Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Today I read in the local newspaper that the U.S. government decided that only companies of countries who joined or approved the war in Iraq will get commissions for the re-establishment of the infrastructure. Even Canada, one of your closest allies in the past is excluded.

The biggest piece of the cake will of course get U.S. companies.

This is another sign that this war was also started to boost the U.S. economy (which succeeded).

First the war-related companies made profit first, and now it's the turn of the other ones.

Interestingly, the Iraqis have no say in it who gets the commissions. Another proof that they are only puppets of the U.S. government.
-----
Beware of Commies and Mutts!

Why should a country that was selling arms to Iraq Illegally (like France), and was against the war, and stabbed us in the back by telling Powell they were backing us and voting for UN resolutions and then, later, voting against us and not enforcing them, and didn't help in the war effort by sending money or troops, take the risks, etc...... now profit from all that the coalition has accomplished?

Why shouldn't other countries that have spent money, sent troops, and taken the risk, be the ones to get rewarded for their efforts?

Sounds like typical democrat thinking. If a person invests money in a business, takes risks with his money and works hard, democrats think that persons shouldn't get the profits from his efforts. Take his money (in taxes) and give it to those that didn't invest, risk, work harder/smater, and then call it fairness/compassion. This kind of thinking makes it obvious why most sucessfull businesses are started/built/owned/run by conservatives and not liberals. The big rift in this country seems to be because some people, that don't earn a lot of money, think they are entitled to the money that others make. And those others think they should be entitled to their money, and others shouldn't be. The rift is between the producers and the non-producers.

While those countries can still get "subcontracts", that even seems to be offering them far too much in my opinion, considering their behavior. Why do people think we (the U.S.) should overlook their behavior to try and draw them in as friends? Friends don't behave like they did! Those kind of friends, that just like the U.S. when they can use us, are no friends at all. Would you keep a personal friend, if they treated you, like they treated us? I wouldn't! And I certainly wouldn't go out of my way to try and keep them as a friend (just to make friends) after they stabbed me in the back.

Though they were included in the list, Canada is probably going to do OK. I doubt if they will be in the same boat as the Russians and the French.

It's nice to have a president that knows right from wrong, and speaks it regardless of the consequences. The longer Bush is in office, the more I like him.

Sure he has done some things I don't agree with, but he has been right on all the really important things.

Rodney

>>>Why shouldn't other countries that have spent money, sent troops, and taken the risk, be the ones to get rewarded for their efforts?

lol Name me those countries, and how many troops they have sent. lol @ the coalition of the willing!!! The US, England, and Australia are the only real countries that involved in this. All the others see how bluntly retarded dubya is.

>>> Why should a country that was selling arms to Iraq Illegally (like France),

Like We did in the 80's? lol Funny you left that out. Just like the right wing, and their double standard to life. Its ok if we are involved in illegal weapons trading, or we assassinate a democratly elected leader, But every other country well they just have no right.

>>>Sounds like typical democrat thinking. If a person invests money in a business, takes risks with his money and works hard, democrats think that persons shouldn't get the profits from his efforts.

What about if a person uses other peoples money "in forms of investments" to build their wealth, and then takes those peoples money and cashes out on them. Leaving them broke. Lets just call it FRAUD. Republicans like Bush, Chaney, Kent Lay, Nixon the list is ENDLESS. But then again they live by a double standard..

n/p

n/p

I'm not a huge fan of Bush, but you have to admit this seems to make sense. If you had no part in the war, if in fact you openly opposed it, why would you expect to take part in the rebuilding of the country. The US has put in huge sums of money to liberate Iraq. They should be able to recoup their loses.

You know...I did not agree with this war. But Frankly, I can't see countries that have a history of not backing us,(how very French) profiting from our efforts. Gee, I'm agreeing with BUSH? Sorry, but the world is a cruel place and rarely fair. I'll take this brand of fair and I don't give a ratpup's butt if it makes us Hypocrites. Maybe some of that profit can be directed to South Florida where we need a bail out after years of bad tourism...hanging chads and incompetant election officials.......
Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

I think there is a point you may be missing. The US has been in the embarassing position of asking for help from a lot of the countries whose wishes we ignored when we decided on a pre-emptive war with Iraq. We've been back to the UN asking for help and, believe it or not, while the Bush Press man was announcing our unwillingness to share in the re-building, we had administration officials in Europe asking those same countries to reduce or dissolve Iraq's debts to them, and trying to raise funds for the re-building. How do you think that came across?

