in the way of a good soundbite, right?

[buzz_knox]

And in case you weren't paying attention, democratic countries don't make war on other democratic countries (neither do countries that both have a McDonalds ) so elections in any countryin the Mid-east are very important.

Turkey vs. Greece over Cyprus (shots fired, with a Turkish amphibious assault on Cyprus). Iceland vs. the UK over fishing rights (no shots fired but naval vessels ordered to "shoulder" ships out of the way, with some serious concern that shots would be fired).

Democratic nations will not engage in war with other democratic nations to the extent that their key interests are not threatened. If they are, then the nations will act in their own best interests, regardless of political structure.

[flatrock]

The US Army did not buy these weapons, the Iraqi Army did. They may very well have been purchased with American Tax dollars given to Iraq in aid, but it was their government that purchased the guns not ours.

Our army did approve the purchase in some way, but it's likely that they were merely consulted to make sure the money was spent on fulfilling the Iraqi Army's needs and not spent on something else.

Iraq is a soverign nation that is slowly taking over providing for their own security. The AK-47 is a good choice of weapon for their environment. It works well in harsh environments with little maintence.

I don't like the fact that they purchased the guns from the Chineese, but I believe that the Iraqi's have the right to make that decision.

[jdberger]

Buzz,

the Cypriot conflict didn't happen when Turkey was a democracy. (At least not in the traditional sense...I guess East Germany used to be called the Deutsch Democratic Republic :D ) A better example would have been India v. Pakistan border clashes....but a skirmish is not a war.

I've yet to see anyone challenge the McDonalds Postulate....

For more on the above hypothesis, see "The End of History" bu Francis Fukuyama, National Interest 1990. I'd provide a link but I can't seem to find it...

[AirPower]

It's all American tax payer's money that's paying everything Iraqi. They better pay us back by giving free oil.

[jdberger]

Yes, because mercantilism worked so well for the Brits and all the other European countries that set up Third World economies.... :scrutiny:



<sniff sniff> I smell SARCASM!!!

[dloken]

Syria has ended it's occupation of Lebanon.

I really don't think that had anything to do with the Iraq or Afghanistan war.

[jdberger]

Really?!! :confused:

You don't think that people in the Mid-East might have gotten the idea that the ruled should choose their own rulers from the successful elections in Afghanistan and Iraq? After 3000 years of kings and dictatorships this idea spontaneously popped into their heads?

Really? You don't believe that? :confused: