Iraq War Opponents blocked from Reconstruction bids
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,105305,00.html
Ironically, from Fox News.
Balls. Lots of them. For security, eh? Well if they're so concerned about security what about this: http://www.computerworld.com/securit...,88030,00.html
Ironically, from Fox News.
Balls. Lots of them. For security, eh? Well if they're so concerned about security what about this: http://www.computerworld.com/securit...,88030,00.html
Comments
Great. We ARE assholes.
Keep those weasels out!
They don't believe in Freedom, Democracy, and Justice, so SC RE W them.
I will, said the dog
I will, said the cat
I will, said the duck...
Don't you know if you don't help with the work regarding the grain, you don't get to eat the bread. Little Red Hen taught everyone that in preschool.
Nick
Oh... and they were pretty much right about not rushing into war.
So now James Baker probably has no chance of restructuring the debt or getting Debt relief from those three.
But the Marshall Islands will be a big help in Iraq.
And the famous power... Moldavia.
Brillaint move Wolfie. I hear he's leaving in February.
The neocons will start dropping like flies soon.
However as Said the canadians, US policy lacks of consistancy
"If these comments are accurate ... it would be difficult for us to give further money for the reconstruction of Iraq," said Canada's deputy prime minister, John Manley. "To exclude Canadians just because they are Canadians would be unacceptable if they accept funds from Canadian taxpayers for the reconstruction of Iraq."
These deputy words, can be my own words.
If US want to do some retaliations, they can do it, but don't ask the countrie they reteliate to help, or to legitimize them.
After all, vultures don't usually invite others to feast and the last thing Halliburton would want is someone undercutting their $2.30 rip-off on gas.
Interestingly, the gov't tries to make you believe:
- They are not looting Iraq.
- They are not throwing US's taxpayers money out of the window but Iraqs natural resources are used to pay for reconstruction.
- They are only excluding countries trying to get a free meal off of US donations. They don't do this to fill the coffers of their old chaps.
All three can't be true, but what the heck, people believe everything if it comes from the prez...
Seems, WTO is putting the case unter scrutiny. It will be interesting to see whether the Bushies will accept their findings.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
No surprise here.
However as Said the canadians, US policy lacks of consistancy
These deputy words, can be my own words.
If US want to do some retaliations, they can do it, but don't ask the countrie they reteliate to help, or to legitimize them.
You are correct Powerdoc. Bush has abused his power by way of extortion of coalition lives and tax payer dollars to the tune of untold billions. Being subsidized by an ignorant and tranced out American public the war goes forward to benefit exactly those who Bush and Co. envisioned in the very begining. So at a much greater cost in tems of lives lost and tax dollars (paid for by the american public) some get 18.6 billion in contracts. Wonderful...
On top of this and compounding an already sinful and "evil" deed Bush and Co. decide they can prick, jeer, and laugh off the reast of the world.
"You are either with us or against us"
I tell you what Mr. Bush I am against you and your actions.
It is time to replace you Mr. Bush and I for one believe Wesley Clark could start to repair the damage you have caused to the world.
Fellowship
To me, Ivanov and the others's complaints sound like churlish, selfish whining. They want FREE MONEY. To them "help Iraq" means "take handouts from the US government". Screw that. Let them help Iraq by GIVING money. Or troops. Or humanitarian aid workers. Or building supplies. Or credibility to the governing council. Or anything!
Originally posted by Towel
Wait a sec, this is about the $18B appropriated by the US Congress last month. It's OUR money, why shouldn't it be limited to US and friendly-nation contractors? The reconstruction money raised elsewhere can be awarded to anyone. In other words, if other countries contribute MONEY to Iraq's reconstruction, they can do some of the work.
The reason we are having such a hard time making a good national Iraqi police force is because of this issue. Guess which country has the most experience in it. Here's a hint: France.
Anyway, the other role of this step is to basically bribe certain countries into sending troops so we aren't out on a limb. http://www.rebuilding-iraq.net/pdf/D_F.pdf
So basically, you can go on thinking about it like a ten year old cheating at monopoly because you can't understand the rules, or you can sit back and start actually reading and learning about it.
Originally posted by bunge
So this proves 1) the war is and was about money and 2) Bush isn't interested in getting the best company for the job.
Great. We ARE assholes.
No it doesn't prove that the war awas about money. Learn to do simple math.
87 billion dollars to rebuild Iraq (minus the cost of fighting the war)
Here's the relevant foruth grade word problem to solve:
Assuming that we are financing the rebuilding costs by plundering all of Iraq's annual oil sales, and that Iraq sells 1.5 million barrels of oil a day, how long would it take the US to repay just the rebuilding costs if Oil cost $25 a barrel?
Ok, so 1.5 million barrels a day times 365.25 days per year = 547.857 million barrles of oil a year produced in a day.
547.875 million barrels times $25 is 13,696.875 million dollars, or 13.7 billion dollars in oil revenue.
Reconstruction cost is 87 billion, right, so 87 billion/13.7 = 6.35 years to repay the rebuilding cost of Iraq alone.
