Filipino Workers Kidnapped to Build US Embassy in Iraq

Parent Cafe
1

<p>Oh yeah, the Dem congress is going to pull out of Iraq. Any minute now. After they approve the financing for this puppy.</p>

<p>

<a href=“http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article2199263.ece[/url]”>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article2199263.ece&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

2

<p>yeah and Bush will veto anything they do, lets blaim the Dems for this</p>

<p>Good thing we are making progress toward freedom of there</p>

3

<p>To be honest, the Congressional Republicans approved this budget in '06, along with $20 million for the victory celebrations. </p>

<p>But now it IS the Dems’ responsibility - they write and pass the budget. And, when it comes to Iraq, they don’t have to even vote on a military budget at all - Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi can bring the occupation to a halt anytime they pleases by simply not authorizing a vote, and there’s nothing George Bush can do about it.</p>

<p>Fat chance of that.</p>

4

<p>How about we apply a little common sense (as opposed to the two prior posts). Assuming the story is true, how about if we assign responsibility for kidnapping to the kidnappers themselves?</p>

5

<p>Hold the civilian contractors accountable? “Common sense” would dictate that if the Bush administration were going to do that, they’d have started long ago.</p>

6

<p>The beauty of it is that you, (the taxpayer), probably paid through the nose for the Kuwaitis to take on the project. Of course they have to use indentured servants! Who else would go into Bahgdad to build the biggest ‘embassy’ in the world?</p>

<p>How long will the politicians, on both sides of the aisle, keep up the charade with the earnest but naive American public? This is all about the oil…and the PRC.</p>

<p>Wanna know where the second biggest US ‘emabassy’ is? </p>

<p>Ghana.</p>

7

<p>

You are so blinded by your hate for the President that you cannot do something as simple as a blame kidnappers for kidnapping. It is pretty simple and it is the only answer that is correct (as far as we know at this point).</p>

<p>

Ridiculous. If it was about oil, we would have kept their oil. We would have made sure that the price of oil did not go over $70 per barrell. If it was about oil, we would have lifted sanctions against Saddam and let him pump as much oil as he wanted.</p>

8

<p>Razorshop, who do you think funded the kidnapping? Are you aware that the US has almost no laws governing civilian contractors? They don’t fall under military law; they don’t fall under U.S. law. A civilian contractor can do something with impunity that one of our soldiers would be imprisioned for.</p>

<p>And the administration has resisted efforts to make the contractors more accountable–even for the money. Inspectors and auditor positions are routinely cut.</p>

<p>Please do some reading about the issue of contractors and accountability.</p>

<hr>

<p>In other news, while we squander over a billion (I think) on this palace, Karbala has been without electricity and water for three days in 110 degree heat. (They can’t pump the water without electricity, and the power grid is in shambles). Sanitation and sewer/septic systems are also not operational.</p>

<p>Per the Geneva Convention, an occupying power is responsible for insuring water, food, and sanitation. Oddly enough, the Geneva Convention doesn’t require palace-building.</p>

9

<p>

Providing a loan is not kidnapping. Under your logic, if a bank had provided money to Michael Vick so he could buy a home at which dog fighting takes place, that bank is responsible for the dog fighting. Unless you can show that the “lender” provided money to the kidnappers with actual knowledge that a kidnapping would take place, there is no legal, moral or other basis to blame the “lender”.</p>

10

<p>Don’t know much too about the construction industry, I take it?</p>