At a time when we should have been working to re-establish healthy relations with those we offended we were instead acting petty, selfish and arrogant. This is behaviour unbecoming of a super power, and we'll pay the price for it. International relations should be above strict self interest. This is yet another example of the Bush administration's inability to lead.

Joe

What? The UN passed resolution 1441 unanimously stating that there would be severe consequences if Iraq didn't comply with that resolution. Then the UN did nothing while the US enforced that resolution with a coalition of other nations. 1441 was the UN's wishes until it came time to walk the walk instead of just talking the talk. Talk is cheap, and Bush knows that. The UN's wishes only changed when it came time to enforce 1441! Not to mention that they did not vote on and pass any resolution to prevent the war, but they did vote on and pass one to take severe consequences to Iraq's regime if the didn't comply!

There are about 40 nations that are helping in Iraq currently. The main countries in opposition to the war were France, Russia, and to a lesser extent, Germany. They were all making huge profits selling weapons to Iraq against UN resolutions (that they agreed to) that were supposed to prevent Iraq from getting those weapons.

And now that the main fighting is over, you think that makes us look foolish for asking for help? Don't you realize that is exactly how we were trying to reestablish healthy relations with them? -by asking them to now assist and join us again. Do you remember how France said they would never help rebuild Iraq if Saddam was removed? Think they were trying to protect their future illegal arms deals with him? 300 million tons is a lot of weaponry! And considering how much money Saddam had, he could have purchased a lot more.

Don't you think those same countries that were violating the UN resolutions they agreed to (by not honoring the Iraqi embargo) by selling weapons to Iraq are the ones who are acting acting petty, selfish and arrogant? Those same ones who agreed to severe consequences that they then wouldn't enforce. Doing all these arms deals for profit when they agreed not to? Voting for 1441 and then not being willing to enforce it?

Frankly, I see all your criticisms of the Bush administration applying to France and Russia far more than they do to the US. Just because Bush doesn't want them to profit from their selfish and arrogant actions doesn't make Bush selfish and arrogant!

Is the person who stands up to a bully, a bully? Absolutely not! A bully is someone who goes after an innocent that can't defend themselves. A bully is not someone who defends themselves from a bully.

I would care a lot more about France's opinions of the US if I respected them! Since I don't respect them, their opinions are irrelevant to me. Why would I care what anyones opinion of me was if I didn't respect them? If I respected them, that would be a different matter.

If telling the truth, enforcing UN resolutions, not allowing profiteering by countries that haven't helped with the war effort makes the US look arrogant in their eyes, then so be it! I'd much rather stand up for what is right than do what it wrong, just so I didn't offend someone that I don't respect.

You said International relations should be above strict self interest. I couldn't agree more. Unfortunately, it is Countries like France and Russia that are violating this idea. I applaud Bush for calling them on it. That is showing true leadership qualities in my opinion.- Doing what is right even if it happens to offend someone that is powerful.

Rodney

1.
Hans Blix, chief of the U.N. inspectors stated explicitely that Iraq was fulfilling the resolution. Last there had been no restrictions for the inspectors to check for weapons of mass destructions.

2.
Not Germany sold forbidden goods to Iraq but private companies in Germany. The owners of the companies went to prison for that.
When Michael Jackson abuses childs would you say that the U.S. abuses childs?

3.
It had been the U.S. who almost chocked Iraq with the delivery of weapons in the 80ies. And here it was the U.S. government and not private companies.

Don't forget that.

No, you are wrong (on at least 2 of your 3 points anyway).

Hans Blix stated that they had minders everywhere they went, which was in violation of the resolution. The UN resolution stated that the UN had the authority to go freely and inspect. How could the inspectors freely inspect when they each had as many as 6 armed guards "minding" them? Did you not read about Hans stating how 7 unarmed nonmilitary inspectors would go into a facility with 42 armed Iraqi military personnel just "to keep track of them"? Hans clearly stated that they were being intentionally intimidated so that they couldn't do their job. (Not to mention all the weapons that were found [like long range missiles) that were in violation of the peace treaty and UN resolutions). Those weapons and that intimidation were both violations. Iraq has had a long history of delays and stall tactics. How much longer did you want to wait? Another 12 years? Maybe 12,000 years of waiting before taking action might make you happy?

