Like was pointed out earlier, the Iraqis don't have any mechinism in place to do what needs to be done NOW and we do.
The Iraqi people a infinately more empowered today than they were prior the war.
Bidding on the jobs (again)
- Thread starter Ridemonkey
- Start date
The Iraqi people a infinately more empowered today than they were prior the war.
Maybe it's semantics but perhaps part of the problem here is how the money aspect is portrayed.
If the US is saying here's $18.6billion for you to use to restructure your country but btw you cannot use anyone form these countries that we don't like, it sucks.
If the US is saying we are going to restructure your country for free (to the scale of $18.6billion), then sure the US should be able to say who gets to do the work. Realistically the US govt is then paying people it chooses to do work for Iraq for free.
(Arguments aboot responsibility for the need to spend $18.6billion are not relevant at this point!)
I still believe the Iraq people (or representatives thereof) should have a say in how and where the money is spent either way, but if it ain't their money I don't why the US can't choose the companies.
This may seem like a change of position from the other thread but it isn't really because....
If any other nation gives money to aid Iraq they should be able to do so in exactly the same manner as the US. That is, if Canada gives $18.6billion that they should be entitled to the same control over ther funds as the US has over its funds.
Could make it a little complicated.
If the US is saying here's $18.6billion for you to use to restructure your country but btw you cannot use anyone form these countries that we don't like, it sucks.
If the US is saying we are going to restructure your country for free (to the scale of $18.6billion), then sure the US should be able to say who gets to do the work. Realistically the US govt is then paying people it chooses to do work for Iraq for free.
(Arguments aboot responsibility for the need to spend $18.6billion are not relevant at this point!)
I still believe the Iraq people (or representatives thereof) should have a say in how and where the money is spent either way, but if it ain't their money I don't why the US can't choose the companies.
This may seem like a change of position from the other thread but it isn't really because....
If any other nation gives money to aid Iraq they should be able to do so in exactly the same manner as the US. That is, if Canada gives $18.6billion that they should be entitled to the same control over ther funds as the US has over its funds.
Could make it a little complicated.
Some other bits - this is a fast moving thread!
The Iraqi people are less empowered than they were prior to the war if the US is dictating to them who they can use and what they can do. Until the US puts decision making of this kind back into Iraqi hands they will remain so.
What mechinism (sic) are they lacking? Surely all you need to make a decision is information and a brian? The US does not have a monopoly on the latter and they shouldn't withhold information on Iraq from its own people..
The Iraqi people are less empowered than they were prior to the war if the US is dictating to them who they can use and what they can do. Until the US puts decision making of this kind back into Iraqi hands they will remain so.
If they have any sense they will, it will increase profit because local labour is sure to be cheaper.
What are these mysterious things that only they and 1 or 2 others can do?
Me too. Where are you planning to find them? I doubt any other nations companies (of this kind of size) are any better. All companies try to minimise tax - their shareholders generally approve - which means us (actually not me cos I'm crap with money and haven't got any shares I'm aware of, but that's more incidental than intentional).
Hmm. Doesn't sound too sinister except when it's phrased 'Support us in what you consider an immoral act or we will withdraw all our funding and really f*ck you up'. And that has pretty much been done within the last 15 years.
Does this get us anything?
(an excerpt from cnn.com)
Exclusion stuns Canada
In Ottawa, incoming Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin said the decision was difficult to understand because his country already spent $300 million to support Iraq and also has troops in Afghanistan.
"I find it really very difficult to fathom," said Martin, who will take the helm of Canada's government Friday from Prime Minister Jean Chretien.
(an excerpt from cnn.com)
Exclusion stuns Canada
In Ottawa, incoming Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin said the decision was difficult to understand because his country already spent $300 million to support Iraq and also has troops in Afghanistan.
"I find it really very difficult to fathom," said Martin, who will take the helm of Canada's government Friday from Prime Minister Jean Chretien.
I quite liked this..
News Stuff from Somewhere or Other..
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"This is a gratuitous and extremely unhelpful decision at a time when there is a general recognition of the need for the international community to work together for stability and reconstruction in Iraq," Chris Patten, the European Union's commissioner for international relations, said through a spokesman.
And
America's most loyal ally, Britain, defended the ban. British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said it's up to the U.S. to decide how to spend its tax revenue.
