[MMike]

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/12/10/iraqcontracts_031210

I'm not sure if ths is unfair or not....Canada wasn't keen on the war, so should they be allowed to bid on contracts to rebuild Iraq? I'm on the fence...

 

[llkoolkeg]

Why should a country be able to benefit from the rebuild effort after refusing to play a role in bringing it about? If a nation chooses to feign moral superiority and sit on the sidelines, why do they deserve the opportunity to run the ball in from the goal line for the touchdown?? Don't bitch about getting no beer off the keg after refusing to pony up for the cover...

 

[ohio]

I believe that they ARE morally interested in rebuilding Iraq. Therefore they should be allowed to DONATE to the rebuild effort.

edit: sorry, forgot to complete the thought...
I'd LOVE to see the look on Halliburton's faces when they lose a contract to because the Canadians will do it for free.

 

[brock]

Maybe bush should drum up support for the next one using this as a reason.

"You can't just show up for desert"?

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by ohio
I believe that they ARE morally interested in rebuilding Iraq. Therefore they should be allowed to DONATE to the rebuild effort.

edit: sorry, forgot to complete the thought...
I'd LOVE to see the look on Halliburton's faces when they lose a contract to because the Canadians will do it for free.

Bullsh!t and you know it. They aren't morally interested in anything.

OH wait a minute while I actually read what you wrote...........

Absolutely, they should be able to Donate all the goods and services they wish.

 

[biggins]

yeah man listening to this this morning pissed me off. damn french and germans. " we want nothing to do with your war on iraq" ooh ooh theres in excess of 15 billion dollars to be made heres my bid!
hell no they should not be allowed to. let 'em suffer for a little while bastards. let them see italy and great Brittain make bank for years to come.

 

[brock]

Oh ****. For minute there I almost forgot what his war was really about.



Who will get to profit from it in the end.

 

[llkoolkeg]

Originally posted by brock
Oh ****. For minute there I almost forgot what his war was really about.

Who will get to profit from it in the end.

Why would you think that this one was different from all the others that preceeded it?

 

[ummbikes]

Originally posted by brock
Oh ****. For minute there I almost forgot what his war was really about.



Who will get to profit from it in the end.

No it was to liberate the Iraqi people from despotic madman.

And to make some people major cash! Cha Ching!

 

[brock]

Originally posted by llkoolkeg
Why would you think that this one was different from all the others that preceeded it?

I must have been brainwashed by the liberal media or something.




Oh wait........

 

[Ridemonkey]

So some countries donate troops and money, other countries don't do a damn thing, and everyone should get an equal chance at contracts just "to be fair"?

Nonsense.

France wants to donate 15 billion to the rebuild, then French companies can bid for 15 billion dollars worth of work. That's fair.

 

[N8 v2.0]

Well, it's not too late to join the Coalition (by sending troops and $ support etc...)!!!

Pony up and your country's business can bid on reconstruction projects.

 

[brock]

Uganda, Morocco and Afghanistan are also on the list because they backed U.S. policy in the region, not because they contributed forces to the coalition.

it is inappropriate for the U.S. to accept $250 million in Canadian aid for Iraq, while banning Canadian companies from bidding on other contracts.

RM. Your are right. They should get to contacts not to exceed $250 million.

 

[N8 v2.0]

Why do all these Euro civilian business want into Iraq? Isn't it highly dangerous there???

 

[-BB-]

Originally posted by brock
Oh ****. For minute there I almost forgot what his war was really about.



Who will get to profit from it in the end.

Um... I usually agree with you, but do really think that we are going to come out in the black on this one?

From what I've seen, we are gonna be ponying up WAY more than than we get in return.

Lets look at this on more simple terms. Let say that you spend $100 to get into a meeting where they will be accepting bids for $110 in contracts, and you get the contract. Are you really going to make $10? No... You are going to have material costs and stuff of at least $15 so in the end you spent $115 to make $110. Is that really profitable?

Should Canada or whoever be allowed to bid? Beats me.
Is this war all about making $$? NO... we will not end up making $$ off of this war. I think that giving contracts to whoever is merely a way of lowering our overall war cost.

 

[CRUM]

Originally posted by Ridemonkey
France wants to donate 15 billion to the rebuild, then French companies can bid for 15 billion dollars worth of work. That's fair.

Actually, I think they should donate 15 billion and be able to bid on 10 Billion. Call the 5 billion an up front charge for taking all the time and trouble for creating the market. That might be more fair. Ditto for any country not willing to put up resources at the get go.

 

[brock]

Creating the market.



AHAHA that is awesome.

