US Bars Iraq Contracts for Countries that Opposed War !

[DukeFan21]

While I don't think it was the right decision, I find it funny that the UN says today it's too dangerous for them to go into Iraq yet it's fine for private contractors from these same companies

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: DukeFan21
While I don't think it was the right decision, I find it funny that the UN says today it's too dangerous for them to go into Iraq yet it's fine for private contractors from these same companies

Is that because you think the UN doesn't have the will/nerve or the contractors have a death wish?

Cheers,

Andy

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
the removal of saddam hussein from power in iraq was moral, just and the right thing to do.

to argue that a monster to his own people, a mass murderer, a demonstrated threat to regional stability, an avowed enemy of the U.S., a
billionare interested in obtaining/developing/using nuclear, biological and chemical weapons to control his neighbors, and someone INVOLVED in ongoing
discussions with Al-qaeda about how to harm the U.S., should not have been forceably removed from power..identifies you as a morally bankrupt.

some things are black and white.
there does exist true evil.

the french, german and russians have a history and tradition that brings into question their morality and opposition to evil.

the libs would argue "Bush should have gotten the U.N. to approve of the Iraq War!"
wake up...NOTHING would have gotten the French or the Russians to agree...
are you therefore arguing that Saddam should not have been removed?

a morally bankrupt position.

I agree. The UN is pointless. Everyone just tries to use it for their own country's advantage. France was opposed because it would hurt them financially. Yea, that's a good reason right there

. Saddam was an evil man who treated his people like cattle. Anyone opposed to the war is basically condoning those actions.

Country's opposed to the war should not get contracts. Why should they? We did all the grunt work, now they want to come and cash in? SCREW 'EM. Maybe next time they will listen when we come calling instead of blowing us off.

Am I reading you wrong Commander? First you trash France for, iyo, opposing the war due to financial reasons. Then, in your last sentence, you say that if one wants to reap the rewards they should agree with us next time. Does that seem a little hypocritical to anyone else?


EXman, you never answered the question...

<<...and looked the other way as he slaughtered/ tortured hundred's of thousands>>

Who exactly didn't look the other way?

 

[Wheezer]

With these three countries not being involved with the rebuilding of Iraq means more contracts for US companies which also means more work for us workers. true or false?

That would mean less people unemployed and a better US economy right?

So then, it stands to reason that if you are opposed to these contracts going to mostly US companies which will put US citizens to work and help your fellow US citizen out, then you must also be opposed to a better US economy, and the chance for the unemployed to better themselves and thier families.

Which also means that it is hypocritical to complain about the economy and at the same time cry over the fact that these 3 countries who will piss down our backs and tell us it's raining don't get a crack at any of these contracts.

I dunno, maybe I am looking at this all wrong.

 

[miguel]

Originally posted by: Wheezer
With these three countries not being involved with the rebuilding of Iraq means more contracts for US companies which also means more work for us workers. true or false?

That would mean less people unemployed and a better US economy right?

So then, it stands to reason that if you are opposed to these contracts going to mostly US companies which will put US citizens to work and help your fellow US citizen out, then you must also be opposed to a better US economy, and the chance for the unemployed to better themselves and thier families.

Which also means that it is hypocritical to complain about the economy and at the same time cry over the fact that these 3 countries who will piss down our backs and tell us it's raining don't get a crack at any of these contracts.

I dunno, maybe I am looking at this all wrong.

Wheezer, I think you are looking at it right. Or, as the libs here would tell you, you are looking at it right.

 

[Antoneo]

Is the US even going to "break even" after spending $300 billion+ on the war effort? That would be the idea right? Or is there something else? As capitalists, I don't think we can deny the fact that money is an attraction but I don't see it balancing out this time around. Perhaps someone knows better...

 

[Wheezer]

Well I seriously doubt we can fully recoup the cost of the war...however I would thisk it is better to recoup some rather than nothing and if that means leaving out these three countries then so be it...I am sure they will be pissed, that is until they need something.

 

[GrGr]

Of course the US isn't spending several hundred billion of dollars on this war for altruistic reasons. The answer is the old O-word. OIL. Why do you think the US is looking for bases in Pakistan, India and Bulgaria and supported the rebellion in Georgia? The answer is the oil of the Middle East and the Caspian region. Oil ("vital US interest" to quote Jim Baker) is the subtext to all this posturing about terrorism, bad Saddam and "democracy".

