[B]What makes you think that the oil sold is going to repay anyone?
As far as I am aware, the oil goes to Iraq to fund their government.
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
You're purposely ignoring the facts. We pay $87 billion.
Yes, American taxpayers pay 87 billion to rebuild power lines, schools, hospitals, police stations, equip police, etc.
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
Someone that did not help pay that $87 billion makes billions in Iraq.
You are losing me here. I think you are saying that companies like Halliburton and Bechtel which did not pay 87 billion are going to make a few billion on reconstruciton contracts. Several thoughts here are this:
These companies do actually pay taxes. They have contributed to the 87 billioin and will continue to pay taxes.
How is this different than if these companies were building some roads or power lines in the US? They would get a government funded lump of money to build some infrastructure and they would make a profit on it. The only difference is that instead of providing benefit to Americans, we are helping Iraqis (which we are obliged to do as an occupying power).
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
You do the math. The people that pay are in debt.
??? Iraqis aren't paying for the reconstruction. That is the whole point of Bush going to congress to ask for money. The US wants Iraqi debt to be forgiven by other nations (not the 87 billion). The Iraqis are getting an 87 billion dollar grant. Maybe you have read something about how we are going to use oil revenue to repay the 87 bilion (if so, please link!).
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
The people that did not pay but benefit are up billions.
Despite what you might think, these companies are actually going to do work in Iraq. So they will be up a few millions. These companies are providing a service for a negotiated cost.
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
What's the net gain for a select group of people? Billions.
LOL! As if they weren't going to do anything in Iraq apart from buying all the liquor! Yessiree, a select group of companies from 60 nations who employ millions of engineers will be reaping quite a benefit! They would be making billions if they weren't actually doing anyting.
Here, let me give you a real argument. You should be arguing that excluding Russian oil companies form Iraq is really an attempt to entrench American companies in Iraq, thus providing a long term revenue stream for American companies. The war therefore was about strengthening American oil companies while excluding French and Russian oil companies. You see, the rebuilding contracts are short term contracts, a few millions made for a company, but they are one time deals. Having both feet in the door of the world's largest oil fields is a long term revenue generator, not some childish short term contract work.
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
It might not be simple enough for a 4th grader, but I think you can manage.
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.
Some good arguments here, but not quite good enough. Mind you, I think that the US should open up the bidding to othe rnations.
First point: Not everyone is seperate from their government. ELF for example (the French oil company) is very intimatel tied to the french Gov in a way that makes Halliburton seem as clean as the pope.
Second point: It isn't as if the US is the only company bidding. Between 60 countries, you can find enough competition to get the bids lowered.
As for the whole redistribution of wealth thing, the problem is that most of the "redistribution" goes to the Iraqis. How much profit do you think these companies will be able to make? it isn't as if they can get away with 200% margins.
As for the whole redistribution of wealth thing, the problem is that most of the "redistribution" goes to the Iraqis. How much profit do you think these companies will be able to make? it isn't as if they can get away with 200% margins.
How much goes to Iraqi? That's the crux of the issue. If it's most, then the American companies aren't actually gaining much. But I suspect a vast majority of the revenue generated by the work is not taken by Iraqis.
As for the companies actually paying taxes, of course they do. But adjust the profits they're making with the taxes they pay and...you do the math. The amout of the $87 Billion these companies are paying is inconsequential.
The people that are paying the $87 Billion will end up in long term debt: Americans.
Of course the companies are going to do work in Iraq. But the cost of an American Company to do work that an Iraqi could do for magnitudes less is coming out of our pockets and into the pockets of that company. You say 'they will be up a few millions,' but I think they'll be up billions. If it truly only is a few million then it's not worth getting in a stink about. Everything I've read says billions though.
1) the 87 billions is the estimated cost for reconstructing Iraq, actually there is only 30 % of this amount avalaible. This is a world wide contribution with the greatest part coming from USA.
2) Germany, France, Russia will never see the color of their debt. They knew it, but they are not going to erase the debt for free.
3) Elf was a crappy company, corrupted at a high level. But Justice have done his work, and the former rulers of the company are in prison : good for them, they have stolen millions of $ (hundred millions to be more precise ...). i don't know the current state of honesty of Elf, but it's not less or more clean than Haliburton or let's say Shell.