The US led coalition to create markets for their contractors.

 

[CRUM]

Originally posted by brock
Creating the market.



AHAHA that is awesome.

The US led coalition to create markets for their contractors.

Well, we have been doing it forever. We seem to be good at it too. Go in some country, blow it all to Hell. Then come back in with bull dozers and keep the dollars flowing back. Kinda like a perpetual motion machine. And people think Bush is stupid. He's smart enough to know what works. So's what a few American lives, when you look at the big picture? Money and lots of it.

 

[N8 v2.0]

Originally posted by CRUM
Well, we have been doing it forever. We seem to be good at it too. Go in some country, blow it all to Hell. Then come back in with bull dozers and keep the dollars flowing back. Kinda like a perpetual motion machine. And people think Bush is stupid. He's smart enough to know what works. So's what a few American lives, when you look at the big picture? Money and lots of it.

Money and stability = More money and a safer region.

 

[CRUM]

Originally posted by N8
Money and stability = More money and a safer region.

The best of all worlds. But I question the "safer" part. Safer for whom?

 

[N8 v2.0]

Originally posted by CRUM
The best of all worlds. But I question the "safer" part. Safer for whom?

Safer for the residents, safer for the neighborhood and safer for the US.

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by CRUM
So's what a few American lives, when you look at the big picture?

A dead husband, son, daughter, wife, brother, sister or friend is what a few American lives are.

 

[N8 v2.0]

Originally posted by DRB
A dead husband, son, daughter, wife, brother, sister or friend is what a few American lives are.

Yeah that does suck, but no one makes big deal out of the 45,000+ Americans (all husbands, sons, daughters, wives, brothers, sisters or friends) killed in auto accidents... yet let less than 400 American soldiers die in combat and we are supposed to gasp, wring out hands and give the world over to those who want to destroy the US... nahh... ain't happening (at least not until a Democrat is President)...

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by -BB-
From what I've seen, we are gonna be ponying up WAY more than than we get in return.

It's a negtive sum game for the American economy as a whole, but for a few key players with very strong ties it's an opportunity to make billions thanks to an initial investment by the taxpayer.

 

[CRUM]

Originally posted by DRB
A dead husband, son, daughter, wife, brother, sister or friend is what a few American lives are.

I guess you didn't catch the sarcasm. Sorry bout that.

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by N8
no one makes big deal out of the 45,000+ Americans (all husbands, sons, daughters, wives, brothers, sisters or friends) killed in auto accidents...

Are you kidding? Have you read any of the SUV threads? People are making a huge deal about it, and there have been pages of arguments on individual safety vs. communal safety, mandatory driver retesting, DWI/DUI punishments, etc. Just because it's a grey area doesn't mean people don't care.

 

[CRUM]

Originally posted by N8
Safer for the residents, safer for the neighborhood and safer for the US.

I'm gonna take a "wait and see" attitude about that one. That area has been in turmoil since before Christ. Pretty cocky of us to think we have it handled.

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by N8
Money and stability = More money and a safer region.

Then we need to be going after Saudi Arabia, the source of both the money and the instability.

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by N8
Yeah that does suck, but no one makes big deal out of the 45,000+ Americans (all husbands, sons, daughters, wives, brothers, sisters or friends) killed in auto accidents... yet let less than 400 American soldiers die in combat and we are supposed to gasp, wring out hands and give the world over to those who want to destroy the US... nahh... ain't happening (at least not until a Democrat is President)...

Talk about auto accidents and I will make a big deal about them. But that's not what we were talking about.

I'll let you write it off as no big deal but I'll continue to take it seriously and make a big deal of it. Just like the liberal media. Just because it is a unfortunate but inevitable by product of war (not one that I was against) does not make it okay or something I will ever be happy about nor accept.

 

[CRUM]

Originally posted by ohio
Then we need to be going after Saudi Arabia, the source of both the money and the instability.

Bingo! Give the man a prize. I have always felt we were one country north of where we should be.

 

[N8 v2.0]

Originally posted by ohio
Then we need to be going after Saudi Arabia, the source of both the money and the instability.

I think there is a lot of stuff going on between the Kingdom and the US that the general public is not aware of. I always felt that the US military was acting like the Saudi's Mercenaries by having bases there and protecting the Kingdom yet were in effect relagated to 3rd or 4th class citizens...

I think that we have the Saudi's attention at least for the time being.

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by N8
Why do all these Euro civilian business want into Iraq? Isn't it highly dangerous there???

Answers:

Profit (the new god)

Yes

Addendum - it ain't the chief exec's goiing out there...

