"Palme D'Or" for Mike Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11&

[kandrathe]

Bush says you will only get rebuilding contracts in Iraq if you support them.

Motivated by repaying those who shouldered the burden. The other shoe is that it is quite "unfair" to let some nations like France, or Germany stand on the side lines when the heavy lifting is going on, but step right back in when profits are to be had. The whole business of "War Profiteering" seems entirely unseemly to me, and I didn't agree with the Bush Administration on this one. It would be better for Iraq if everyone was involved (and us too in the long run -- good will and all).

Bush uses lies to justify a war.

Well, that horse is so beaten that it is dog food, but having watched and debated with those here through that whole event, my recollection was that ALL intelligence agencies got it wrong, not just ours. I also made the case that all the evidence indicated a strong Chemical and Biological Weapons program, which we did find. What we did not find are the stockpiles to go with that program. What made Bush different is that he used that (in hindsight) poor information to justify a preemptive action to prevent Iraq from using or distributing WMD to the "bad guys". To me, twisting that history into saying "Bush Lied" or "Blair Lied" is just the oppositions propaganda. "Bush was wrong" or "Blair was wrong" are more accurate statements of reality in my opinion.

Bush does not "help" other country that are in need. (US gives lowest percentual amount of 3rd world support in the western world (I think just ahead of Albania  ) etc. etc

Can you cite a source for that? I can. The US and Foreign Aid Assistance You heard the propaganda which is "USA's aid, in terms of percentage of their GNP is already lowest of any industrialized nation in the world", but not the other side which is "though paradoxically in the last three years, their dollar amount has been the highest. " The trend for US giving under Bush went from 9.5 billion to 15.8 billion (23% of all AID), an increase of 6.3 billion, which is higher than what all but 3 nations (Germany, France, Japan) give entirely. Only Japan's giving has been going down. There are so many other programs that we fund, including a significant portion for the many UN programs, and Peacecorps. Then you get to the NGO's. Who's soldiers shoulder the bulk of UN peace keeping duties? It's a much dicier issue than just raw money. IMHO, most of US AID is going to the wrong places, and that is the *real* problem with US AID.

From that same hyperlink;

As an aside, it should be emphasized that the above figures are comparing government spending. Such spending has been agreed at international level and is spread over a number of priorities. Individual/private donations may be targeted in many ways. However, even though the charts above do show U.S. aid to be poor (in percentage terms) compared to the rest, the generosity of the people of America is far more impressive than their government. As discussed further below, the government spending has tied agendas that has often been detrimental to the recipient. Private aid/donation in contrast has been through charity on individual people and organizations though this of course can be weighted to certain interests and areas. Nonetheless, it is interesting to note for example, per latest estimates, Americans privately give at least $34 billion overseas

We have signed no agreement with the world community giving the international court sovereignty. We have a very good system of justice, and for the most part people who commit crimes are arrested, tried, and convicted if they are guilty. If they are in the military, we have a very good military system of justice which has served the US with honor. If a crime is committed in another country our citizens are subject to the laws of the country they are in, and we have agreements with almost every nation on the planet on how that is handled. As a US citizen, my perspective is that our "Supreme Court" is the final court for citizens, and the International Court is fine for those who need a "Supreme Court", and it might be good for international disputes, but we don't need it here.

>>Queue Frenchman from The Holy Grail<< We already got one, you see?

Most of us are suspicious that if we did sign any agreement, it would just become a way to politically attack our officials. That is what the State Department and the diplomatic corps are for.

I've said this on other occasions; My problem with Bush is that his diplomatic style is too heavy handed, he does not play politics with the world like some of our prior Presidents did. I'm sorry for our big muddy boots lacking diplomacy trampling all over your sensibilities.