4) there is only two importants points for the future :
- the future of Iraq for the iraq people
- the popularity of US after the Iraq war.
Point A, is obvious and there is no need to argue for this point.
Point B : US is the only superpower, if they become unpopular, especially in the muslim world, it will bring troubles, and foster terrorism. This will be bad for all the occidental world, and perhaps for the entire world. This is a major issue interlinked with point A. The success or the failure of the US iraqi policy in Iraq, will be the sucess or failure of the foreign policy of US around the world, and the key for the next elections.
1) the 87 billions is the estimated cost for reconstructing Iraq, actually there is only 30 % of this amount avalaible. This is a world wide contribution with the greatest part coming from USA.
2) Germany, France, Russia will never see the color of their debt. They knew it, but they are not going to erase the debt for free.
3) Elf was a crappy company, corrupted at a high level. But Justice have done his work, and the former rulers of the company are in prison : good for them, they have stolen millions of $ (hundred millions to be more precise ...). i don't know the current state of honesty of Elf, but it's not less or more clean than Haliburton or let's say Shell.
4) there is only two importants points for the future :
- the future of Iraq for the iraq people
- the popularity of US after the Iraq war.
Point A, is obvious and there is no need to argue for this point.
Point B : US is the only superpower, if they become unpopular, especially in the muslim world, it will bring troubles, and foster terrorism. This will be bad for all the occidental world, and perhaps for the entire world. This is a major issue interlinked with point A. The success or the failure of the US iraqi policy in Iraq, will be the sucess or failure of the foreign policy of US around the world, and the key for the next elections.
Regarding 2, the problem isn't that Iraq won't have to pay back their debt. Everyone knew that it wasn't going to be paid back (not like Saddam was making regular payments!). The problem is how much financial instability are these countries going to inflict on Iraq by not admitting that the debt is gone. They could do quite a bit of damage and essentially force Iraq to do business with friendly countries (e.g. US, England).
Regarding 3, yes ELF is better, but my point was that ELF was (and debatably still is) directly tied to the French gov. Letting them bid is essentially letting the French gov bid. I am not insinuating that France is as corrupt as ELF!
Regarding 4, yes the real issue is how does this all impact the Iraqis? What is the long term future that they face financially (to say nothing of the short term security issues they face!). Short term, they need stability and their own government. Medium term, they need their infrastructure rebuilt (it is limping along). Long term, they need debt relief and clarity about debt relief so that investors can invest. If they get all these things, then they will be in great shape.
As for the world opinion about the US, I am not quite as concerned. I would prefer to do the right thing in Iraq (liberating them was right and rebuilding them is right). If I were king, I would let Europe bid and do absolutely everything possible to get other nations to forgoe Iraq's debt. Some of this debt is from the 70's for crying out loud! It isn't as if anyone actually expected to get their money back.
How much goes to Iraqi? That's the crux of the issue. If it's most, then the American companies aren't actually gaining much. But I suspect a vast majority of the revenue generated by the work is not taken by Iraqis.
As for the companies actually paying taxes, of course they do. But adjust the profits they're making with the taxes they pay and...you do the math. The amout of the $87 Billion these companies are paying is inconsequential.
The people that are paying the $87 Billion will end up in long term debt: Americans.
Of course the companies are going to do work in Iraq. But the cost of an American Company to do work that an Iraqi could do for magnitudes less is coming out of our pockets and into the pockets of that company. You say 'they will be up a few millions,' but I think they'll be up billions. If it truly only is a few million then it's not worth getting in a stink about. Everything I've read says billions though.
I agree with you that as much money as possible should be spent hiring Iraqis and "outsourcing" the work to them. There are issues with doing this under federal contract (the feds like it when you actually do the work they pay you for reasons of accounting). This would greatly help Iraq's unemployment. Unfortunately, there are issues with accountability. If Bechtel embezzles money and doesn't get the job done, then lawyers show up to sue them. If some Iraqi firm takes the money and fades into the countryside, what exactly do we do? There are some advantages to having western firms that are held easily accountable for their actions handle 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.
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.
