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.
Yeah, fair enough. That's certainly how the Russians seem to be playing it. If it doesn lead to cancellation of Iraq's debt, then this tempet will go down as a shrewd political move that resulted in major benefit to the people of Iraq. That debt is a huge weight around the neck of the new regime.
But what should be worrying anyone who cares about Iraq isn't the exclusion of French or Russian prime contractors (remember that anyone can still be subcontracted). It's the utter lack of accountability in the whole process. I've heard rumors that troops in the north are getting fed up with the shitty job the contractors, actually subcontractors, are doing renovating schools and such, because it gets the locals all pissed off and leaves the troops to pick up the peices. And, c'mom, why are there still gas lines in Baghdad eight months after the end of the war? It won't get any better if ELF is allowed an equal chance to profiteer. The whole process needs transparency, accountability and oversight. But Congress can't even get spending bills passed before they left for a two-month-long holiday.
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....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.
"So far the company has clocked up $2 billion in business from the March contract."
Yeah no kidding, I was so surprised when I saw that. Just saw this after I made another thread, but like I said, I like how they say "the company once run by Vice President Dick Cheney" as if he doesn't just have a different office, with a better view.
How can the public be so apathetic in regard to such scandal.
Yeah no kidding, I was so surprised when I saw that. Just saw this after I made another thread, but like I said, I like how they say "the company once run by Vice President Dick Cheney" as if he doesn't just have a different office, with a better view.
How can the public be so apathetic in regard to such scandal.
what are we supposed to be outraged about again?
Quote:
Auditors aren't claiming that Halliburton directly profited from the alleged fuel overcharging, but say evidence shows the company's Kellogg Brown & Root subsidiary paid a supplier excessive prices for gasoline in Kuwait, which in turn pushed up the price KBR ultimately charged. The Army Corps of Engineers indicated the suppliers were Kuwaiti companies, according to congressional investigators.
awww, crap. where's the corruption so i can spew my misplaced outrage?
maybe the Kuwatis were Republican insiders! yeah! that's it!
DAMN THAT GWB!!! it's all about OIL! OOOOOILLLLLL!
Unfortunately what I'm going to say makes me look pro-everything that's going on in Iraq, but oh well, it's the interweb...
I think it's perfectly acceptable for the US to tell the countries that have offered no support to this point that all they have to do is forgive debt and they can make all the money they want to get their hands on. What's the big deal?
The big deal is France, Russia and Germany won't do this because it's terms the US set. Had Kofi sat down with Bono and called for it, it'd be revered by said countries.
So Halliburton won some big contracts. Big deal. Many are crying that it should be about getting the best companies in there to do the best work. Well here's a news flash: Halliburton is one of those top companies in the world. Yep, they have ties to Cheney and the administration. Does this mean they are any less a qualified company when it comes to getting done the jobs they were contracted to do? No. We have many people setting a double standard because of their political disagreements with the administration. You guys can not have it both ways.
Despite what many people seem to believe, the US is pumping far more money into Iraq than it could ever make back in the next 5-10 years. So this isn't a cash cow. Admittedly, after that time frame there is potential to start raping Iraq, but I think I'll wait to pass judgment until the picture comes more into focus.
What it boils down to is that France, Russia and Germany won't budge because they are butting heads with the US, and vice versa. We're all wrong. Because we're not keeping our eye on the ball, and that ball is creating a promising future for the Iraqi people.
This whole discussion is ridiculous. The United States will not make money on Iraq. We may get cheaper oil someday, I'll give you that. The United States is in Iraq to build a democracy and begin to reconstitute the middle east...which is something that we all know has to be done. Iraq is also part of the war on terror. Why? Because it would seem to me that bush KNOWS terrorists are attracted to Iraq to fight US forces, and that's exactly what he wants. He wants the military to fight the battle...not civilians in Manhattan.
But I digress: Anyone arguing that non-partner nations (and nations that flat out campiagned against us at the UN) should be allowed to have lucrative contracts for rebuilding a nation they didn't want to invade in the first place, out to have his head examined. To paraphrase Bush, "we risked the lives, our partners risked lives...and that will determine who gets the contracts". In other words, all of you complaining about blood spilled ought to remember that it is mostly AMERICAN and BRITISH blood, and that ought to count for something.
