Comments on: BARRED III

By: Kevin Drum

Kevin Drum — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

Oh hell, that's exactly what I said. Does that mean I actually agree with Kristol and Kagan about something?

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

Apparently. Your official Non-Con membership card should be on its way to you now.

By: Mr. TidyBowl

Mr. TidyBowl — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

Can somebody please explain to me the "WHY" to why we should be offering contracts to the French/Germans/Russians?

I've heard plenty of lamenting on the fact that we didn't. I've heard plenty of people saying that we should. But nobody has made any argument (let alone a good argument) as to WHY we should.

Personally, I subscribe to the opinion that if we do offer these contracts to the French/Germans/Russians we say in no uncertain terms - feel free to oppose us on anything we do - we'll come back to the table, hat in hand (as it were), to include you.

The French/Germans/Russians have risked nothing - have paid no costs, and have shed no blood - and yet some suggest we should offer them the potential windfall of these contracts.

Somebody, anybody, please explain the WHY!

By: Little Miss Attila

Little Miss Attila — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

How about simply awarding contracts on the basis of who will do the best job at the most reasonable cost?

By: Mr. TidyBowl

Mr. TidyBowl — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

"How about simply awarding contracts on the basis of who will do the best job at the most reasonable cost?"

And who makes that decision?

By: Director Mitch

Director Mitch — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

I disagree - I "suspect" Bush won't reverse the deicision. It would be the same as Bush saying "Ya know, those terrorists killing all those Americans wasn' THAT big a deal. Let's call this whole War on Terrorism off". To go back on this policy would be going against what he has always stated - about being with us or against us. And it would teach other nations that you can go against the U.S. and have no consequences whatsoever.

By: Paul

Paul — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

He might as well do it sooner rather than later, so as to minimize the diplomatic damage done

Huh? "minimize the diplomatic damage?"

What's going to happen, France and Germany won't do a damn thing to help us and will oppose us every step of the way?

WOW! There's a hollow threat!

I've never seen so many people that I respect cling to this fantasy that France and Germany might do something civil.

Accept reality. France and Germany are not our allies. They once found us useful, that's all.

It stuns me how many of you are drinking the Kool-aid that France and Germany will help us. AND BTW if we pay them a few billion it is not called diplomacy* it is called bribery.

weird

Paul

At this stage of the game you can't even write it off as check book diplomacy.

By: Ipse Dixit

Ipse Dixit — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

You Get What You Pay For
James Joyner and Daniel Drezner are a trifle upset about the Bush Administration's decision to allow only coalition countries to...

---