Hmm. So in withholding contracts we're trying to bribe France into sending troops. Yet if we gave them contracts, wouldn't we just be bribing them to donate their expertise? Either way, France's net contribution is zero. Money paid for services rendered. Let France at least make a show of donating finds to an international reconstruction effort that can then hire French firms. Oh wait, there is such a fund, and how much did France pledge? Zero. Zero. Not next-to zero. Zero. Germany too. The entire EU pledged barely a billion dollars in grants and loans, most of that from the UK government and from the EU itself. Yet after giving nothing they deserve to make a profit? What sort of warped reasoning is that?
This has been the problem ever since the war ended. France (and other nations) want control without responsibility. They want profit without risk. They want to gain without venturing anything. There's so much they could constructively do. Give troops. Give money. Give supplies. Give expertise. Give diplomatic support. Give humanitarian aid. Give debt relief. Give anything. They chose to do nothing, and then complain about not making a profit off their nothing. That's not just wrong, it's downright disgusting.
[And don't forget, giant, this is a dyed-in-the-wool, Bush-hating, East Coast ivory-tower liberal talking]
This has been the problem ever since the war ended. France (and other nations) want control without responsibility. They want profit without risk. They want to gain without venturing anything. There's so much they could constructively do. Give troops. Give money. Give supplies. Give expertise. Give diplomatic support. Give humanitarian aid. Give debt relief. Give anything. They chose to do nothing, and then complain about not making a profit off their nothing. That's not just wrong, it's downright disgusting.
I completely agree with you. I can understand the French thinking that the war was wrong and worthy of their complete opposition, but they are currently opposing the reconstruction and aid of the Iraqis. I am disgusted with their indifference to the whole situation and how they play the armchair quarterback role. It is disgusting.
I seem to recall a quote from the Iraqi representatives at the EU donor conference where they said that they would remember those nations that did and did not help them out. I don't really know how happy the Iraqi populace would be for French companies to come and to make some money off of a situation that they opposed.
I guess that I would use the contracts to bribe the opposing governments into debt relief for the Iraqis. They aren't going to ever get the money back, so why not get some real money for doing the right thing?
Hmm. So in withholding contracts we're trying to bribe France into sending troops. Yet if we gave them contracts, wouldn't we just be bribing them to donate their expertise? Either way, France's net contribution is zero. Money paid for services rendered. Let France at least make a show of donating finds to an international reconstruction effort that can then hire French firms. Oh wait, there is such a fund, and how much did France pledge? Zero. Zero. Not next-to zero. Zero. Germany too. The entire EU pledged barely a billion dollars in grants and loans, most of that from the UK government and from the EU itself. Yet after giving nothing they deserve to make a profit? What sort of warped reasoning is that?
This has been the problem ever since the war ended. France (and other nations) want control without responsibility. They want profit without risk. They want to gain without venturing anything. There's so much they could constructively do. Give troops. Give money. Give supplies. Give expertise. Give diplomatic support. Give humanitarian aid. Give debt relief. Give anything. They chose to do nothing, and then complain about not making a profit off their nothing. That's not just wrong, it's downright disgusting.
[And don't forget, giant, this is a dyed-in-the-wool, Bush-hating, East Coast ivory-tower liberal talking]
Excuse me Towel, but France was not expecting anything from the US admin. Just don't expect anything from France, Canada, Russia and Germany (in no particular order). Don't ask for funds and make retaliations (even if they appear legitimate %)
% if we think that it's legitimate to think that Irak is a cake to share ...
I completely agree with you. I can understand the French thinking that the war was wrong and worthy of their complete opposition, but they are currently opposing the reconstruction and aid of the Iraqis. I am disgusted with their indifference to the whole situation and how they play the armchair quarterback role. It is disgusting.
I seem to recall a quote from the Iraqi representatives at the EU donor conference where they said that they would remember those nations that did and did not help them out. I don't really know how happy the Iraqi populace would be for French companies to come and to make some money off of a situation that they opposed.
I guess that I would use the contracts to bribe the opposing governments into debt relief for the Iraqis. They aren't going to ever get the money back, so why not get some real money for doing the right thing?
The four countries did not asked to go to war against Iraq.US wanted and did it. This belong to the past. Now, US want the control of the Iraq rebuild and wants also the funds. She is no more interested by the interest of Iraq than any others countries.
If you are disgusted about France or Germany you should be also disguted about US.
