Rumsfeld Praises Austria in Senate! - Page 2

KrazyHorse · February 15, 2003, 16:23

Which countries, Drake?

I doubt any of them were as high profile as Iraq or had the US as deeply involved as Iraq.

Both of those are very important facts.

Countries have defaulted before, but this would be a much more important precedent.

Velociryx · February 15, 2003, 16:25

DD, dunno....where'd it move to?

-=Vel=-

Drake Tungsten · February 15, 2003, 16:25

Quote:

Countries have defaulted before, but this would be a much more important precedent.

There's our old friend BAM...

KrazyHorse · February 15, 2003, 16:28

You don't think?

A country that's as big as Iraq and which has US troops directly in control of it is allowed to significantly default on a 3rd party's contracts/loans?

Slightly different than the phillipines or whoever being allowed to renegotiate the terms of US presence and how much money they get paid for that.

KrazyHorse · February 15, 2003, 16:28

Perhaps you should provide an example of a more important default that the US had direct control over...

Drake Tungsten · February 15, 2003, 16:31

Quote:

Perhaps you should provide an example of a more important default that the US had direct control over...

If you think I'm going to hunt all over the internet for sources you'll just dismiss again, you're sadly mistaken. It's your responsibility to address your ignorance on this subject; go pick up a book on the issue...

DinoDoc · February 15, 2003, 16:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
DD, dunno....where'd it move to?

Eastern Mediterranean

KrazyHorse · February 15, 2003, 16:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Quote:

Perhaps you should provide an example of a more important default that the US had direct control over...

If you think I'm going to hunt all over the internet for sources you'll just dismiss again, you're sadly mistaken. It's your responsibility to address your ignorance on this subject; go pick up a book on the issue...

You accuse me of BAMs?

Say a name and a date, Drake. Otherwise you got nothing.

Drake Tungsten · February 15, 2003, 16:41

Quote:

You accuse me of BAMs?

I never asserted anything. I just pointed out that past defaults had not set a precedent, so to believe a default by Iraq would do so goes against the past evidence.

Nice try though, Kitty. It's always smart to try to cut your opponent off at the legs when you don't have a leg to stand on...

KrazyHorse · February 15, 2003, 16:45

Name and a date, not a source.

Where and when has there been a more important precedent?

Sava · February 15, 2003, 16:46

Drake is coming close to overtaking Fez. In the other thread he said war protestors support Saddam.

Odin · February 15, 2003, 18:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
Drake is coming close to overtaking Fez. In the other thread he said war protestors support Saddam.

What happened to Fezzie anyway? Did he get banned pemamently?

Comrade Tribune · February 15, 2003, 18:32

Quote:

Originally posted by St Leo
Exactly what it says. [Slobodan] is not guilty, and should be released immediately.

You are an idiot.

Brilliant argument.

Quote:

Originally posted by St Leo
The guys at Nuremberg were hanged for that.

For some odd reason, the guys at Versailles weren't. Oh, yeah, I remember. They didn't engage in systematic genocide.

You don´t know much about Nuremberg, do you? Not in all cases was genocide alleged. Some were *just* hanged because of their implication in starting a war of aggression.

WWI has nothing to do with it, because there never was, and probably never will be, agreement about who actually were the aggressors. Most historians would say there was no clear-cut aggressor.

Oerdin · February 15, 2003, 18:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Frogger
Oerdin:
If the French just care about their contracts and could avoid losing them by playing ball, then why would they be doing what they're doing now?

As a matter of fact, by your arguments they're taking a stand against their own interests.

The money is just one of the reasons. As St Leo pointed out a large share of their population is also against the war so the politicos can pontificate about how bad war is, thus winning public support, and then cut a back room deal to insure those financial interests.
Plus a little extra from uncle sam.

I suspect that will be the price to let the next resolution through the U.N.. We'll find if I'm wrong or not in about four weeks.

Comrade Tribune · February 15, 2003, 18:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Does Austria stand up for anything? Other than having no spine?

Heh. Good you ask. There may soon be a plebiscite about some sort of boycott against the United States. I support the idea. Stay tuned.

Asher · February 15, 2003, 18:36

Another thread full of people talking about oil and Iraq, when it's clear they don't have a ****ing clue how the oil industry works.

Whenever something bad happens these days, we can always find a way to link it back to oil. It's incredible, really, a scapegoat for virtually every political cause.

Oerdin · February 15, 2003, 18:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
Drake is coming close to overtaking Fez. In the other thread he said war protestors support Saddam.

I would have to agree with him. As a real world consiquence to their actions they are supporting Saddam. Sure, this isn't the intent of most of them but that is what their actions are doing.

People should look at the big picture and not worry so much about the penny that they lose a pound.

