|
hehe
|
View this Thread in Original format
| occrider |
I don't get it ... people are surprised that the $20 billion the US taxpayers are footing towards reconstruction efforts are going to be benefiting US/allied firms? :rolleyes: Here's a question for you, how much did the EU contribute and what did you expect?
You've got to love the comprehensive coverage of bbc at times.
However, what's more important is the output of Iraq ...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2986118.stm |
|
|
| Shakka |
I agree, Occrider.
Not to mention that companies that do win the contracts can subcontract out to French, Germans, and Russians if they please. I would only understand doing so, though, if said French, German, or Russian companies could do a better job than someone else. This is about rebuilding Iraq, not appeasing other nations who were against this operation from the get go. I think it's more important to have the best, most able companies in charge of the rebuilding--and if it so happens that it's a company from one of the aforementioned countries, then by all means, I hope someone subcontracts the business out to them, but I don't see why they should expect to be ENTITLED to anything they contributed nothing to in the first place. Use an ugly term and call it the spoils of war if you want to be blunt, it still doesn't change anything.
"Here, let me just pull your knife out of my back so I can get my wallet out and give you a free handout." |
|
|
| bass drive |
what I meant is;
it is obvious how much this war is about "terrorism"
and I wonder how many contracts the "US allies" will get |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by bass drive
what I meant is;
it is obvious how much this war is about "terrorism"
and I wonder how many contracts the "US allies" will get |
Yes but money doesn't sprout from trees or come from nowhere. Where is this money coming from? The US funded a war to give money to itself? Why not bypass the middle man (war) and simply give money to itself? I think you would be hard pressed to establish how the US is prospering ... especially since I just established that the only way the US could prosper (securing Iraq's natural resources for ourselves) isn't happening. The war likely wasn't completely about terrorism, however, it's not about money either. |
|
|
| bass drive |
I believe Iraq is like an investment. It's better for the long run, not just for the contracts (if things go as the US planned).
also, I believe this is good for the American dollar
anyways looks like the Euros are gonna fight this
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3308261.stm |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by bass drive
I believe Iraq is like an investment. It's better for the long run, not just for the contracts (if things go as the US planned).
also, I believe this is good for the American dollar
anyways looks like the Euros are gonna fight this
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3308261.stm |
I don't understand how it could be in violation of free trade.
As Occrider stated, this is the US's money - it can do with this money whatever it likes. It's not the consumers, its the government's money. If it were Iraq that was barred to do business with Germany, France, etc, then we might have a case.
But even if Iraq was barred to do business, if this was by Iraqi order it could be a legtimate action, if they were forced to follow a rule by the USA it could be veiwed as illegitimate. Of course the whole 'status' of Iraq is very murky right now so I don't think many laws can apply.
I recall during the outbreak of the 2nd Intifada that European nations (like Germany and France) refused to sell weapon parts to Israel, and some even boycotted Israeli goods. Yet I don't remember hearing than from the Europeans how those actions were a violation of free trade....
guess that doesn't change a thing that we know about the money-grubbing hypocritic Euros.:rolleyes: |
|
|
| bass drive |
In the Iraq case, I believe it's not legitimate because a foreign country is setting the rules for Iraq. It's not like Iraq is a US colony now.
in the Israeli case, I belive Israel violated some of the EU human rights laws, which makes it ok to make restrictions.
(I am not totally sure about this subject though)
also, how is not selling weapons to Israel considered money hungry?
they are losing Israeli $$$ |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by bass drive
In the Iraq case, I believe it's not legitimate because a foreign country is setting the rules for Iraq. It's not like Iraq is a US colony now.
also, how is not selling weapons to Israel considered money hungry?
they are losing Israeli $$$ |
Well weapons sales to Israel from Europe are very small but when $20 billion dollars is at stake....
Also in the Iraq case it is a foreign government's money. For instance, the USA gives Israel about 3 billion dollars a year in military aid, HOWEVER, Israel must spend 80% of this money with purchase through American companies ONLY! This is not a violation of any free trade agreement.
The USA is doing the same thing in Iraq, it is giving money to build their infastructure, but putting a requirement on how they can use this money. (its analogous to saying international groups give money to African countries to fight aid, but force them to spend it on buying medicine and condoms... they just don't give the African countries the money any more and say "fix yourselves up").
Though admitedly Iraq all together is a different case, because right now it does not have its own government, and is ruled by an occupation government till it is able to rebuild itself to a point where a 'real' government can exist. Until it has a 'real' government, the occupation government is incharge of deciding all matters on behalf of the Iraqis, whether we agree with the occupation government's policies or not... that IS what international law says. |
|
|
|
|