These nations completely opposed the war, and now their coporations and economies should benefit? Are you shitting me? I simply cannot believe the left these days. I can't believe we have people screaming about casaulties who then in the same breath start talking about how unfair US policy is.
Once again, we as Americans bear the burden and then are criticized for the way we handle it. Tell you what, if they want contracts, let's have France and Germany kick in, say, $25 billion each in reconstruction aid. That would be fair.
So Halliburton won some big contracts. Big deal. Many are crying that it should be about getting the best companies in there to do the best work. Well here's a news flash: Halliburton is one of those top companies in the world. Yep, they have ties to Cheney and the administration. Does this mean they are any less a qualified company when it comes to getting done the jobs they were contracted to do? No.
Iraq is also part of the war on terror. Why? Because it would seem to me that bush KNOWS terrorists are attracted to Iraq to fight US forces, and that's exactly what he wants. He wants the military to fight the battle...not civilians in Manhattan.
So this is what the terrorist argument have been reduced to? What if the terrorist don´t want to fight in Baghdad but prefer Manhatten? You really think they are taht stupid that they won´t attack US if/when they have the capacity to do so because its easier to do it in Iraq?
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
In other words, all of you complaining about blood spilled ought to remember that it is mostly AMERICAN and BRITISH blood, and that ought to count for something.
How many killed in Iraq was american or british soldiers? 10%? Or doesn´t the Iraqis have blood in their veins?
You know, the thing that doesn't hit the news too much, and therefore why some folks see to be misguided, is that anything you hear about the military doing in Iraq other than actual military operations is in fact done by private companies. I know the news doesn't say it because I've looked. For example, the burning of chemical weapons here in the US South, they kept on saying "the army..." when it was actually Betchel with an army consultant.
Dyncorp has the police contract. That is fvcked up:
Quote:
In Bosnia, employees of the company were accused of operating a sex-slave ring of young women, keeping underaged girls as concubines, and videotaping a DynCorp supervise having sex with two girls._ Although they were fired from their jobs, they were never prosecuted. [New York Times,10/13/02; Los Angeles Times, 4/14/02; Insight Magazine, 4/11/03] One of the whistle-blowers, Ben Johnston, said in an April 2002 Congressional testimony: ?DynCorp employees were living off post and owning these children and these women and girls as slaves. Well, that makes all Americans look bad. I believe DynCorp is the worst diplomat our country could ever want overseas.? [New York Times,10/13/02]
that contract should have gone to the french, who actually have good experience in developing a national police force.
Because it would seem to me that bush KNOWS terrorists are attracted to Iraq to fight US forces, and that's exactly what he wants. He wants the military to fight the battle...not civilians in Manhattan.
a) Bush doesn't develop these ideas
b) Nice job at latching on to post-war rationalization that has already been dropped by even the sane neo-cons. This is sooooo four months ago. Where have you been?
This whole discussion is ridiculous. The United States will not make money on Iraq. We may get cheaper oil someday, I'll give you that. The United States is in Iraq to build a democracy and begin to reconstitute the middle east...which is something that we all know has to be done. Iraq is also part of the war on terror. Why? Because it would seem to me that bush KNOWS terrorists are attracted to Iraq to fight US forces, and that's exactly what he wants. He wants the military to fight the battle...not civilians in Manhattan.
But I digress: Anyone arguing that non-partner nations (and nations that flat out campiagned against us at the UN) should be allowed to have lucrative contracts for rebuilding a nation they didn't want to invade in the first place, out to have his head examined. To paraphrase Bush, "we risked the lives, our partners risked lives...and that will determine who gets the contracts". In other words, all of you complaining about blood spilled ought to remember that it is mostly AMERICAN and BRITISH blood, and that ought to count for something.
These nations completely opposed the war, and now their coporations and economies should benefit? Are you shitting me? I simply cannot believe the left these days. I can't believe we have people screaming about casaulties who then in the same breath start talking about how unfair US policy is.
Once again, we as Americans bear the burden and then are criticized for the way we handle it. Tell you what, if they want contracts, let's have France and Germany kick in, say, $25 billion each in reconstruction aid. That would be fair.
Ridiculous? Really?
The issue isn't that this policy is unfair but that it's stupid. As those notorious Francophiles Bill Kristol and Bob Kagan put in a column in the Standard yesterday, this policy is "stupid, and should be abandoned."