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: miguel

Originally posted by: Wheezer
With these three countries not being involved with the rebuilding of Iraq means more contracts for US companies which also means more work for us workers. true or false?

That would mean less people unemployed and a better US economy right?

So then, it stands to reason that if you are opposed to these contracts going to mostly US companies which will put US citizens to work and help your fellow US citizen out, then you must also be opposed to a better US economy, and the chance for the unemployed to better themselves and thier families.

Which also means that it is hypocritical to complain about the economy and at the same time cry over the fact that these 3 countries who will piss down our backs and tell us it's raining don't get a crack at any of these contracts.

I dunno, maybe I am looking at this all wrong.

Wheezer, I think you are looking at it right. Or, as the libs here would tell you, you are looking at it right.

Yes we have rightwingers using govt spending for job creation, and liberals criticizing them for it. Strange times.

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: JackStorm

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
the removal of saddam hussein from power in iraq was moral, just and the right thing to do.

to argue that a monster to his own people, a mass murderer, a demonstrated threat to regional stability, an avowed enemy of the U.S., a
billionare interested in obtaining/developing/using nuclear, biological and chemical weapons to control his neighbors, and someone INVOLVED in ongoing
discussions with Al-qaeda about how to harm the U.S., should not have been forceably removed from power..identifies you as a morally bankrupt.

some things are black and white.
there does exist true evil.

the french, german and russians have a history and tradition that brings into question their morality and opposition to evil.

the libs would argue "Bush should have gotten the U.N. to approve of the Iraq War!"
wake up...NOTHING would have gotten the French or the Russians to agree...
are you therefore arguing that Saddam should not have been removed?

a morally bankrupt position.

I agree. The UN is pointless. Everyone just tries to use it for their own country's advantage. France was opposed because it would hurt them financially. Yea, that's a good reason right there

. Saddam was an evil man who treated his people like cattle. Anyone opposed to the war is basically condoning those actions.

Country's opposed to the war should not get contracts. Why should they? We did all the grunt work, now they want to come and cash in? SCREW 'EM. Maybe next time they will listen when we come calling instead of blowing us off.

You know, people like you amaze me. You seem to think that because you think the U.N is useless the US can just bypass international law whenever it feel like it. I bet you're the kind of person who ignores laws that you don't agree with.

And yes, I'm going to say it again, even though this horse has been beaten to death 1000s of times. The war in Iraq was illegal, the U.N charter (yeah, here I go talking about that useless U.N again) and the Iraqi resolutions CLEARLY state that *ONLY* the U.N SC has the right to authorize the use of force against Iraq, to enforce the resolutions. But hey, the U.N is useless, right? we should just ignore it, right? Never mind all the humanitarian work it does and helps organize around the world. Maybe it's time the US just pulls out of the U.N since it's so useless.

I don't recognize international law. Remember taxation w/o representation? Here, we're being ruled w/o representation. If countires want to band together to take out a bad guy, fine. If we form an alliance, fine. But once these 'laws' start being created w/o anything I can do about it, I start yelling. I'm surprised the rest of the country doesn't rise up too. This is the same crap that has happened time and time again throughout history. Slowly start eroding the power of the people.

And yes, the US should get out of the UN. The UN is the worst idea in history and it has failed worst than anyone could have imagined. It failed because all the countries that are part of it are selfish and are only in it for themselves.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: JackStorm

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
the removal of saddam hussein from power in iraq was moral, just and the right thing to do.

to argue that a monster to his own people, a mass murderer, a demonstrated threat to regional stability, an avowed enemy of the U.S., a
billionare interested in obtaining/developing/using nuclear, biological and chemical weapons to control his neighbors, and someone INVOLVED in ongoing
discussions with Al-qaeda about how to harm the U.S., should not have been forceably removed from power..identifies you as a morally bankrupt.

some things are black and white.
there does exist true evil.

the french, german and russians have a history and tradition that brings into question their morality and opposition to evil.

the libs would argue "Bush should have gotten the U.N. to approve of the Iraq War!"
wake up...NOTHING would have gotten the French or the Russians to agree...
are you therefore arguing that Saddam should not have been removed?

a morally bankrupt position.

I agree. The UN is pointless. Everyone just tries to use it for their own country's advantage. France was opposed because it would hurt them financially. Yea, that's a good reason right there

. Saddam was an evil man who treated his people like cattle. Anyone opposed to the war is basically condoning those actions.