"The United States Congress is fully entitled to say the tax dollars are spent in one way, which in this particular case is contracts limited to those active allies in Iraq, rather than another way," said Straw. "We have talked to them about it but the decision is for them, not ours."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both from the same article...
For those who don't know, Chris Patten is British and has held cabinet posts in a few areas and has been Conservative party chairman and currently represents Britain within the EU.
Seems we can't make up our minds at government level, never mind internet forum level...
News Stuff from Somewhere or Other..
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"This is a gratuitous and extremely unhelpful decision at a time when there is a general recognition of the need for the international community to work together for stability and reconstruction in Iraq," Chris Patten, the European Union's commissioner for international relations, said through a spokesman.
And
America's most loyal ally, Britain, defended the ban. British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said it's up to the U.S. to decide how to spend its tax revenue.
"The United States Congress is fully entitled to say the tax dollars are spent in one way, which in this particular case is contracts limited to those active allies in Iraq, rather than another way," said Straw. "We have talked to them about it but the decision is for them, not ours."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both from the same article...
For those who don't know, Chris Patten is British and has held cabinet posts in a few areas and has been Conservative party chairman and currently represents Britain within the EU.
Seems we can't make up our minds at government level, never mind internet forum level...
Don't know. Do you want a prorata share of the money the US is spending to rebuild Iraq? What has teh US and coalition forces spent in people ammunition, vehicals and wages in relation to Canada? Doesn't give Canada equal crack at the money if any in Iraq. A portion..........but I guess ('cause I don't know
) but the American money spent would seem to be quite large in comparison to the relative large amount Canada has given (assuming their support number is correct)If they donated <1% to the effort they might be worthy of <1% of the rebuilding contracts. Or........they poney up more of their own $$$ to pay there own national companies...... if they are truely in it to help Iraq.
US money can go where ever the US deems fit. Jsut like others chose to stay out of it. They can continue to stay out............. but un-like then they now have some $$$ to make out of it.
Pretty opportunistic to me.
zactly... they want the USA to help their economy by giving their companies jobs. Why the hell should the USA do that when they could give the money to its own companies?
Basically it comes down to this: that money is American tax payer money. MY MONEY! Germany, France, Russia, and the rest of them can eat our collective shorts if they think they can demand MY MONEY!!!
:angry:
:angry:
Come on even you Fluff can't believe this. Maybe not more empowered but certainly not any less at this point but eventually this is going to improve. Face it until the country can have elections of some sort it wouldn't matter how the US handled it. Any Iraqi that is given any sort of authority to pick and chose contractors would have been appointed by the US so by extension its a pretty much foregone conclusion which contractors they are going to pick. Which would get everyone up in arms that the US appointed lackys and bring us back to exactly where we are at this very moment.
The alternative is to stop all work until an elected government is installed. But at what cost?
Please don't bring morality into world politics, in theory it would be nice but in reality...... it just doesn't fly. If morality had any actual place in world politics the world would be a far different place.
By the way how did we end up with two threads on the EXACT samething?
Well there's always a degree of devil's advocate to get a point across but prior to the invasion it was Iraqis (albeit ones we didn't like) making decisions in Iraq. If it is now the US then, strictly speaking what I said is true. Value judgements are a different field, but factually if it's the US calling the shots and US personnel making the decisions my comment is accurate. Taken in it's original context it makes more sense too - using increased Iraqi empowerment to justify the US dictating decisions about Iraq to Iraqis (or not letting them make those decisions at all)....
And sure, it will improve but let's only celebrate it when it is fact, until then it is supposition, especially (I imagine) to many Iraqis yet to be convinced that the US is benign.
I agree morality is sadly absent from politics, particularly non-domestic politics. Again it was a comment on a comment where it made a bit more sense (I feel).
Blame the chief for the multiple threads, I dunno why..
I see your point but I just think it would ring hollow (like most of this doesn't
) if the US just appointed some Iraqis to make the decisions and then they chose all US/coalition companies, which they would. Plus there is no way those "appointed" Iraqis would ever be trusted by their fellow Iraqis or considered to be acting in the country's best interest. And to wait is just not something that can happen. At least this way the US continues to play the devil in all of this. This is the honesty the world seemed to crave but unfortunately it wasn't really what they wanted to hear.
Agreed.Originally posted by DRB
I see your point but I just think it would ring hollow (like most of this doesn't
This is the honesty the world seemed to crave but unfortunately it wasn't really what they wanted to hear.