I thought I'd just put the post on the table for everyone:
Quote:
There are a bunch of right-wingers out there thumping their chests about how we're right to stick it to the Europeans and make them pay a price for not supporting us -- as though the issue here were justice for French multi-nationals ("Free Le Such-n-Such!").
Guys, they don't need our contracts.
The issue isn't that this policy is unfair but that it's stupid. As those notorious Francophiles Bill Kristol and Bob Kagan put in a columnin the Standard yesterday, this policy is "stupid, and should be abandoned."
Some folks seem to be under the misimpression that there's some clever bargaining going on here. There's not.
Think about it. The whole pot is about $20 billion. Let's imagine the French and the Germans both got fabulously lucky and their companies managed to land contracts for a billion a piece. Does anyone think that Germany or France are going to write off billions of dollars in Iraqi loans or invite a backlash from their anti-Iraq war publics by sending in some troops all for the privilege of having the French or German versions of Halliburton or Bechtel make a few million dollars?
Of course, not.
The heart of the matter here is that for some folks there's a certain failure to appreciate the situation we're in.
Think back to your grade school science class.
We're like the Saber-toothed Tiger sinking into the tar pit. And over on dry land are a few giraffes munching away on some leaves. And we're taunting them with what terms we're going to give them to buy into the good thing we've got going on.
Yes, an over-dramatic metaphor. But you get the idea.
What I personally think is the most stupid point in this whole affair is that most every company involved - banned from contracts or pocketing the money - is a multinational conglomerate. Hochtief as an example is a German company by origin and by the location of its headquarter, but their arabian daughter (which built much of the infrastructure in Iraq before the UN embargo) is located in the middle east.
They most likely don't identify with german foreign politics in the sense that hitting them is achieving anything.
Most likely they will receive contracts as a subcontractor and doing a lot of the actual work there, so they will not be actually punished, but the message is clear in the European opinion: you cannot disagree with the US and be treated as a civilized country, you are going to be ridiculed, they try to cut off your trade and generally bully you around.
I could care less for one or the other billion lost in contracts, but the hatred between the US and Euro population resulting from symbolic spankings like this worries me. I hear a lot of "fvck France and Germany" here on this board and I hear a lot of "fvck the US" from people around me. This has some potential to get ugly some years down the road...
Comments
Originally posted by Smircle
...everyone is happy.
Let's hope.
Originally posted by Smircle
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.
Yeah, fair enough. That's certainly how the Russians seem to be playing it. If it doesn lead to cancellation of Iraq's debt, then this tempet will go down as a shrewd political move that resulted in major benefit to the people of Iraq. That debt is a huge weight around the neck of the new regime.
But what should be worrying anyone who cares about Iraq isn't the exclusion of French or Russian prime contractors (remember that anyone can still be subcontracted). It's the utter lack of accountability in the whole process. I've heard rumors that troops in the north are getting fed up with the shitty job the contractors, actually subcontractors, are doing renovating schools and such, because it gets the locals all pissed off and leaves the troops to pick up the peices. And, c'mom, why are there still gas lines in Baghdad eight months after the end of the war? It won't get any better if ELF is allowed an equal chance to profiteer. The whole process needs transparency, accountability and oversight. But Congress can't even get spending bills passed before they left for a two-month-long holiday.
Good way to manage a rebuilding effort.
http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml...toryID=3978301
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....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.
"So far the company has clocked up $2 billion in business from the March contract."
From here.
How can the public be so apathetic in regard to such scandal.
Originally posted by Aquatic
Yeah no kidding, I was so surprised when I saw that. Just saw this after I made another thread, but like I said, I like how they say "the company once run by Vice President Dick Cheney" as if he doesn't just have a different office, with a better view.
How can the public be so apathetic in regard to such scandal.
what are we supposed to be outraged about again?
Auditors aren't claiming that Halliburton directly profited from the alleged fuel overcharging, but say evidence shows the company's Kellogg Brown & Root subsidiary paid a supplier excessive prices for gasoline in Kuwait, which in turn pushed up the price KBR ultimately charged. The Army Corps of Engineers indicated the suppliers were Kuwaiti companies, according to congressional investigators.
awww, crap. where's the corruption so i can spew my misplaced outrage?
maybe the Kuwatis were Republican insiders! yeah! that's it!