Now you might quibble and say that oil is worth more or less than $25 a barrel. You might quibble and say that we aren't paying for all of the 87 billion. On the other hand, I could also add in the cost of the war itself and the cost of keeping troops in Iraq. The end result is that there is no way to do the numbers where the US makes any kind of profit. Sometimes I wonder why we are in Iraq, but I know that it definitely isn't for the money. If you think that this is all some intricate plot to pay halliburon, then you need to get back on the meds.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
So now James Baker probably has no chance of restructuring the debt or getting Debt relief from those three.
Sadly, the reason why the administration can do this is because France Germany and Russia weren't going to forego Iraq's debt in the first place. It isn't as if 2 billion in new contracts was going to convince them to forego 20 billion in owed debt. It really sucks for the Iraqis to have this debt over their heads because their leader was a complete idiot. Sadly, those progressive French aren't above getting their money back from the Iraqis who reaped no benefit from the debt they now hold.
I don't like the administration holding out contracts from these nations, but on the other hand, why would we give money to nations that won't help out now that the war is over? I can accept that these nations were against the war. Why is it that they are so against the peace while the US is in Iraq? For the time, we are what is holding that nation together. Unfortunately, both sides are snubbing each other (I mean this as equal condemnation of both European nations and the US) and not producing the best solution for the Iraqi people.
The White House stood by the decision announced on Tuesday.
It said it was "appropriate and reasonable" to limit those who opposed the war to bidding for sub-contracts while countries that backed the war had a chance to reap the benefits.
Link
Translation:
Hey dude! you are in the furnature repair business and I am in the furnature repair business.... Let's go break into houses and ruin the furniture in them. Then lets get the business of repairing the furnature but we will not let Frank's furnature repair have any of the repair business because he would not go breaking into houses like we did.
Nice.... Freaking nice....
Fellowship
Originally posted by giant
The reason we are having such a hard time making a good national Iraqi police force is because of this issue. Guess which country has the most experience in it. Here's a hint: France.
Yeah, France's "Guilty until proven innocent" would work great in a fromer police state
Originally posted by giant
Guess which country has the most experience in it. Here's a hint: France.
Upper Mongolia?
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
Link
Translation:
Hey dude! you are in the furnature repair business and I am in the furnature repair business.... Let's go break into houses and ruin the furniture in them. Then lets get the business of repairing the furnature but we will not let Frank's furnature repair have any of the repair business because he would not go breaking into houses like we did.
Nice.... Freaking nice....
Fellowship
Ummm, hello, no?
87 billion is for rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure. I didn't pay much attention to the fine details of the war, but I don't seem to recall us bombing their oil infrastructure, their hospitals, their schools, their power grid, etc. Most of this money is going to fix the infrastructure that Saddam barely maintained.
Besides, the second law of thermodynamics dictates that fixing something that you also smash will never make you money.
If the dissenting nations want to help rebuild Iraq, then they should forego the debt that Iraq owes them.
Originally posted by Yevgeny
No it doesn't prove that the war awas about money. Learn to do simple math.
87 billion dollars to rebuild Iraq (minus the cost of fighting the war)
Here's the relevant foruth grade word problem to solve:
Assuming that we are financing the rebuilding costs by plundering all of Iraq's annual oil sales, and that Iraq sells 1.5 million barrels of oil a day, how long would it take the US to repay just the rebuilding costs if Oil cost $25 a barrel?
Ok, so 1.5 million barrels a day times 365.25 days per year = 547.857 million barrles of oil a year produced in a day.
547.875 million barrels times $25 is 13,696.875 million dollars, or 13.7 billion dollars in oil revenue.
Reconstruction cost is 87 billion, right, so 87 billion/13.7 = 6.35 years to repay the rebuilding cost of Iraq alone.
Now you might quibble and say that oil is worth more or less than $25 a barrel. You might quibble and say that we aren't paying for all of the 87 billion. On the other hand, I could also add in the cost of the war itself and the cost of keeping troops in Iraq. The end result is that there is no way to do the numbers where the US makes any kind of profit. Sometimes I wonder why we are in Iraq, but I know that it definitely isn't for the money. If you think that this is all some intricate plot to pay halliburon, then you need to get back on the meds.
What makes you think that the oil sold is going to repay anyone?
You're purposely ignoring the facts. We pay $87 billion. Someone that did not help pay that $87 billion makes billions in Iraq. You do the math. The people that pay are in debt. The people that did not pay but benefit are up billions. What's the net gain for a select group of people? Billions.
It might not be simple enough for a 4th grader, but I think you can manage.
I think that US position is childish and foolish. It might just be a trial baloon that the Wolfwitz is floating to stir things up. France and Germany, Russia, etc should be eligible for contracts.
I also think that France, Germany, and Russia are being immensely selfserving in that they will not forego Iraq's debt. Their statements to be in favor of helping the Iraqis are pretty hollow in light of the fact that they seem to just be interested in getting all the money they can from a war they didn't want.
Originally posted by Yevgeny
I don't like the administration holding out contracts from these nations, but on the other hand, why would we give money to nations that won't help out now that the war is over?
First, it holds the citizens, business owners, accountable for something the government said.
Second, it limits the quality of workers available to rebuild Iraq and limits competition which drives up the cost for both the US and Iraqi citizens.
So why wouldn't the government want to get the best service at lower costs? Go back to my previous point. The government is interested in redistribution of wealth.