WASHINGTON, Dec 10 (Reuters) - The Pentagon on Wednesday delayed the issue of $18.6 billion in U.S. tenders to rebuild Iraq amid criticism over the exclusion from bidding of firms from France, Germany, Russia and other war opponents.
The prime contracts were set to be advertised last Friday, but were delayed while "high-level" policy decisions took place. A further delay was announced on Wednesday after earlier promises of release on Monday and Tuesday.
"The scheduled release of the solicitations in support of the Iraq reconstruction contracts has been temporarily delayed," said a notice on the Pentagon-run Iraq Program Management Office Web site (www.rebuilding-iraq.net).
Excuse me Towel, but France was not expecting anything from the US admin. Just don't expect anything from France, Canada, Russia and Germany (in no particular order). Don't ask for funds and make retaliations (even if they appear legitimate %)
Don't mix up your cause and effect. They had their chance to offer funds months ago. They chose not to. I will admit that I only heard the Russian foreign minister actually complain at being left out. If France did not, then I withdraw my disgust and replace it with a less acute disapproval. But remember, this doesn't apply to the international reconstruction fund. If they want more contracts, they can always change their mind and give real money to that fund.
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
"The limitation of sources for prime contractors from those countries should encourage the continued cooperation of coalition members."
But who knows, right?
Yeah, so we're bribing our partners to stay in (this is our money, remember?). We'd only be bribing France if we actually gave her money. So we're trying, and we're likely to fail. Oh well.
Don't mix up your cause and effect. They had their chance to offer funds months ago. They chose not to. I will admit that I only heard the Russian foreign minister actually complain at being left out.
Dyncorp should not have gotten the police contract. The french would have been perfect for this. They were passed over, and this is not news.
What pisses me off about this whole thing more than anything else is the word that they're trying to use to justify it: security.
In the name of "security" we're going to keep other countries out of the bidding. That's complete and utter bullshit and it's trying to capitalize on people's fears. Just like when they used the "security" excuse to take away the rights of middle eastern men. Just like when they used the word "security" to herd thousands of Japanese into internment camps. Just like when Israel locks down parts of the West Bank. Just like when kids are killed.
It's all bullshit and I can't believe people are still buying these lines in the name of "security". Call a fvcking spade a spade - you didn't help so you can't get part of the pie - that's fine. I wouldn't like it, but at least it's being honest. But NO. They've got to play on people's fears. Fvcking sick.
Either way, France's net contribution is zero. Money paid for services rendered. Let France at least make a show of donating finds to an international reconstruction effort that can then hire French firms. Oh wait, there is such a fund, and how much did France pledge? Zero. Zero. Not next-to zero. Zero. Germany too.
This is not even halfways true. Euro police is helping in rebuilding the police forces both in Iraq and Afghanistan, specialists are helping with the infrastructure.
Quote:
This has been the problem ever since the war ended. France (and other nations) want control without responsibility. They want profit without risk.
You got to be kidding. France and Germany wanted shared control (via the UN) and we know how they were ridiculed. Month ago, well before the Iraq donor conference, the US crooks dished out contracts to rebuild the cell phone network. Guess where the winning companies came from...
Yes, I believe Europe should have done more to relieve the Iraqis, but when I see how the US is converting this country to a colony ripe for looting, I am not so sure.
Yeah, so we're bribing our partners to stay in (this is our money, remember?). We'd only be bribing France if we actually gave her money.
Replace bribing by bullying and you are done.
Basically, I believe it's all some twisted diplomatic dance. The US wants the EU's money without reliquishing control, The EU wants control without paying too much. So the EU withholds money and the US excludes european companies.
Next stage: the EU considers knocking down some of Iraqs debts, the US ponders allowing "some" EU companies in. Beefiest contracts go to the old chaps of Bush and his ilk
Last stage: Iraqi debts are abated, remaining contracts are internationalized. Bechtel, Halliburton et al happy, US taxpayers pay for reconstruction, EU taxpayers pay for settled debts, everyone is happy.
Comments
Originally posted by Yevgeny
Besides, the second law of thermodynamics dictates that fixing something that you also smash will never make you money.
Which was never a goal at all. More like the taxpayer paying and Bechtel Inc. etc. filling their pockets.
[B]What makes you think that the oil sold is going to repay anyone?
As far as I am aware, the oil goes to Iraq to fund their government.