What UN resolutions were in place in the 80's making arms deals with Iraq illegal at that time?

How can you compare the US legally selling arms to both Iran and Iraq at the same time (in the 1980s)to make sure one country didn't take over the entire area and cause instability in the entire region, with a country selling arms and violating the UN resolutions they agreed to today? And how can you also compare these two things when one was legal and the other was in violation of international law? And how can you compare these two things as equal when one was done to promote stability and the other was done with no regard for stability, but for profit?

While it may be true that German companies sold weapons, and not the German Govt. itself, isn't it odd that when you look at all the weapons that are being recovered (estimated 300 million tons so far), almost all come from France, Germany, and Russia and they were the main players that were against the war? I don't think that is just a coincidence. Especially when there are 40 countries that are helping us in Iraq that think the war was justified, and that weren't selling weapons to Iraq. I think the arrests of those in Germany that were selling arms were done so Germany could "save face". Ever heard of plausible deniability? I've always respected Germany for their meticulous nature. (Building great cars, etc.) and I would think that this would most likely prevent international sales of arms without the govt. knowing about it, unlikely. Sure, some small numbers of arms could have gotten to Iraq unnoticed by various governments, but how much of that 300 million tons worth was really done illegally without even being noticed?

Rodney

In their report to the UN on March 7, 2003 the chief inspectors Hans Blix and Mohammed al-Baradei gave a positive statement as to the cooperation of Iraq.

source: http://www.bits.de/zumach/2003/taz070303-3.htm

Hans Blix also said on German television in March: "There would have been a chance to resolve the problem in peaceful way".

Does this sound as he has agreed with the "measure" that has been taken by the U.S.?

As a matter of fact the U.S. government was scared that Iraq would eventually fulfil the resolution 1441. Thus the US had got in a hurry to start the war that it was anxious to start.

Furthermore, according to my knowledge there had not been a delivery of weapons to Iran but only to Iraq.

And I must really say that your country sometimes act in a disgusting way.

It supports hoodlums (Noriega) and terrorists (the taliban) as long as it serves the purposes of the US and afterwards the moral index finger is raised and the former friend is smashed.

Iraq had been playing cat and mouse with the UN for 12 years, and the Bush administration felt that they would get away with it for many more years if no action was taken. The UN agreed to 1441 being Iraq's last chance to avoid war and they did not try to comply. Hans Blix stated this. It was only after war was looking very very likely that Iraq then started to comply and that is what Hans Blix was referring to in your post. Forgetting about his previous statements, just weeks earlier, and only looking at a small fraction of the situation, misses the larger picture once again. This has been going on for 12 years. How many last chances to avoid war does Iraq need to make you happy? This could go on for a very long time. Iraq violates resolutions, nothing is done, war is threatened, they comply, war is averted, they violate again, war is threatened, they comply, war is averted, they violate again.......

It was very expensive for the US to move and keep all its troops on ready in the region just to have Iraq back down and then violate resolutions once again, once the threat was gone. The US was afraid of that, as they should have been.

Rodney

Rodney,

The central point of your post is that the UN Weapons Inspectors could not do there job because of the minders. Could you provide us with some reference to comments by Blix that state the inspectors could not do their job? Blix said repeatedly that they were doing fine - that they were not in need of any additional inspectors, etc. If you have other information, you need to share it.

The US refused to provide the inspectors with top secret intelligence about the location of WMDs. When they eventually were embarrassed into doing so, it became clear the US actually had no intelligence about WMDs. (They still don't today) Is it ok that they lied to us and the world about this?

3rd question: You keep talking about the 40 coallition countries. Just for all our edification, can you tell us who these 40 are - and importantly, how many troops from each country have been committed? I think if your going to keep talking about the coallition, we need to know just exactly what the coalition amounts to!

Joe

For the sake of the point, I'll list those countries that make up the joke that is the Coalition of the Willing.