Regardless of what action the US takes it will be criticised and will never be able to please all factions. Basically the US should do what the US thinks is best and tell the world to sod off if they don't like it. Oh, hang on, Dubya is already...
The thing is I don't really have a problem with the US having the major say in where the money they provide is spent. I just don't like smokescreens and some of the statements in this thread have been that. Honesty may not always be palatable but it is much more difficult to take issue with.
Please tell me I'm not becoming a republican.
(Crap! Cola all over the key board..........
)
Possibly the PM of Canada has give the US some consessions... maybe on lumber tarriffs or canadian bacon bits...
Ah.. someone is becoming educated...
Sheesh...Originally posted by N8
HAHAHAHA!!!
Figures by Ralph Nader...
Like Bush would research and document corporate abuses...
My take is this.
The war was about money and Halliburton et al. are getting paid for supporting Bush. It's their money, they made the war and greedy slime bags from other nations should get their hands out of the pot.
If they want to rebuild a country they should get a leader elected in their country who will wage war and then they can raid their own grandchildrens future and kill a bunch of Arbas like we did here.
The war was about money and Halliburton et al. are getting paid for supporting Bush. It's their money, they made the war and greedy slime bags from other nations should get their hands out of the pot.
If they want to rebuild a country they should get a leader elected in their country who will wage war and then they can raid their own grandchildrens future and kill a bunch of Arbas like we did here.
I'm going to flesh out why I think this policy is a bad idea, I didn't get a chance to do it during the day, and I haven't seen it brought up yet.
2 reasons:
1. It's bad politics. Closing the bidding process to France, Germany, and Russia, and especially Canada (due to the fact that they have troops in Afghanistan) because they didn't support action in Iraq does nothing to help relations between these countries, and it also does nothing to help getting other nations into Iraq and Afghanistan where there is some serious nation building to do. Unless there is some real investment (more than the US intends to do) in these areas, I'd be willing to be you'll see them turn into terrorist petri dishes in the next 10 years (even more so than they are now.)
Along with that (completely hypothetical on my part, but it makes sense to me) having companies in there from some countries that were against the invasion might help the Iraqis feel less occupied than they currently do, and I think that would be a good thing.
2. It's also bad from a taxpayer's standpoint. I'm not an American, but I pay taxes here, so I'm going to bitch about this. What happened to open bids and getting the best job done for the cheapest price? You know, the whole open markets and free trade stuff the US evangelizes for...If Halliburton bids less than some huge German company on a job, so be it. This policy means that we'll never know though.
Now I'm reading on CNN that Bush is asking Russia to forgive 8 billion dollars of Iraqi debt...anyone else feel like Eric Cartman has been in charge of foreign policy lately?
2 reasons:
1. It's bad politics. Closing the bidding process to France, Germany, and Russia, and especially Canada (due to the fact that they have troops in Afghanistan) because they didn't support action in Iraq does nothing to help relations between these countries, and it also does nothing to help getting other nations into Iraq and Afghanistan where there is some serious nation building to do. Unless there is some real investment (more than the US intends to do) in these areas, I'd be willing to be you'll see them turn into terrorist petri dishes in the next 10 years (even more so than they are now.)
Along with that (completely hypothetical on my part, but it makes sense to me) having companies in there from some countries that were against the invasion might help the Iraqis feel less occupied than they currently do, and I think that would be a good thing.
2. It's also bad from a taxpayer's standpoint. I'm not an American, but I pay taxes here, so I'm going to bitch about this. What happened to open bids and getting the best job done for the cheapest price? You know, the whole open markets and free trade stuff the US evangelizes for...If Halliburton bids less than some huge German company on a job, so be it. This policy means that we'll never know though.
Now I'm reading on CNN that Bush is asking Russia to forgive 8 billion dollars of Iraqi debt...anyone else feel like Eric Cartman has been in charge of foreign policy lately?
Pragmatic, please...Originally posted by N8
Ah.. someone is becoming educated...
Resent it all you want. And yes, it ain't fair. But that's the way of the World. Government policy has nothing to do with the man on the street. Government policy's first priority is to ensure the survival of the government. The population runs a distant second to the agenda of the ruling mob.
Problem is, they'll probably import Mexicans. Old habits die hard.
I'm pretty sure that's not going to happen.