Comrade Tribune · February 15, 2003, 18:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Oerdin
BTW could you please seporate my quotes from the ones CT made. I don't want people being confused and thinking I said or agree with what he said.

I second that motion!

Oerdin · February 15, 2003, 18:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Odin
What happened to Fezzie anyway? Did he get banned pemamently?

Fez, our dear fellow polytubby, said he got bashed one to many times and that he was taking at least a year of.
I suspect he does still come around to read threads but maybe he really is gone.

KrazyHorse · February 15, 2003, 18:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Oerdin

The money is just one of the reasons. As St Leo pointed out a large share of their population is also against the war so the politicos can pontificate about how bad war is, thus winning public support, and then cut a back room deal to insure those financial interests.
Plus a little extra from uncle sam.

I suspect that will be the price to let the next resolution through the U.N.. We'll find if I'm wrong or not in about four weeks.

You're just saying that French politicians are dishonest and will say whatever they think is in their best interest. I suspect that's true of American politicians as well.

Drake Tungsten · February 15, 2003, 18:51

Quote:

I would have to agree with him. As a real world consiquence to their actions they are supporting Saddam. Sure, this isn't the intent of most of them but that is what their actions are doing.

Bingo.

Comrade Tribune · February 15, 2003, 18:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Quote:

I would have to agree with him. As a real world consiquence to their actions they are supporting Saddam. Sure, this isn't the intent of most of them but that is what their actions are doing.

Bingo.

I vouch for some of the people demonstrating against the war that they do *not* support Saddam.

Though, personally, I disagree with them on this.

If you have a fight between two criminal gangs, the best strat is to support the weaker gang.

Demerzel · February 15, 2003, 19:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Ted Striker
It's all about Eurocom oil.

**** you Europe. Get the hell out of the way.

Why the heck do you have a British flag as your avatar when you seem to be just another arrogant and self-opinated American?

Jac de Molay · February 15, 2003, 19:17

Quote:

I would have to agree with him. As a real world consiquence to their actions they are supporting Saddam. Sure, this isn't the intent of most of them but that is what their actions are doing.

Please.

There are many reasons for opposing the war above and beyond any sympathies for Hussein.

We can't keep enough cops and firemen on the streets for the real brunt work of homeland security, states have huge deficits, and no program is safe from cuts.

But, suddenly we have 100s of billions to bomb and rebuild Iraq?

Sava · February 15, 2003, 20:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Oerdin

I would have to agree with him. As a real world consiquence to their actions they are supporting Saddam. Sure, this isn't the intent of most of them but that is what their actions are doing.

People should look at the big picture and not worry so much about the penny that they lose a pound.

Of course you agree with him, you're a hawk. Everything in your mind is right. Everyone else is wrong. And all of us "leftists" that are the voice of dissent are just helping Saddam. And God forbid your exhalted leader Dubya could be wrong or driven by other motives. Heavens, it should be illegal to mention such treasonous statements.

Jesus Christ... if you don't like dissenting opinions, move to North Korea.

Protesting Bush and his motives aren't helping Saddam no matter how you rationalize it. If you want to point the finger at people who helped Saddam, why don't you look at Reagan, Bush I, Cheney, and Rumsfeld. Their actions in the past have helped out Saddam exponentially more than anyone protesting war.

Spiffor · February 15, 2003, 21:00

"Anti war protestors support Saddam"

is equivalent to

"Pro-war supporters want to see thousands of innocents slain"

Both total nonsense. Please stop the crap, Drake, you're looking worse every post

Spiffor · February 15, 2003, 21:04

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
As an aside, Is there any credence to the French assertion that the recent movement of the Charles de Gaulle has nothing to do with the recent "international situation?"

Absolutely not. Chirac has been lying from the beginning, as he is used to, and he will join the US as soon as the war starts. In late January, he warned both his diplomats and soldiers (during the traditional New Years' vows) to "expect anything".
It is fairly possible the Charles de Gaulle had a training planned at this time of the year, but Eastern Mediterranean is a bit too much luck don't you think ?

Oerdin · February 15, 2003, 21:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
Heh. Good you ask. There may soon be a plebiscite about some sort of boycott against the United States. I support the idea. Stay tuned.

Not to be nationalistic or anything but I bet we could tank your economy before you could tank ours. BTW a nationally organized embargo would violate WTO rules.

Demerzel · February 15, 2003, 21:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Oerdin

Not to be nationalistic or anything but I bet we could tank your economy before you could tank ours. BTW a nationally organized embargo would violate WTO rules.

heh violating WTO rules hasn't been a problem for the US recently

Oerdin · February 15, 2003, 21:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Demerzel
Why the heck do you have a British flag as your avatar when you seem to be just another arrogant and self-opinated American?

In Ted's defense: As opposed to another arrogant and self-opinated European?