Forty-nine countries are publicly committed to the Coalition, including:

Afghanistan
Albania
Angola
Australia
Azerbaijan
Bulgaria
Colombia
Costa Rica
Czech Republic
Denmark
Dominican Republic
El Salvador
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Georgia
Honduras
Hungary
Iceland
Italy
Japan
Kuwait
Latvia
Lithuania
Macedonia
Marshall Islands
Micronesia
Mongolia
Netherlands
Nicaragua
Palau
Panama
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Rwanda
Singapore
Slovakia
Solomon Islands
South Korea
Spain
Tonga
Turkey
Uganda
Ukraine
United Kingdom
United States
Uzbekistan

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030327-10.html

No let us take a closer look at some of these countries.

Afghanistan, Yep is that not a heap of hot BS? WTF is Afghanistan’s contribution going to be? I wonder if they even know they are on this list..lol

Colombia, again WTF!!

Ethiopia, they could send them some starving kids.

Nicaragua, the Philippines, Maybe they should spend more time routing out their own members of al Qaeda

Palau, Palau is a group of N. Pacific islands with only 20,000 citizens, and no troops.

Other army less members include: Costa Rica, The Marshall Islands, The Solomon Islands, and Micronesia.

As you can see the Coalition of the willing is A JOKE. The WORLD does not back this war! Bush and Co. are Corporate criminals, wrapping them selves in the American Flag. Using the fear 9/11 caused to peddle this BOGOUS war for their own PROFIT!!
I don’t get what is wrong with you right wing nuts? Are you that Blind? OR are you suffering from an advanced case of denial? Or am I right about that Double standard to living thing?

Wow, thats pretty incredible. When the White House initially described the coallition it had only 30 members. Who would have thougt that these military power houses would be waiting in the wings?! No wonder Iraq special forces ran to the hills when they heard Costa Rica was on its way! Maybe the fact that Costa Rica constitutionally outlawed military spending put hem at ease?

Anyway, the point is, people pointing to the coallition as evidence validating our pre-emptive war are at least a little delusional. So why do they insist?

Joe

No, Joe, people saying that the entire world is against the war are delusional. Many countries are for it, and many are against it.-that's a fact. Saying that everyone is for it is just as delusional as saying that everyone is against it.

It's interesting that a lot of those that are strongly for it(sending troops and not just money or support), were recently under repressive regimes also. (Poland, Ukraine, etc.)

Rodney

What? Because a country isn't wealty, that means it's support is irrelevant? That means they don't support the war because they are unable to contribute enought to meet your standards? Those countries you listed publically announced their support. That makes them targets of terrorists by the terrorist own admission. That's good enough in my book!

Because a couple of countries don't measure up in your opinion, the entire list is a fraud?

You didn't mention Spain, the U.K, Italy, the Ukraine, Poland, etc.. These countries even sent and lost troops in Iraq.

Many other countries like Japan lost non-military personnel and are contributing cash. I guess they don't count either since they didn't send any fighting troops.--Money and support don't count either?

France, Germany and Russia didn't send troops, cash, support or anything, and they can afford it! They are the few against the war. I wish there was a list of those that are against the war, and then we could discredit them because they were making a killing before the war selling arms, illegal oil deals, etc. I bet that would be a short irrelevant list!

Rodney

>>>You didn't mention Spain, the U.K, Italy, the Ukraine, Poland, etc.. These countries even sent and lost troops in Iraq.

lol They are up there. Hey rod if your not busy. How about you list what those countries sent. Money/troops, and see who is REALLY footing this whole war..

The US foots the bill for everything! We are the main supporters of the UN. And think about this one. We are only about 5% of the worlds population, and we supply 60% of the total international humanitarian aid. 95% of the worlds population only supplies 40% and we (5%) supply 60%! Yeah, that's real fair too! (kind of like our screw the rich tax system! 5% pay most of the taxes and 95% pay very little).

If we weren't such a rich successful nation, we wouldn't be paying the lions share of everything! Frankly though, I'd rather be in a rich nation that can pay for everything than in Ethiopia or some other 3rd world country.

Rodney

First, Blix stated that Iraq wasn't complying. It was only when war was beginning to look emminent that they bagan to cooperate and that is when Blix said they were doing OK. This was after Iraq failed at their "last chance" for peace. I applaud Bush for not continuing to give them anymore "last chances". If he did, then his word would not be any good. I have never understood people that think it is good to go against your word.