Originally posted by bunge
You're purposely ignoring the facts. We pay $87 billion.
Yes, American taxpayers pay 87 billion to rebuild power lines, schools, hospitals, police stations, equip police, etc.
Originally posted by bunge
Someone that did not help pay that $87 billion makes billions in Iraq.
You are losing me here. I think you are saying that companies like Halliburton and Bechtel which did not pay 87 billion are going to make a few billion on reconstruciton contracts. Several thoughts here are this:
These companies do actually pay taxes. They have contributed to the 87 billioin and will continue to pay taxes.
How is this different than if these companies were building some roads or power lines in the US? They would get a government funded lump of money to build some infrastructure and they would make a profit on it. The only difference is that instead of providing benefit to Americans, we are helping Iraqis (which we are obliged to do as an occupying power).
Originally posted by bunge
You do the math. The people that pay are in debt.
??? Iraqis aren't paying for the reconstruction. That is the whole point of Bush going to congress to ask for money. The US wants Iraqi debt to be forgiven by other nations (not the 87 billion). The Iraqis are getting an 87 billion dollar grant. Maybe you have read something about how we are going to use oil revenue to repay the 87 bilion (if so, please link!).
Originally posted by bunge
The people that did not pay but benefit are up billions.
Despite what you might think, these companies are actually going to do work in Iraq. So they will be up a few millions. These companies are providing a service for a negotiated cost.
Originally posted by bunge
What's the net gain for a select group of people? Billions.
LOL! As if they weren't going to do anything in Iraq apart from buying all the liquor! Yessiree, a select group of companies from 60 nations who employ millions of engineers will be reaping quite a benefit! They would be making billions if they weren't actually doing anyting.
Here, let me give you a real argument. You should be arguing that excluding Russian oil companies form Iraq is really an attempt to entrench American companies in Iraq, thus providing a long term revenue stream for American companies. The war therefore was about strengthening American oil companies while excluding French and Russian oil companies. You see, the rebuilding contracts are short term contracts, a few millions made for a company, but they are one time deals. Having both feet in the door of the world's largest oil fields is a long term revenue generator, not some childish short term contract work.
Originally posted by bunge
It might not be simple enough for a 4th grader, but I think you can manage.
I think I have adequately responded.
Originally posted by bunge
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.
Some good arguments here, but not quite good enough. Mind you, I think that the US should open up the bidding to othe rnations.
First point: Not everyone is seperate from their government. ELF for example (the French oil company) is very intimatel tied to the french Gov in a way that makes Halliburton seem as clean as the pope.
Second point: It isn't as if the US is the only company bidding. Between 60 countries, you can find enough competition to get the bids lowered.
As for the whole redistribution of wealth thing, the problem is that most of the "redistribution" goes to the Iraqis. How much profit do you think these companies will be able to make? it isn't as if they can get away with 200% margins.
Originally posted by Yevgeny
As for the whole redistribution of wealth thing, the problem is that most of the "redistribution" goes to the Iraqis. How much profit do you think these companies will be able to make? it isn't as if they can get away with 200% margins.
How much goes to Iraqi? That's the crux of the issue. If it's most, then the American companies aren't actually gaining much. But I suspect a vast majority of the revenue generated by the work is not taken by Iraqis.
As for the companies actually paying taxes, of course they do. But adjust the profits they're making with the taxes they pay and...you do the math. The amout of the $87 Billion these companies are paying is inconsequential.
The people that are paying the $87 Billion will end up in long term debt: Americans.
Of course the companies are going to do work in Iraq. But the cost of an American Company to do work that an Iraqi could do for magnitudes less is coming out of our pockets and into the pockets of that company. You say 'they will be up a few millions,' but I think they'll be up billions. If it truly only is a few million then it's not worth getting in a stink about. Everything I've read says billions though.
1) the 87 billions is the estimated cost for reconstructing Iraq, actually there is only 30 % of this amount avalaible. This is a world wide contribution with the greatest part coming from USA.
2) Germany, France, Russia will never see the color of their debt. They knew it, but they are not going to erase the debt for free.
3) Elf was a crappy company, corrupted at a high level. But Justice have done his work, and the former rulers of the company are in prison : good for them, they have stolen millions of $ (hundred millions to be more precise ...). i don't know the current state of honesty of Elf, but it's not less or more clean than Haliburton or let's say Shell.