Country's opposed to the war should not get contracts. Why should they? We did all the grunt work, now they want to come and cash in? SCREW 'EM. Maybe next time they will listen when we come calling instead of blowing us off.

You know, people like you amaze me. You seem to think that because you think the U.N is useless the US can just bypass international law whenever it feel like it. I bet you're the kind of person who ignores laws that you don't agree with.

And yes, I'm going to say it again, even though this horse has been beaten to death 1000s of times. The war in Iraq was illegal, the U.N charter (yeah, here I go talking about that useless U.N again) and the Iraqi resolutions CLEARLY state that *ONLY* the U.N SC has the right to authorize the use of force against Iraq, to enforce the resolutions. But hey, the U.N is useless, right? we should just ignore it, right? Never mind all the humanitarian work it does and helps organize around the world. Maybe it's time the US just pulls out of the U.N since it's so useless.

I don't recognize international law. Remember taxation w/o representation? Here, we're being ruled w/o representation. If countires want to band together to take out a bad guy, fine. If we form an alliance, fine. But once these 'laws' start being created w/o anything I can do about it, I start yelling. I'm surprised the rest of the country doesn't rise up too. This is the same crap that has happened time and time again throughout history. Slowly start eroding the power of the people.

And yes, the US should get out of the UN. The UN is the worst idea in history and it has failed worst than anyone could have imagined. It failed because all the countries that are part of it are selfish and are only in it for themselves.

"I'm surprised the rest of the country doesn't rise up too. This is the same crap that has happened time and time again throughout history. Slowly start eroding the power of the people. "

Ah, another that has blinders off, has read history, understands history and hates to see the bad stuff repeat and sees the bad stuff repeating. They're brainwashed which is clearly obvious by their posts in here.

Since the people are so slow in rising up that leaves the possibility of someone else coming over here and kicking our collective keesters, ie: Red Dawn.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Come on people - follow the money. Who makes the money on Iraq ? Bechtel & Halliburtom.
Who pays them for the contracts whether they do them right of not ? US Taxpayers.
Who do the contractors hire ? Certainly not the U.S. Workers - they hire foriegn labor at
low wages in Iraq and the CEO's & their management team designate which companies
get the Sub-Cantracts, after their 25% - 40% rake off the top.
I'll find the link later

Let's start with this one

Primamary & Subs

 

[miguel]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Come on people - follow the money. Who makes the money on Iraq ? Bechtel & Halliburtom.
Who pays them for the contracts whether they do them right of not ? US Taxpayers.
Who do the contractors hire ? Certainly not the U.S. Workers - they hire foriegn labor at
low wages in Iraq and the CEO's & their management team designate which companies
get the Sub-Caotracts, after their 25% - 40% rake off the top.
I'll find the link later

Those are some serious statements you are making. That better be one heck of a link you got coming.

 

[Wolfdog]

As always the Bush admin is missing the big picture. Doing what is right for Iraq should take presidence over and above everything else. They didn't ask to be "liberated", aka bombed into oblivion. It is funny that searching out weapons of mass destruction suddenly became "liberating the people." If another country can provide the same services for less than that should be done. It is all about allocating the resources best to help out the Iraqi people. It isn't about helping out Bush's campaign buddies funnel American tax money right into thier own accounts. It isn't about feeding Bush's ego. It isn't about what is best for the US. Bush already made the decision to screw america out of untold amounts of monies that could be better spent right here at home. It is time to set aside the pettiness that Bush has become so well known for. It is time to move past and hurry up and rebuild so we can get out with the least amount of casualties.

I still ask where are the weapons Bush? We have soldiers dying over there every day on little but a lie.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: SuperTool
I don't think it's a problem when US taxpayer is paying for it. It would be a problem if it was from Iraqi oil revenue, unless Iraqi people had a voice in the decision.
I think Russians can't do much about it, but Germans and French can pull their forces out of Afghanistan in retaliation, which would force US to spread its troops even thinner.
I do think burning bridges with Russia, France, and Germany is a mistake. In the real WoT relating to Al Qaeda, Russia is US' most natural partner with its problems in Chechnya.
The damage done to that relationship because of this Iraq fiasco will be detrimental to the US security long term. Russia reached out to the US after 9/11 only to be slapped on the hand by Dubya.

Yeah everyone, Supertool is right. We should reward the three countries that did the most damage to the UN by doling out Iraqi contracts to 'em. Ingenious.

Still shooting at the messengers despite the fact that they were correct all along regarding the Bushies' "evidence" for WMD.