As for the coalition of countries, some provided troops, some funding, some support, I never said that they all supplied troops. Frankly, if I was in charge of the war effort, I would prefer to only use one countries troops to minimize losses from language barriers or differences in tactics/training.

These countries are involved in the coalition.
Afghanistan
Albania
Angola
Australia
Azerbaijan
Bulgaria
Colombia
Costa Rica
Czech Republic
Denmark
Dominican Republic
El Salvador
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Georgia
Honduras
Hungary
Iceland
Italy
Japan
Kuwait
Latvia
Lithuania
Macedonia
Marshall Islands
Micronesia
Mongolia
Netherlands
Nicaragua
Palau
Panama
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Rwanda
Singapore
Slovakia
Solomon Islands
South Korea
Spain
Tonga
Turkey
Uganda
Ukraine
United Kingdom
United States
Uzbekistan

I Know Spain, Italy, Poland, US, Britain, Ukrain, and Holland have all lost military personnel and I am sure you are aware of the Japan and Spanish non-military casualties.

Rodney

Rodney,

You seem to be asserting that the US launched it's pre-emptive war with Iraq because it didn't want to break its word. Thats kinda silly, don't you think?

And you have also suggested that the US invaded in support of UN resolutions, but the UN said it was doing fine, thank you very much. Do you think the US may resort to violence in order to support other UN resolutions? Do you think the US would do almosty anything to support the UN?

Or do you think there might have been other reasons for the US invading Iraq?

Joe

You seem to be asserting that the US launched it's pre-emptive war with Iraq because it didn't want to break its word. Thats kinda silly, don't you think?

No, I don't think keeping your word is silly at all. (That seems to be something only liberals think is silly). Breaking your word is silly. It makes you look like you have no honor and it also means that no one can ever trust your word again! Why would you want to do that?

And you have also suggested that the US invaded in support of UN resolutions, but the UN said it was doing fine, thank you very much.

What? 1441 said there would be severe consequences if Iraq didn't comply. It was agreed upon unanimously even! The UN agreed that Iraq was not complying and only then backed out on enforcing it. It wasn't until later, when war looked very likely, that Iraq started to comply, and then the UN said it was doing fine. After the last chance to prevent war (1441) had already failed.

Do you think the US may resort to violence in order to support other UN resolutions?

At this point, I hope not. The UN has shown itself to be impotent and I hope the US doesn't take them seriously anymore when they don't even take themselves, or their resolutions seriously.

Do you think the US would do almosty anything to support the UN?

Not anymore! The UN is composed of many nations, but it seems like it needs the US's leadership in order to take any action. If the UN agreed upon something, and the US didn't, all the US would have to do would be to sit on it's hands and nothing would be done!

Or do you think there might have been other reasons for the US invading Iraq?

I think the only reason was the war on terror and the violations were an excuse to prosecute that war.

Joe

You said "And you have also suggested that the US invaded in support of UN resolutions, but the UN said it was doing fine, thank you very much."

This article chronicles what was happening and when.

http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page277.asp

It clearly lists how the inspectors were being systematically intimidated and when, and how they Iraqis weren't cooperating after they agreed to comply 1441. The UN wasn't doing fine at all! At least not until invasion from the U.S. looked imminent and Iraq started to comply once there was a significant threat.

Rodney

In my opinion the U.S. is in a weak position when it comes to morals.

This war was reasoned with the existance of weapons of mass destruction that have never been found.
Furthermore, there had been warnings that it might become very difficult to establish order and democracy in post war Iraq. The worst misgivings have been surpassed meanwhile. More U.S. soldiers lost their life in post war Iraq then during the war. The re-establishment of the infrastructure is very difficult due to sabotage actions of terrorists.
German GSG 9 elite soldiers have been sent to Iraq to protect German members of civil orginisations that are there for helping the people.
Right now it looks like it will be very hard to yield profit out of the crude oil in Iraq because of the sabotage of pipelines and refineries.
With one word: Iraq is unstable. If the U.S. would leave now, there would either be chaos or a regime of Mullahs. And this options will remain for an indefinate term.

That means that the misgivings of the nations that had been opposed to the war became truth.