4) there is only two importants points for the future :
- the future of Iraq for the iraq people
- the popularity of US after the Iraq war.
Point A, is obvious and there is no need to argue for this point.
Point B : US is the only superpower, if they become unpopular, especially in the muslim world, it will bring troubles, and foster terrorism. This will be bad for all the occidental world, and perhaps for the entire world. This is a major issue interlinked with point A. The success or the failure of the US iraqi policy in Iraq, will be the sucess or failure of the foreign policy of US around the world, and the key for the next elections.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Some points here :
1) the 87 billions is the estimated cost for reconstructing Iraq, actually there is only 30 % of this amount avalaible. This is a world wide contribution with the greatest part coming from USA.
2) Germany, France, Russia will never see the color of their debt. They knew it, but they are not going to erase the debt for free.
3) Elf was a crappy company, corrupted at a high level. But Justice have done his work, and the former rulers of the company are in prison : good for them, they have stolen millions of $ (hundred millions to be more precise ...). i don't know the current state of honesty of Elf, but it's not less or more clean than Haliburton or let's say Shell.
4) there is only two importants points for the future :
- the future of Iraq for the iraq people
- the popularity of US after the Iraq war.
Point A, is obvious and there is no need to argue for this point.
Point B : US is the only superpower, if they become unpopular, especially in the muslim world, it will bring troubles, and foster terrorism. This will be bad for all the occidental world, and perhaps for the entire world. This is a major issue interlinked with point A. The success or the failure of the US iraqi policy in Iraq, will be the sucess or failure of the foreign policy of US around the world, and the key for the next elections.
Regarding 2, the problem isn't that Iraq won't have to pay back their debt. Everyone knew that it wasn't going to be paid back (not like Saddam was making regular payments!). The problem is how much financial instability are these countries going to inflict on Iraq by not admitting that the debt is gone. They could do quite a bit of damage and essentially force Iraq to do business with friendly countries (e.g. US, England).
Regarding 3, yes ELF is better, but my point was that ELF was (and debatably still is) directly tied to the French gov. Letting them bid is essentially letting the French gov bid. I am not insinuating that France is as corrupt as ELF!
Regarding 4, yes the real issue is how does this all impact the Iraqis? What is the long term future that they face financially (to say nothing of the short term security issues they face!). Short term, they need stability and their own government. Medium term, they need their infrastructure rebuilt (it is limping along). Long term, they need debt relief and clarity about debt relief so that investors can invest. If they get all these things, then they will be in great shape.
As for the world opinion about the US, I am not quite as concerned. I would prefer to do the right thing in Iraq (liberating them was right and rebuilding them is right). If I were king, I would let Europe bid and do absolutely everything possible to get other nations to forgoe Iraq's debt. Some of this debt is from the 70's for crying out loud! It isn't as if anyone actually expected to get their money back.
Originally posted by bunge
How much goes to Iraqi? That's the crux of the issue. If it's most, then the American companies aren't actually gaining much. But I suspect a vast majority of the revenue generated by the work is not taken by Iraqis.
As for the companies actually paying taxes, of course they do. But adjust the profits they're making with the taxes they pay and...you do the math. The amout of the $87 Billion these companies are paying is inconsequential.
The people that are paying the $87 Billion will end up in long term debt: Americans.
Of course the companies are going to do work in Iraq. But the cost of an American Company to do work that an Iraqi could do for magnitudes less is coming out of our pockets and into the pockets of that company. You say 'they will be up a few millions,' but I think they'll be up billions. If it truly only is a few million then it's not worth getting in a stink about. Everything I've read says billions though.
I agree with you that as much money as possible should be spent hiring Iraqis and "outsourcing" the work to them. There are issues with doing this under federal contract (the feds like it when you actually do the work they pay you for reasons of accounting). This would greatly help Iraq's unemployment. Unfortunately, there are issues with accountability. If Bechtel embezzles money and doesn't get the job done, then lawyers show up to sue them. If some Iraqi firm takes the money and fades into the countryside, what exactly do we do? There are some advantages to having western firms that are held easily accountable for their actions handle the work.
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.
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.