Please Sire, explain to me how they were right.

fact is, these three countries supported Iraq's WMD for the longest. And they fought hard to get rid of the sanctions prematurely, so that they could profit from iraqi intransigence.

What WMD's?

"He [Saddam Hussein] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to use conventional power against his neighbors." Colin Powell, Cairo Egypt, February 24th, 2001

Prematurely? You mean while the 500,000 kids were still alive?

You didn't answer my question.

As for those kids, are you blaming the United States, United Nations, or Saddam Hussein?

They were right by simply seeing through the US/UK charade with manufactured "evidence" for Saddam's WMD's.

That's a poor answer, if ever there was one. Fact is, after 12 years and 16 Article VII UN Resolutions, Hussein's time was up. The three stooges tried to prevent or delay the inevitable simply because they had vested interests in Iraq. With Iran's 18 years of playing cat and mouse with the UN's IAEA and North Korea playing dangerous games with nuclear, Hussein's numerous warnings were more than enough for a call to arms. I find it simply hard to believe that you don't understand this. Or, perhaps, you don't want to?

The US refused to change the UN oil for food program even after it became obvious that it was enriching Saddam on the behalf of his people. The US demanded that Saddam conform to their wishes. Now who in their right mind demands sanity from a criminally insane murderer? Madeleine Albright said she thought the deaths of 500,000 children was "worth it". Now of course it follows that the US let those kids die for nothing if what the Bush administration said regarding the WMD's was true and the sanctions failed. But Powell and Rice in early 2001 bragged that Saddam was contained and did not pose a threat to his neighbours. How quickly that tune changed when the neocons got their opportunity after 911.

That's bullsh!t and I'm appalled that you would make such accusations without looking at the facts. Fact is, the US, along with her partners in the UN, tried to alleviate the pain and suffering of the Iraqi citizenry by calling for and getting "smart sanctions." But Hussein found ways around that. We simply weren't going to do away with the sanctions simply because Hussein was abusing the sanctions and crying wolf because children were dying. It's like killing your parents and asking for sympathy because you're an orphan.

There are no heroes in this tale and plenty of blame to go around for all involved. But it was the Bush administration that did the most damage to the UN by ignoring the proper process and going to war for reasons of political expediency. And not France, Germany and Russia as you claim.

Wrong again, the US give the UN's security council resolutions teeth by carrying out such resolutions. Unfortunately, other countries use the UN as nothing more than a talking shop, not to be taken seriously. Others have no problem with American power, so long as it protects their interests. But the minute the United States upholds the UN charter, many cry foul because they accuse us of throwing our weight around. Don't forget that it is the United States that has the most to gain from peaceful world. That is why we created the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, International Monetary Fund, World Bank, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and countless other international institutions. These are our children. If they fall, we fall. To prevent them from becoming another paper tiger, we must abide by their constitutions and add oomph to their charters.

Why is the US in Iraq right now, Dari? Is it because of the innate goodness in American hearts? Look at my previous statement and historians will answer that question with a definite: YES!!!

Edit: typo

 

[Antoneo]

Originally posted by: GrGr
Of course the US isn't spending several hundred billion of dollars on this war for altruistic reasons. The answer is the old O-word. OIL. Why do you think the US is looking for bases in Pakistan, India and Bulgaria and supported the rebellion in Georgia? The answer is the oil of the Middle East and the Caspian region. Oil ("vital US interest" to quote Jim Baker) is the subtext to all this posturing about terrorism, bad Saddam and "democracy".

Hrmm... My history professor says that even if the United States manages to get the entire oil production up and running (and owning) in Iraq, they would be only making 18 billion a year. No, he's not a right-winger.

 

[B00ne]

Originally posted by: Antoneo
Is the US even going to "break even" after spending $300 billion+ on the war effort? That would be the idea right? Or is there something else? As capitalists, I don't think we can deny the fact that money is an attraction but I don't see it balancing out this time around. Perhaps someone knows better...

The US shouldnt "recoup" any of the money spend - it is their war so the US should shoulder it alone. The Iraqis sure didnt want it, i dont see why they should give you labor or oil or whatever. Actually the US should be paying reparation to Iraq.

 

[Gaard]

Why is the US in Iraq right now, Dari? Is it because of the innate goodness in American hearts? Look at my previous statement and historians will answer that question with a definite: YES!!!

You really think this Dari? That we are there strictly for humanitarian reasons?