So even the U.S. could do with help now. But excluding German, French, Russian and Canadian companies from the business is not the way to ask for help.
Russia has already announced not to remit the depts of Iraq. There are voices in Germany that advise chancellor Schröder to do the same and furthermore cancel his promise to give money for the re-establishment in Iraq.
Also, German soldiers are in Afghanistan in order to relieve the U.S. army.
Please consider that Afghanistan is actually none of Germans business. If I would be Schröder, I would call the soldiers back home.

I think it's about time that the U.S. get itself a better President.

First, terrorist groups cause instability in the entire world. Eliminating or drastically reducing them promotes stability in the entire world. Iraq definitely supported terrorism. Periodic instability in a region to promote long term stability in the entire world, is preferable in my opinion, to doing nothing and letting terrorism continue and escolate.

Second, there were many reasons to go to war with Iraq. The main ones were consistent violations of UN resolutions for 12 years with delay tactics being used to pacify the impotent UN. Just because weapons of mass destruction were used as a reason given in press releases, to the general public, etc. doesn't mean that there weren't many other reasons. Just because one reason can't be proven at this time doesn't mean that all the other reasons are irrelevant or that that one reason won't be proven in the future. Isn't it ironic that all the people that are praising the effectiveness of the UN are the same ones that didn't want to enforce resolution 1441.- And the ones that think the UN is impotent want to enforce 1441 thus making the UN look less impotent by having it's resolutions actually enforced!

Rodney

that the "weapons of mass destruction reason" was the one for the press release. But the real reasons had been monetary and geostrategic ones.

If you are looking for countries that support terrorism then there would have been more valuable targets than Iraq. Saudia Arabia comes to my mind...

Furthermore, there is not only a temporary instability in Iraq. You will live to see that your army either needs to stay there forever or you will get a regime of Mullahs or Saddam will cring out from under the stone he is hiding now.

What's the betting?

And Iraq will become your piggy bank:

No profit out of the oil because the terrorists are blowing up pipelines, refineries and infrastructure that you have just re-established. And the costs for the deployment of your troops will cut the throats of the U.S. taxpayers.
I am sure that the next President will call his boys home.

Again, what's the betting.

Monitary? Do you mean because it could break OPEC's monopoly on oil reserves? That'd be fine with me. OPEC's monopoly and non-competetive nature is illegal in many parts of the world.

Geostrategic reasons, that I can agree with. It would be a tremendous advantage to the stability of the region and the world not have a state like Iraq supporting terrorism.

Another ironic point in American politics is how conservatives insist on purchasing Iraqs oil and liberals think it sould be taken to pay for the war and reconstruction. Seems like the ones really out for "the cash" are the democrats.

Rodney

You said This war was reasoned with the existance of weapons of mass destruction that have never been found.

The problem with that argument is that everyone in congress and the intelligence agencies of France, Germany, Russia, the U.K., the U.S.A., Italy and others unanimously said that Iraq had those weapons. To now blame the U.S. because they weren't found, and say we don't have any moral ground to stand on, is to ignore all those other countries intelligence agencies, congressmen, officials, etc. that unanimously agreed about this. If we don't have the moral ground, then neither does the U.N. or the entire world for that matter. And for them to look down on us because of this, is total hypocrisy because they were all saying the exact same thing! Just because we acted on it and they didn't, is no excuse for that critisism.

I don't recall one single agency or person (except for Baghdad Bob-LOL) that disputed this belief (WMDSs). Even all the Democrats that are now running for president in the primaries agreed that this was true at the time. (Now they are saying all kinds of nonsense!)

Rodney

Maybe they need some attention. It seem like you have a lot of time on your hands. ~Bill~

my tanks have layers of newspapers on the ground. When my boas read the newest developement they shook their heads and asked me to chime in because they unfortunately have no fingers to serve the keyboard.

Bravo! Nice retort! I'm happy to hear your snakes get informed....Do they spend much time on the sports page?

Oh Germany is with the UN. That means sometimes troops go to serve in places that are none of that countries official Business.

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

... they mostly read the pages for matchmaking *LOL

You are right: Germany is in the UN and even it is an organization that can be critizised it is the best we have to keep peace.

So my remark was a bit thoughtless.
-----
Beware of Commies and Mutts!