 | | Re: Bush defends exclusion order on contracts
|
|
(...) I'm not really surprised are you. (...) Wait why would Iraq have a debt? Saddam's regime had a debt but what does that have to do with Iraq? Of course that is the only reason certain countries opposed military action in the first place. (...) (...) (22 years ago, 15-Dec-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those who cast the votes decide nothing.
|
|
(...) Let's put some fresh meat on these bones: (URL) Iraqi civilian deaths 'avoidable'> ==+== Human Rights Watch raises some serious questions about the way in which specific weapons were employed. It strongly criticises the use of cluster (...) (22 years ago, 12-Dec-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Bush defends exclusion order on contracts
|
|
I liked this: (URL) Scott A (22 years ago, 12-Dec-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Bush defends exclusion order on contracts
|
|
Hmm. One would think that open competitive bids would be in the best interests of US tax payers and Iraq citizens? Heard the latest: (URL) Oil firm 'overcharged' US in Iraq> Scott A (...) (22 years ago, 12-Dec-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Bush defends exclusion order on contracts
|
|
(...) Mmmmmm. I understand that these conditions (who may supply under these contracts) are in respect of the aid money being provided by the US. It would not be unheard of for donors to impose these sorts of conditions when giving money. I guess (...) (22 years ago, 12-Dec-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
