Terrorist attacks - Page 9

Mark W · 27-11-2003, 17:21

Could we please keep this civil chaps? am getting a few complaints about this thread - 'molesting' really has little place in a thread about terrorism now does it? ta muchly

27-11-2003, 17:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark W

Could we please keep this civil chaps? am getting a few complaints about this thread - 'molesting' really has little place in a thread about terrorism now does it? ta muchly

I`m not sure anyone was actually being accused of molesting children, it looked to me an attempt to explain the concept of mu.

http://developer.syndetic.org/query_jargon.pl?term=zen

paulyoung666 · 27-11-2003, 17:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by dr wadd

I`m not sure anyone was actually being accused of molesting children, it looked to me an attempt to explain the concept of mu.

http://developer.syndetic.org/query_jargon.pl?term=zen

by me here , regardless it was meant that way or not it wasnt warranted imho

Mark W · 27-11-2003, 17:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by dr wadd

I`m not sure anyone was actually being accused of molesting children, it looked to me an attempt to explain the concept of mu.

granted

, but some members did not appreciate the example......

27-11-2003, 18:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ramrod

In response to this: I said:"You start off and finish by attacking where the link came from. You yourself have posted many links from left wing sites. Not once have I tried to use that as an argument to rubbish your posts "

Graham:"Yes, you're entirely correct."

Unfortunately you appear to have missed out one important little quote which, as I pointed out, makes a "definite and important difference:

"And I am not "rubbishing your post", I am rubbishing the *article* you linked to. There is a definite and important difference."

Ramrod:"So you agree you shouldn't do it then?"

Quote:

All I did was to point out that you disparaged a link that I posted because it was from a right wing site and ask you if you thought you should have done that. This is the problem, whenever I argue with you, it just gets really wierd!
...and I don't think it's because of me...

As I said previously, I am rubbishing the *article*. And *NOT* because "it's from a right wing site" but because of *what it said*!

You implicitly, and possibly explicitly, accused me, and continued to accuse me, of "using that as an argument to rubbish your posts "

I didn't. I never did. I tried to explain this repeatedly, but you didn't seem to want to read what I *wrote* which is why this continued for so long.

Now, let's drop it.

27-11-2003, 18:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Yup I can understand why people would like that as they'd feel there was less chance of corruption.
Although if you look at the coalition that are out there rebuilding, it's made up of lots of nations anyway.
And of course with america saying "here's how we're going to rebuild it" and countries who agree joining them in the work, it gets the ball rolling much faster than if it went to the UN.

Err, except for the fact that the US seems to be picking and choosing *who* gets the reconstruction contracts and (gosh!) they appear to be *American* companies (often with links to the current administration!), still, nobody would call that "corruption", would that?!

downquark1 · 27-11-2003, 18:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham

Err, except for the fact that the US seems to be picking and choosing *who* gets the reconstruction contracts and (gosh!) they appear to be *American* companies (often with links to the current administration!), still, nobody would call that "corruption", would that?!

And then there was that controversy over which moblie phone system should be used. Europe's or the US's

Did they ever decide on that

?

27-11-2003, 18:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark W

Could we please keep this civil chaps? am getting a few complaints about this thread - 'molesting' really has little place in a thread about terrorism now does it? ta muchly

Mark, I have already apologised for that comment, in fact I did so immediately after making it!

It was the only way I could see to make the incontrovertible point about the nature of the questions I was being asked to answer.

(Addendum: I note that whilst you say later that "others did not appreciate the comment", you don't actually reject its validity!

)

Anyway, can we now consider it closed, please.

Xaccers · 27-11-2003, 21:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham

Err, except for the fact that the US seems to be picking and choosing *who* gets the reconstruction contracts and (gosh!) they appear to be *American* companies (often with links to the current administration!), still, nobody would call that "corruption", would that?!

Not corruption, nepatism

US paid the most to oust saddam, so why shouldn't they get some retribution?
Doesn't the defeated have to pay the victor? Didn't that happen with Germany?
Now it would be unfair and totally wrong to demand money from the new Iraq, so instead the US is getting a bit of its money back by getting the contracts.
America gets some cash, Iraq gets rebuilt, it's a win-win situation for the two.
Course the French are miffed because they won't get their oil money, and the Russians are miffed cos they won't get their debts paid back (like saddam would have anyway!).

downquark1 · 27-11-2003, 21:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Not corruption, nepatism

US paid the most to oust saddam, so why shouldn't they get some retribution?
Doesn't the defeated have to pay the victor? Didn't that happen with Germany?
Now it would be unfair and totally wrong to demand money from the new Iraq, so instead the US is getting a bit of its money back by getting the contracts.
America gets some cash, Iraq gets rebuilt, it's a win-win situation for the two.
Course the French are miffed because they won't get their oil money, and the Russians are miffed cos they won't get their debts paid back (like saddam would have anyway!).

So the US is allowed to invade countries and get financial gain from it??

They knock it down and get paid to rebuild it

Yes I know they spent more on the war than probably will recieve - but isn't the absense of saddam reward enough?

27-11-2003, 21:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Not corruption, nepatism

US paid the most to oust saddam, so why shouldn't they get some retribution?
Doesn't the defeated have to pay the victor? Didn't that happen with Germany?
Now it would be unfair and totally wrong to demand money from the new Iraq, so instead the US is getting a bit of its money back by getting the contracts.
America gets some cash, Iraq gets rebuilt, it's a win-win situation for the two.
Course the French are miffed because they won't get their oil money, and the Russians are miffed cos they won't get their debts paid back (like saddam would have anyway!).

Part of the supposed reason for the war was to improve the lot of the Iraqi people. The US would be willing to decline a contract that would be better for the Iraqis if it didn`t come from a US company, which make a mockery of their original intentions in the first place.

Xaccers · 27-11-2003, 21:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by dr wadd

Part of the supposed reason for the war was to improve the lot of the Iraqi people. The US would be willing to decline a contract that would be better for the Iraqis if it didn`t come from a US company, which make a mockery of their original intentions in the first place.

Um, the US are the ones issuing the contracts...not sure how it could decline one

All the contracts are put out to tender, and yes, as far as I know, the american companies that show interest have a head start.
The thing to remember is that the work involved in most of these contracts is so vast, the companies sub contract to the other people who bidded (ie companies from other countries) so the US company gets some money, the other countries' companies get some money, and the Iraqi's get their country rebuilt after 30 years of saddam in control, and remember, Iraq was in a pretty crap state before the first gulf war, so lets try not to suggest that this is because of the americans invading

Ramrod · 27-11-2003, 22:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by dr wadd

Part of the supposed reason for the war was to improve the lot of the Iraqi people. .

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspap...909888,00.html

"but in one respect the change has been a success. The economy is booming and many ordinary Iraqis are buying and selling as never before. "

Ramrod · 27-11-2003, 22:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by downquark1

- but isn't the absense of saddam reward enough?

I would have thought so!

downquark1 · 10-12-2003, 12:39

I'm sorry for bringing this old thread back up, but despite what the media fail to mention terrorism is still a great threat.

It seems Saddam cannot be found
It seems his weapons (if there were any) cannot be found

We have a psychopathic maniac free with God know what, wanting revenge for the death of his sons and his loosing of power and the US is more concerned with who gets to rebuild iraq.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3305501.stm

Also (from one of the posts earlier) the media seems it fit to tell us we are safer than before.

Yes I do consider a desperate, on the run madman more dangerous than a rich comfortable madman living in fear of being overthrown.