"It's post war...
As long as soldiers are dying in Iraq, I believe it is very premature to say it is post-war.
"Regardless of how to war started, to turn backs on the Iraqis and just leave them after this is wrong. They are after all human.
Nobody is talking about turning their backs on the Iraqis. In fact, there are more countries willing to provide help to the Iraqis, including financially, under a UN rule, then there are countries providing or willing to do so under US command. It is the US which is not willing to hand-over Iraq to the UN and thus it is the US which undermines the well-being of the Iraqi people.
"The troops are there, not the oil men......chances are more than likely private companies will do the work
Yes, we all remember just how 'the troops' guarded the Ministry of Oil in Baghdad while allowing hospitals to be looted.
"...after all, Oil is Business.
It's BIG business, specially when your election campaign has been heavily financed by companies such as Bechtel and Halliburton:
"According to news reports in early March, the U.S. Agency for International Development secretly asked six U.S. companies to submit bids for a $900 million government contract to repair and reconstruct water systems, roads, bridges, schools and hospitals in Iraq.
The six companies -- Bechtel Group Inc., Fluor Corp., Halliburton Co. subsidiary Kellogg, Brown & Root, Louis Berger Group Inc., Parsons Corp. and Washington Group International Inc. -- contributed a combined $3.6 million in individual, PAC and soft money donations between 1999 and 2002, the Center reported on its news site, CapitalEye.org. Sixty-six percent of that total went to Republicans."(Source:http://www.opensecrets.org/news/rebuilding_iraq/index.asp
Interesting to see that the company that contributed the biggest amount of money to the Republicans was the one to 'win' the largest post-war Iraq contract.
Business as usual?
"Not too pro-US...wouldn't it help more than to have as many non-US troops? UN or not, helping out in Iraq isn't a bad thing.
I agree. But not every country is willing to blindly follow Washington on this one. Other foreign troops in Iraq are all under either London or Washington command and the recent history has learned us that the info coming from these two capitals regarding this war, isn't always that thrustworthy: claim of Iraq going nuclear: a lie; claim of Iraq hiding WMD's: not found yet; claim of Saddam's ties with Al Qaida: no proof yet, not even the slightest indication.
"And if Pakistanis disagree with the US, then just pull out and let humanitarian aid organizations operate within.
It's not only the Pakistanis. It's also India or Germany or France. And I'm sure many more countries are willing to send in their troops as long as it would be under UN command with a specific resolution.
"...but rebuilding a country into a democracy has been done...look at Germany...and even Japan.
The big difference with Iraq is that NONE of the pre-war claims about Iraq and the reasons for this war (see above) have been proven.
""The presence of an Islamic force will facilitate peacekeeping operations in Iraq," they contended. ...Also from that article..."
...which clearly indicates that they are
willing to send THEIR troops to help and rebuild Iraq devastated by a war they OPPOSSED, but only under a 'UN umbrella'.
"Not so much insulting as accusing, much like Airmale accused Poland of being a "wannabe/me to" state.
After reading the BBC article, Poland being a 'wannabe/me too' state is more a fact rather than a accusation, IMO.
"You should proofread...where did I say Pakistan is better than Poland!?
Not with those words, no.
"And how is saying many Pakistanis come to Poland to seek jobs and education a slander? Many Americans go to Oxford, but you don't hear anyone taking offense to that
If you can't see the huge difference between those two statements, than you do need help! Stating that Pakistanis come to Poland to seek jobs and education
shows a large amount of negativism regarding Pakistanis, which is exactly why you wrote it as you were angry over what a particular Pakistan user had said about Poland.
"A little additional advice would be to not launch slander such as "wanna be/me to state" in the first place though.
I believe Poland has a 'wannabe/me too' attitude in this war, and I believe Spain's attitude has been very similar, if not worse! If you can't take such innocent criticism, it'll be very hard for you to maintain any discussion.
" This is where you and I will go head to head most often. That is unless you could actually read my statement properly. Let's take a look at it...
I agree. But you know, the problem is that not everybody reads your or even my sentences with the same eyes and mind as the person who originally wrote them. This means that sometimes phrases can be explained (and understood) in different ways. Judging by the number of people who actually replied to your 'cultural values' statement, I assume I wasn't the only one who 'misunderstood' what you really wanted to say.
"And I think Japan has done a great job in keeping their cultural values throughout the modern day world (ie capitalism)
ie capitalism" came after "Modern Day World"...in other words, "capitalism" is a reference to the modern day world, not a cultural value. There you have it.
The main subject of your phrase is "Cultural Values" or "Japan's Cultural Values" or, even completer "Japan's Culural Values in Modern Day". By using the example of "capitalism", you say "capitalism" is an example of "Japan's Cultural Values in Modern Days". If you just wanted to state that 'capitalism is part of Japan's Modern Days, then why the heck did you bring up this 'cultural values' thing in the first place?
"So you agree with the reason and hate the statement. Very well.
No I don't agree with the reason. I said I found the statement pathetic, not the reason why you wrote it. This doesn't mean I agree with that reason nor does it mean I find every reason I don't agree with pathetic per se.