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by N8
Money and stability = More money and a safer region.

Stability?

Where, when?

The last time that area was anything approaching stable was during the Ottoman empire and that didn't end too well.

It will probably be just slightly more stable than Afghanistan.

 

[looseunit]

Why should a country be able to benefit from the rebuild effort after refusing to play a role in bringing it about? If a nation chooses to feign moral superiority and sit on the sidelines, why do they deserve the opportunity to run the ball in from the goal line for the touchdown?? Don't bitch about getting no beer off the keg after refusing to pony up for the cover...

What a load of poo, why should the USA destroy a country and peoples culture only to replace it with there own. This cultural imperialism at its peak, gone are the days of colonalising countries this is what we have now. And for any one to believe the reasons for going to war were valid and not going thou the UN is quite blind to what America have been doing for the past 50 years.

And what does America claim as being important to it citizens, free trade, right to have be inocnet before being proven guilty and having a free and fair government that is democratic. Has the war on terrorism brought and end to any of this. How many thousands of innocent people have died as a result of the war, it obliviusly does not matter as long as there poor, have a different political view, different race, religion and are not American. Remember Vietnam, Nicuragar (sp), Tibet, Afghanistan and how many millions have to die and for what, making the world safer. And then you wonder why half the world hates you and why many other countries dont support the war on terror

 

[fluff]

I was going to stay out of this one, but...

Shouldn't the decision be down to the Iraqis? Shouldn't they be allowed to choose who they want to work with to rebuild their own country?

Assuming, of course, that the reason that Saddam was removed was to improve the country for its own people.

For the US to think that they should decide who can and who can't help the Iraqis is more than a little arrogant.

Doesn't exactly make the reasons for going in there in the first place ring very true either.

 

[CRUM]

Originally posted by looseunit
This cultural imperialism at its peak, gone are the days of colonalising countries this is what we have now.

Point taken

And what does America claim as being important to it citizens, free trade, right to have be inocnet before being proven guilty and having a free and fair government that is democratic. Has the war on terrorism brought and end to any of this.

Yes, the war on Terroism has changed life in America. The Patriot Act has the potential to fundamentally change and deplete a lot of the freedoms we take for granted

How many thousands of innocent people have died as a result of the war, it obliviusly does not matter as long as there poor, have a different political view, different race, religion and are not American.

No, we don't mess with poor countries just because they are poor. Strategic interests are usually the reasons given. And the word strategic is such a wonderful word. It lets folks know that whatever we are doing is part of our strategy, therefore it is ok.


Remember Vietnam, Nicuragar (sp), Tibet, Afghanistan and how many millions have to die and for what, making the world safer. And then you wonder why half the world hates you and why many other countries dont support the war on terror

Your choice of countries seems a tad mixed up. Yeah, Viet Nam was a mistake. A big mistake. Many people died and a country was laid waste. Definitely not one of our finer moments. And I'll concede Nicaraqua and most of the countries in Central and South America. We have been poking around in their affairs since Monroe gave us permission. And I agree with the tendency (they are our neighbors and important with regards to defense, economic issues, etc). But we only seem to get the meddling right some of the time. Nicaraqua is a perfect example of how badly we can do our job.

But I draw the line there. We had every good reason to go into Afghanistan. No apologies for that one. The Taliban deserved what they got. My problem is that we seem to believe we have won that one. It ain'tover yet. But it seems we are giving them time to re-group.

And where does Tibet come in? As of last night, it seems we had taken a hands off posture regarding Tibet. No strategic interests I guess in a nation of mountains and snow. Although, I imagine the SKI lobby would love to see us go in and turn the whole country into ASPEN WEST.

Regarding your assertion that America is hated throughout the World. That's not a news flash. We have worked hard for many years to garnish that hate. We are used to it. Our skins have grown thick. And from the many escapades we have participated in, one could conclude we want the rest of the World to hate us.

Hate us or love us, America has had an overall positive effect on World Affairs. Had there been no counter to Russian Imperialism, then posters of Nikita and Josef would be hanging in many parts of the globe. Had we not been around for WWll, well, figure that one out for yourself. Whine all you want about what we do, and who we do it too. But the bottom line is we will continue to meddle, it's our nature.

Blame for this latest round of "cultural Imperialism" is IMO, placed at the feet of Osama and his band of losers. Had they not upped the ante as they did on 911, I doubt very seriously there would be troops in Iraq. And maybe the real blame should be placed on the shoulders of all the moslem nations who allowed the cancer to grow and blossom. I hold all Moslems accountable for what is going on now. Keep your own house clean before critisizing someone else's.