DAMN THAT GWB!!! it's all about OIL! OOOOOILLLLLL!
I think it's perfectly acceptable for the US to tell the countries that have offered no support to this point that all they have to do is forgive debt and they can make all the money they want to get their hands on. What's the big deal?
The big deal is France, Russia and Germany won't do this because it's terms the US set. Had Kofi sat down with Bono and called for it, it'd be revered by said countries.
So Halliburton won some big contracts. Big deal. Many are crying that it should be about getting the best companies in there to do the best work. Well here's a news flash: Halliburton is one of those top companies in the world. Yep, they have ties to Cheney and the administration. Does this mean they are any less a qualified company when it comes to getting done the jobs they were contracted to do? No. We have many people setting a double standard because of their political disagreements with the administration. You guys can not have it both ways.
Despite what many people seem to believe, the US is pumping far more money into Iraq than it could ever make back in the next 5-10 years. So this isn't a cash cow. Admittedly, after that time frame there is potential to start raping Iraq, but I think I'll wait to pass judgment until the picture comes more into focus.
What it boils down to is that France, Russia and Germany won't budge because they are butting heads with the US, and vice versa. We're all wrong. Because we're not keeping our eye on the ball, and that ball is creating a promising future for the Iraqi people.
Originally posted by alcimedes
awww, crap. where's the corruption so i can spew my misplaced outrage?
Read the entire thread so you can get on to speed on the topic. Thanks.
"So far the company has clocked up $2 billion in business from the March contract."
at least know what your own posts refer to.
or was the link just inneundo?
But I digress: Anyone arguing that non-partner nations (and nations that flat out campiagned against us at the UN) should be allowed to have lucrative contracts for rebuilding a nation they didn't want to invade in the first place, out to have his head examined. To paraphrase Bush, "we risked the lives, our partners risked lives...and that will determine who gets the contracts". In other words, all of you complaining about blood spilled ought to remember that it is mostly AMERICAN and BRITISH blood, and that ought to count for something.
These nations completely opposed the war, and now their coporations and economies should benefit? Are you shitting me? I simply cannot believe the left these days. I can't believe we have people screaming about casaulties who then in the same breath start talking about how unfair US policy is.
Once again, we as Americans bear the burden and then are criticized for the way we handle it. Tell you what, if they want contracts, let's have France and Germany kick in, say, $25 billion each in reconstruction aid. That would be fair.
Originally posted by rageous
So Halliburton won some big contracts. Big deal. Many are crying that it should be about getting the best companies in there to do the best work. Well here's a news flash: Halliburton is one of those top companies in the world. Yep, they have ties to Cheney and the administration. Does this mean they are any less a qualified company when it comes to getting done the jobs they were contracted to do? No.
*cough*
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/c...lliburton.html
Originally posted by SDW2001
Iraq is also part of the war on terror. Why? Because it would seem to me that bush KNOWS terrorists are attracted to Iraq to fight US forces, and that's exactly what he wants. He wants the military to fight the battle...not civilians in Manhattan.
So this is what the terrorist argument have been reduced to? What if the terrorist don´t want to fight in Baghdad but prefer Manhatten? You really think they are taht stupid that they won´t attack US if/when they have the capacity to do so because its easier to do it in Iraq?
Originally posted by SDW2001
In other words, all of you complaining about blood spilled ought to remember that it is mostly AMERICAN and BRITISH blood, and that ought to count for something.
How many killed in Iraq was american or british soldiers? 10%? Or doesn´t the Iraqis have blood in their veins?
Dyncorp has the police contract. That is fvcked up:
In Bosnia, employees of the company were accused of operating a sex-slave ring of young women, keeping underaged girls as concubines, and videotaping a DynCorp supervise having sex with two girls._ Although they were fired from their jobs, they were never prosecuted. [New York Times,10/13/02; Los Angeles Times, 4/14/02; Insight Magazine, 4/11/03] One of the whistle-blowers, Ben Johnston, said in an April 2002 Congressional testimony: ?DynCorp employees were living off post and owning these children and these women and girls as slaves. Well, that makes all Americans look bad. I believe DynCorp is the worst diplomat our country could ever want overseas.? [New York Times,10/13/02]
that contract should have gone to the french, who actually have good experience in developing a national police force.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Because it would seem to me that bush KNOWS terrorists are attracted to Iraq to fight US forces, and that's exactly what he wants. He wants the military to fight the battle...not civilians in Manhattan.
a) Bush doesn't develop these ideas
b) Nice job at latching on to post-war rationalization that has already been dropped by even the sane neo-cons. This is sooooo four months ago. Where have you been?