Hmm. So in withholding contracts we're trying to bribe France into sending troops. Yet if we gave them contracts, wouldn't we just be bribing them to donate their expertise? Either way, France's net contribution is zero. Money paid for services rendered. Let France at least make a show of donating finds to an international reconstruction effort that can then hire French firms. Oh wait, there is such a fund, and how much did France pledge? Zero. Zero. Not next-to zero. Zero. Germany too. The entire EU pledged barely a billion dollars in grants and loans, most of that from the UK government and from the EU itself. Yet after giving nothing they deserve to make a profit? What sort of warped reasoning is that?
This has been the problem ever since the war ended. France (and other nations) want control without responsibility. They want profit without risk. They want to gain without venturing anything. There's so much they could constructively do. Give troops. Give money. Give supplies. Give expertise. Give diplomatic support. Give humanitarian aid. Give debt relief. Give anything. They chose to do nothing, and then complain about not making a profit off their nothing. That's not just wrong, it's downright disgusting.
[And don't forget, giant, this is a dyed-in-the-wool, Bush-hating, East Coast ivory-tower liberal talking]
Originally posted by Towel
Hmm. So in withholding contracts we're trying to bribe France into sending troops.
"The limitation of sources for prime contractors from those countries should encourage the continued cooperation of coalition members."
But who knows, right?
Originally posted by Towel
This has been the problem ever since the war ended. France (and other nations) want control without responsibility. They want profit without risk. They want to gain without venturing anything. There's so much they could constructively do. Give troops. Give money. Give supplies. Give expertise. Give diplomatic support. Give humanitarian aid. Give debt relief. Give anything. They chose to do nothing, and then complain about not making a profit off their nothing. That's not just wrong, it's downright disgusting.
I completely agree with you. I can understand the French thinking that the war was wrong and worthy of their complete opposition, but they are currently opposing the reconstruction and aid of the Iraqis. I am disgusted with their indifference to the whole situation and how they play the armchair quarterback role. It is disgusting.
I seem to recall a quote from the Iraqi representatives at the EU donor conference where they said that they would remember those nations that did and did not help them out. I don't really know how happy the Iraqi populace would be for French companies to come and to make some money off of a situation that they opposed.
I guess that I would use the contracts to bribe the opposing governments into debt relief for the Iraqis. They aren't going to ever get the money back, so why not get some real money for doing the right thing?
Originally posted by Towel
Hmm. So in withholding contracts we're trying to bribe France into sending troops. Yet if we gave them contracts, wouldn't we just be bribing them to donate their expertise? Either way, France's net contribution is zero. Money paid for services rendered. Let France at least make a show of donating finds to an international reconstruction effort that can then hire French firms. Oh wait, there is such a fund, and how much did France pledge? Zero. Zero. Not next-to zero. Zero. Germany too. The entire EU pledged barely a billion dollars in grants and loans, most of that from the UK government and from the EU itself. Yet after giving nothing they deserve to make a profit? What sort of warped reasoning is that?
This has been the problem ever since the war ended. France (and other nations) want control without responsibility. They want profit without risk. They want to gain without venturing anything. There's so much they could constructively do. Give troops. Give money. Give supplies. Give expertise. Give diplomatic support. Give humanitarian aid. Give debt relief. Give anything. They chose to do nothing, and then complain about not making a profit off their nothing. That's not just wrong, it's downright disgusting.
[And don't forget, giant, this is a dyed-in-the-wool, Bush-hating, East Coast ivory-tower liberal talking]
Excuse me Towel, but France was not expecting anything from the US admin. Just don't expect anything from France, Canada, Russia and Germany (in no particular order). Don't ask for funds and make retaliations (even if they appear legitimate %)
% if we think that it's legitimate to think that Irak is a cake to share ...
Originally posted by Yevgeny
I completely agree with you. I can understand the French thinking that the war was wrong and worthy of their complete opposition, but they are currently opposing the reconstruction and aid of the Iraqis. I am disgusted with their indifference to the whole situation and how they play the armchair quarterback role. It is disgusting.
I seem to recall a quote from the Iraqi representatives at the EU donor conference where they said that they would remember those nations that did and did not help them out. I don't really know how happy the Iraqi populace would be for French companies to come and to make some money off of a situation that they opposed.
I guess that I would use the contracts to bribe the opposing governments into debt relief for the Iraqis. They aren't going to ever get the money back, so why not get some real money for doing the right thing?