 

[Red Dawn]

Since it's the American Taxpayers money going to rebuild Iraq wouldn't be prudent to give these contracts to the Company who gives us the best deal despite their nationality? Why should we give sweetheart deals to American, Japanese and British companies, they aren't representatives of those governments (well maybe with the exception of Halliburton) If it's my money that is going to rebuild Iraq I want the best deal we can get, no matter where to company is from. Isn't that the American Capitalistic way?

 

[KenGr]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Since it's the American Taxpayers money going to rebuild Iraq wouldn't be prudent to give these contracts to the Company who gives us the best deal despite their nationality? Why should we give sweetheart deals to American, Japanese and British companies, they aren't representatives of those governments (well maybe with the exception of Halliburton) If it's my money that is going to rebuild Iraq I want the best deal we can get, no matter where to company is from. Isn't that the American Capitalistic way?

There are 61 countries eligible for the contracts. Given the nature of the reconstruction projects, it shouldn't be difficult to have competitive bidding. I don't see any great need for German, French, Canadian, etc. companies to get competitive pricing.

 

[KenGr]

Originally posted by: B00ne

Originally posted by: Antoneo
Is the US even going to "break even" after spending $300 billion+ on the war effort? That would be the idea right? Or is there something else? As capitalists, I don't think we can deny the fact that money is an attraction but I don't see it balancing out this time around. Perhaps someone knows better...

The US shouldnt "recoup" any of the money spend - it is their war so the US should shoulder it alone. The Iraqis sure didnt want it, i dont see why they should give you labor or oil or whatever. Actually the US should be paying reparation to Iraq.

Reparations? The work going on in Iraq isn't repairing war damage. The bulk of that was finished months ago. The work is repairing the country infrastructure for years of neglect and diversion of resources to military programs and presidential palaces.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: KenGr

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Since it's the American Taxpayers money going to rebuild Iraq wouldn't be prudent to give these contracts to the Company who gives us the best deal despite their nationality? Why should we give sweetheart deals to American, Japanese and British companies, they aren't representatives of those governments (well maybe with the exception of Halliburton) If it's my money that is going to rebuild Iraq I want the best deal we can get, no matter where to company is from. Isn't that the American Capitalistic way?

There are 61 countries eligible for the contracts. Given the nature of the reconstruction projects, it shouldn't be difficult to have competitive bidding. I don't see any great need for German, French, Canadian, etc. companies to get competitive pricing.

Why not, they aren't representing thier government!

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Since it's the American Taxpayers money going to rebuild Iraq wouldn't be prudent to give these contracts to the Company who gives us the best deal despite their nationality? Why should we give sweetheart deals to American, Japanese and British companies, they aren't representatives of those governments (well maybe with the exception of Halliburton) If it's my money that is going to rebuild Iraq I want the best deal we can get, no matter where to company is from. Isn't that the American Capitalistic way?

Red, be careful. According to Wheezer, you are opposed to a better US economy. (see his 12/10/2003 6:30 PM post)

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Since it's the American Taxpayers money going to rebuild Iraq wouldn't be prudent to give these contracts to the Company who gives us the best deal despite their nationality? Why should we give sweetheart deals to American, Japanese and British companies, they aren't representatives of those governments (well maybe with the exception of Halliburton) If it's my money that is going to rebuild Iraq I want the best deal we can get, no matter where to company is from. Isn't that the American Capitalistic way?

Red, be careful. According to Wheezer, you are opposed to a better US economy. (see his 12/10/2003 6:30 PM post)

Wheezer has a screw loose somewhere. According to his thinking the whole execution of the Iraq adventure was primarily for the benefit of American Companies and our economy. What he fails to realize is that the contracts still could go to one of the Foriegn Companies whose Governments were part of the Coalition. Like I stated earlier, the companies from Germany, France, Russia and Canada do not represent their Governments so they shouldn't be penalized. In fact if those companies stood to make a profit from the reconstruction of Iraq they might have supported the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq to start with.

 

[kandarp]

And yes, the US should get out of the UN. The UN is the worst idea in history and it has failed worst than anyone could have imagined. It failed because all the countries that are part of it are selfish and are only in it for themselves

that is exactly why countries engage in international affairs because it is inherently in their self interest (geopolitically, economically, security, etc)...the failures of the UN have come at times when there is no collective agreement on the proper course of action (ie Kosovo, UN peacekeepers handing over refugees in UN declared "safe zones" to Serbian paramilitary groups to be killed)