|
US contract ban for France, Germany, Canada, etc in Iraq (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| imokruok |
| quote: | Originally posted by Cyrus King
tell me this.. why cant the US include everyone? |
That isn't the right question. It's why should they include everyone. Regardless if you believe war was the right decision, the US and its war allies expended money and lives, and they are now the occupying force. Other nations (during the war) expended no money, no lives, and actively worked against the war.
Why should these other nations be entitled to profits resulting from the liberation? They had no hand in creating it. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Cyrus King
tell me this.. why cant the US include everyone? Why do they have to make the decisions...sure they are the occupiers, but that still doesnt mean its OK to act like one in this day and age. |
Having three threads about this is a pain in the ass ...
Anyway, I would agree with you if these were international funds. However, considering that these are US funds the US should have the discretion of determining who to spend it on. If for example, the city of Toronto were to engage in a public works project would it be illegal for them to restrict the contract to a toronto based firm since the money comes from Toronto tax payers? Or should they be forced to open up the contract to US competition? |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by imokruok
Why should these other nations be entitled to profits resulting from the liberation? They had no hand in creating it. |
Just to clarify your post somewhat, there ARE no profits from this deal. The money is coming from the US, and being spent on the US (or being funnelled through the US), for the benefit of Iraq. To imply that there is some kind wealth coming from nowhere is misleading. |
|
|
| imokruok |
Companies that get these contracts will be making a profit - they're not just coming to Iraq to do their job and cover their costs.
But if you like, just replace the word profits with contracts. My point still stands. If you didn't have a hand in the liberation, you shouldn't be able to get the economic benefit from a situation that you didn't help create. |
|
|
| Cyrus King |
| quote: | Originally posted by imokruok
That isn't the right question. It's why should they include everyone. Regardless if you believe war was the right decision, the US and its war allies expended money and lives, and they are now the occupying force. Other nations (during the war) expended no money, no lives, and actively worked against the war.
Why should these other nations be entitled to profits resulting from the liberation? They had no hand in creating it. |
Its the very idea that Iraq was and is being occupied by foregn forces that claim to do one thing, while having a hidden agenda, that bothers me.
In the end, Not only will the Us make a PROFIT from this war.... becuase its an investment, but the money will never be given deservedly to the IRaqi people.
I thought this was about LIBERATION... not contracts...
If the US was so concerned about this, then profit wouldnt be a concern, only maintianing a stable nation afterwards is.
I can understand from a Tax payers standpoint how the US does have some say in choosing who needs to take what... but it all comes down to making money and the people in power who will see it, not the TAX payers. |
|
|
| occrider |
| By the way, although I think the US has the perogative to do this if it so chooses to, I disagree with the decision to limit the contracts. It ultimately leads to an inefficient allocation of funds to firms that are not the most competant competitors to complete the job. |
|
|
| imokruok |
| quote: | Originally posted by Cyrus King
I thought this was about LIBERATION... |
Haha...it was. But not to the French or the Germans! :D
| quote: | | the money will never be given deservedly to the IRaqi people. |
The Iraqi people have already been the beneficiaries of billions in contracts. Many of the reconstruction projects currently underway have been completed by Iraqis working under American leadership. They will continue to be the beneficiaries. And we will continue to see stories like these run in the newspapers. |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by imokruok
The French did billions in business during the Saddam dictatorship, some of which was illegal under UN sanctions. The didn't want to ante up troops for the war. But now they want a slice of the pie. |
That's nowhere near to the sum US made during that dictatorship. It wasn't that bad when it used to buy weapons from the US companies, now was it? Even after the gulf war, guess which country took the most oil pumped in Iraq? I'll tell you. The US did.
| quote: | | It seems that none of these nations believe that there should be consequences for their actions, which directly and indirectly hindered allies efforts at liberating a nation from a leader who executed hundreds of thousands of his own people. |
Oh, yeah, I forgot about the altruistic motives of the US. That war was for saving the Iraqis from the horrible dictator. Hmm, wait a minute, isn't the world filled with countries with much worse humanitarian situation? Oh, well, I guess it was just a bad judgement. It certainly wasn't a war for oil. Maybe it was because of those weapons of mass...hmm...what are they called? I haven't heard about them in a looong time.
| quote: | | It's not as though the US is not being fair about the matter. Spain, Italy, Australia, Japan - they all helped, and they are eligible. France, Germany, Russia, you have made your beds. Don't come and sleep in ours. |
Helped in what? Fighting an occupational war on the pretense it is for the security of the western world? Yup, they sure did help out on that one.
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Just to clarify your post somewhat, there ARE no profits from this deal. The money is coming from the US, and being spent on the US (or being funnelled through the US), for the benefit of Iraq. To imply that there is some kind wealth coming from nowhere is misleading. |
I wouldn't agree with you on that one. Once the US builds the infrastructure of the country, to whom are Iraqis going to turn when some of that infrastructure needs repair? Obviously, the answer is to the US companies that made that infrastructure in the first place. So there will be some money made for the US companies. |
|
|
| PHALPAX |
| quote: | Originally posted by Cyrus King
tell me this.. why cant the US include everyone? Why do they have to make the decisions...sure they are the occupiers, but that still doesnt mean its OK to act like one in this day and age. |
The fact remains that the countries who are on the U.S.'s " list" (namely Germany and France) did not want to get their hand dirty in the Iraq conflict, nor do those countries want to send military aid now. It first must be understood that the contracting, and vastly the war itself, is all about money, lots of money....and liberating the Iraqi people and providing human rights is a distant second priority for the Bush White House in my humble opinion. Back to the question at hand, should we reward countries for not doing the whole 'war' thing? I see no reason why the "Coalition of the Willing" should let countries that pretty much rooted against them in the Iraq conflict reap the rewards of the actons previously taken by the U.S. and others. Germany, France and other countries could care less about the Iraqi people, all they see is money signs....and so do we. :( |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by imokruok
The Iraqi people have already been the beneficiaries of billions in contracts. Many of the reconstruction projects currently underway have been completed by Iraqis working under American leadership. They will continue to be the beneficiaries. And we will continue to see stories like these run in the newspapers. |
ahh haa! so that's where my stolen BMW went!:p
The bastards... down with Iraq!! Someone should invade them or something!:happy2: |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
I wouldn't agree with you on that one. Once the US builds the infrastructure of the country, to whom are Iraqis going to turn when some of that infrastructure needs repair? Obviously, the answer is to the US companies that made that infrastructure in the first place. So there will be some money made for the US companies. |
Well I sincerely doubt that anybody was crazy enough to believe that the futures market in reconstruction was lucrative enough to attract such a venture. Are you trying to tell me that after all of this is over, this futures market is going to make a substantial return on $20 billion, plus the interest, and provide assurances for certainty that contracts would be undertaken with US companies? Please tell me you don't play the stock market. Simply put, we can barely see far enough into the future to know what's going to happen tomorrow much less years from now.
Edit: And since when would Iraq have to reuse the american firms that built the construction? Far as I know it, building a road or a school is pretty much the same in America as it is anywhere else in the world. :p |
|
|
| Izzy |
| quote: | Originally posted by PHALPAX
Back to the question at hand, should we reward countries for not doing the whole 'war' thing? |
be it right or wrong the US has ever right to do what it's doing, call it the spoils of war. This is American Money, and it can do with it as it likes, after all i thought we lived in the 'free world' :p |
|
|
|
|