Originally posted by giant
that contract should have gone to the french, who actually have good experience in that.
In prostitution
Sorry. I know I´m not helping here. Move along
Originally posted by Anders
In prostitution
There, I fixed it.
Originally posted by alcimedes
at least know what your own posts refer to.
or was the link just inneundo?
I quoted the passages from the original poster that my own post referred to. Use some reading comprehension. Read the entire thread.
Thanks.
Originally posted by SDW2001
This whole discussion is ridiculous. The United States will not make money on Iraq. We may get cheaper oil someday, I'll give you that. The United States is in Iraq to build a democracy and begin to reconstitute the middle east...which is something that we all know has to be done. Iraq is also part of the war on terror. Why? Because it would seem to me that bush KNOWS terrorists are attracted to Iraq to fight US forces, and that's exactly what he wants. He wants the military to fight the battle...not civilians in Manhattan.
But I digress: Anyone arguing that non-partner nations (and nations that flat out campiagned against us at the UN) should be allowed to have lucrative contracts for rebuilding a nation they didn't want to invade in the first place, out to have his head examined. To paraphrase Bush, "we risked the lives, our partners risked lives...and that will determine who gets the contracts". In other words, all of you complaining about blood spilled ought to remember that it is mostly AMERICAN and BRITISH blood, and that ought to count for something.
These nations completely opposed the war, and now their coporations and economies should benefit? Are you shitting me? I simply cannot believe the left these days. I can't believe we have people screaming about casaulties who then in the same breath start talking about how unfair US policy is.
Once again, we as Americans bear the burden and then are criticized for the way we handle it. Tell you what, if they want contracts, let's have France and Germany kick in, say, $25 billion each in reconstruction aid. That would be fair.
Ridiculous? Really?
The issue isn't that this policy is unfair but that it's stupid. As those notorious Francophiles Bill Kristol and Bob Kagan put in a column in the Standard yesterday, this policy is "stupid, and should be abandoned."
Talking Points Memo
Originally posted by Northgate
Talking Points Memo
I thought I'd just put the post on the table for everyone:
There are a bunch of right-wingers out there thumping their chests about how we're right to stick it to the Europeans and make them pay a price for not supporting us -- as though the issue here were justice for French multi-nationals ("Free Le Such-n-Such!").
Guys, they don't need our contracts.
The issue isn't that this policy is unfair but that it's stupid. As those notorious Francophiles Bill Kristol and Bob Kagan put in a columnin the Standard yesterday, this policy is "stupid, and should be abandoned."
Some folks seem to be under the misimpression that there's some clever bargaining going on here. There's not.
Think about it. The whole pot is about $20 billion. Let's imagine the French and the Germans both got fabulously lucky and their companies managed to land contracts for a billion a piece. Does anyone think that Germany or France are going to write off billions of dollars in Iraqi loans or invite a backlash from their anti-Iraq war publics by sending in some troops all for the privilege of having the French or German versions of Halliburton or Bechtel make a few million dollars?
Of course, not.
The heart of the matter here is that for some folks there's a certain failure to appreciate the situation we're in.
Think back to your grade school science class.
We're like the Saber-toothed Tiger sinking into the tar pit. And over on dry land are a few giraffes munching away on some leaves. And we're taunting them with what terms we're going to give them to buy into the good thing we've got going on.
Yes, an over-dramatic metaphor. But you get the idea.
-- Josh Marshall
They most likely don't identify with german foreign politics in the sense that hitting them is achieving anything.
Most likely they will receive contracts as a subcontractor and doing a lot of the actual work there, so they will not be actually punished, but the message is clear in the European opinion: you cannot disagree with the US and be treated as a civilized country, you are going to be ridiculed, they try to cut off your trade and generally bully you around.
I could care less for one or the other billion lost in contracts, but the hatred between the US and Euro population resulting from symbolic spankings like this worries me. I hear a lot of "fvck France and Germany" here on this board and I hear a lot of "fvck the US" from people around me. This has some potential to get ugly some years down the road...