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by fluff
I was going to stay out of this one, but...

Shouldn't the decision be down to the Iraqis? Shouldn't they be allowed to choose who they want to work with to rebuild their own country?

Assuming, of course, that the reason that Saddam was removed was to improve the country for its own people.

For the US to think that they should decide who can and who can't help the Iraqis is more than a little arrogant.

Doesn't exactly make the reasons for going in there in the first place ring very true either.

And you think they are going to see it any differently? The French and Russians are not well loved by the average Iraqi. It is well known that their monetary and material support over the years was what allowed Saddam to keep his place in power. Not the US, which seems to be the popular sentiment on this board.

But even better, right now they don't have a real government and the reality is that they are several months away from having one. Should nothing be done until that occurs? The projects in question are huge infrastructure projects that need to get started yesterday. The fulfillment of those projects makes life easier on the average Iraqi. It also makes it a safer place for US troops, which in the end is a very high priority.

I do disagree that they nations that were initially involved should be shut out. BUT any involvement should be tied to the amount of aid that they provide now. You chip in 200 million, you can bid on 200 million dollars worth of contracts. That was an absolute brilliant idea by Ridemonkey. Or since they have the good of the Iraqi people at heart as Ohio pointed out, which the US obviously doesn't, they certainly could donate their time, money and effort for free to the cause. (Please note the extreme and drippin' sarcasm).

And as to your point about this not jiving with the initial reasons for going in to Iraq. Saddam is gone, the people of Iraq are going to get a self determined government sooner than later, and WMD were not found. 2 out of 3 ain't bad.

You can call it arrogrant if you like but as always as been the case since the first caveman wacked the second caveman over the head with a stick and took his brontasaurs leg: to the victor go the spoils.

 

[DRB]

As for who got excluded, let's talk about the main 3. France, Germany, and Russia.

Guess who Iraq in total owes $125 billion?

Guess how much of that debt has been forgiven?

How exactly does one collect $125 billion in debt? "Yes this is Ivan from Russia calling about the outstanding balance on your account. When do you think you can get us a check?" "Oh its in the mail."

Has the US not been asking for help since day one in continuing this effort either thru money, material support or troops. And what has it gotten the US from the "big 3"? Nothing of any real consequence. All efforts to restructure or forgive this $125 billion in debt has been rebuffed at every turn. If anything they have attempted to rub the US's face in it how things have turned out.

So now when the other foot falls they are upset, dismayed and outraged. What did they think was going to happen? Did they think that US was all of a sudden going to forget all of those refusals?

Even with this exclusion there are several caveats. They can all bid on the subcontracts which in the end will be worth close to 45 to 55 percent of the orginial contracts. This is evidenced by a huge subcontract given to the French telecom company Alcatel for work on the cell net work. If they get involved with troops now they can become eligible to bid on these contracts. They also can bid on contracts funded by the separate internationally created fund for close to $13 billion.

Then to top it all off. How many companies from these countries are willing to go into Iraq right now? Hotchtief AG a big German construction company said that as long as the conditions in Iraq are like they are now they are not interested in any work there.

So in the end how is it wrong for the US to control how $18.6 billion (of mainly US money) is going to be spent in 2004? I'm not seeing the problem here.

 

[fluff]

See, I knew I was better off outta this thread...

I was not naming individual countries and I see the aid/contract equation as valid. I even see it as valid to say we will give you $200 billion aid if you spend it with us (basically working for free). The attitude I am disagreeing with is the attitude of 'you didn't help invade, you can't help rebuild'.

There must be enough responsible intelligent Iraqis around to administer their own country, where they need help is not in making decisions but having the resources to back those decisions up.

If the Iraqis choose not to deal with the French, Russians and Germans fine. If they choose to deal with them fine. It should be for them to choose and people here to respect.

Also:

Where existing contracts were in place they should be honoured wherever possible also. After all we didn't invade to overturn contracts that other nations had in place did we?

2 out of 3 ain't bad? (The reasons for going in.) I assume the 3 are; WMD, adios Saddam and democracy for Iraq? That's only really two reasons as the last two are linked and I'm not convinced that a truly independent Iraq will end up with the kind of democracy the US wants. Therefore we could end up with zilch.

As to 'the victor go the spoils', fair enough but if that's how it is let's lose the hypocrisy. If it's imperialism let's admit it and quit trying to pass it off as altruism. I've said elsewhere that a 'Pax Americanus' could actually be the best thing for world peace right now.

I liked your ski lobby/Tibet line..

 

[N8 v2.0]

Cripes!

Who is down for getting some Halliburton stock..???