The four countries did not asked to go to war against Iraq.US wanted and did it. This belong to the past. Now, US want the control of the Iraq rebuild and wants also the funds. She is no more interested by the interest of Iraq than any others countries.
If you are disgusted about France or Germany you should be also disguted about US.
Apparently Baker has some power.
http://www.forbes.com/markets/newswi...tr1176453.html
WASHINGTON, Dec 10 (Reuters) - The Pentagon on Wednesday delayed the issue of $18.6 billion in U.S. tenders to rebuild Iraq amid criticism over the exclusion from bidding of firms from France, Germany, Russia and other war opponents.
The prime contracts were set to be advertised last Friday, but were delayed while "high-level" policy decisions took place. A further delay was announced on Wednesday after earlier promises of release on Monday and Tuesday.
"The scheduled release of the solicitations in support of the Iraq reconstruction contracts has been temporarily delayed," said a notice on the Pentagon-run Iraq Program Management Office Web site (www.rebuilding-iraq.net).
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Excuse me Towel, but France was not expecting anything from the US admin. Just don't expect anything from France, Canada, Russia and Germany (in no particular order). Don't ask for funds and make retaliations (even if they appear legitimate %)
Don't mix up your cause and effect. They had their chance to offer funds months ago. They chose not to. I will admit that I only heard the Russian foreign minister actually complain at being left out. If France did not, then I withdraw my disgust and replace it with a less acute disapproval.
Originally posted by giant
"The limitation of sources for prime contractors from those countries should encourage the continued cooperation of coalition members."
But who knows, right?
Yeah, so we're bribing our partners to stay in (this is our money, remember?). We'd only be bribing France if we actually gave her money. So we're trying, and we're likely to fail. Oh well.
Originally posted by Towel
Don't mix up your cause and effect. They had their chance to offer funds months ago. They chose not to. I will admit that I only heard the Russian foreign minister actually complain at being left out.
Dyncorp should not have gotten the police contract. The french would have been perfect for this. They were passed over, and this is not news.
In the name of "security" we're going to keep other countries out of the bidding. That's complete and utter bullshit and it's trying to capitalize on people's fears. Just like when they used the "security" excuse to take away the rights of middle eastern men. Just like when they used the word "security" to herd thousands of Japanese into internment camps. Just like when Israel locks down parts of the West Bank. Just like when kids are killed.
It's all bullshit and I can't believe people are still buying these lines in the name of "security". Call a fvcking spade a spade - you didn't help so you can't get part of the pie - that's fine. I wouldn't like it, but at least it's being honest. But NO. They've got to play on people's fears. Fvcking sick.
Originally posted by Towel
Either way, France's net contribution is zero. Money paid for services rendered. Let France at least make a show of donating finds to an international reconstruction effort that can then hire French firms. Oh wait, there is such a fund, and how much did France pledge? Zero. Zero. Not next-to zero. Zero. Germany too.
This is not even halfways true. Euro police is helping in rebuilding the police forces both in Iraq and Afghanistan, specialists are helping with the infrastructure.
This has been the problem ever since the war ended. France (and other nations) want control without responsibility. They want profit without risk.
You got to be kidding. France and Germany wanted shared control (via the UN) and we know how they were ridiculed. Month ago, well before the Iraq donor conference, the US crooks dished out contracts to rebuild the cell phone network. Guess where the winning companies came from...
Yes, I believe Europe should have done more to relieve the Iraqis, but when I see how the US is converting this country to a colony ripe for looting, I am not so sure.
Originally posted by Towel
Yeah, so we're bribing our partners to stay in (this is our money, remember?). We'd only be bribing France if we actually gave her money.
Replace bribing by bullying and you are done.
Basically, I believe it's all some twisted diplomatic dance. The US wants the EU's money without reliquishing control, The EU wants control without paying too much. So the EU withholds money and the US excludes european companies.
Next stage: the EU considers knocking down some of Iraqs debts, the US ponders allowing "some" EU companies in. Beefiest contracts go to the old chaps of Bush and his ilk
Last stage: Iraqi debts are abated, remaining contracts are internationalized. Bechtel, Halliburton et al happy, US taxpayers pay for reconstruction, EU taxpayers pay for settled debts, everyone is happy.