|Where is the libby outrage?||bill105|
Dec 11, 2003 7:15 AM
|Where is the liberal outrage at the decision not to allow non Iraq war participants to bid on reconstruction contracts? I am disappointed that I havent heard any whining or audible hand wringing. What about the poor French and Germans?|
|probably being saved for||MJ|
Dec 11, 2003 7:21 AM
|the responses to GWB's repeated requests for help from those very same folks - who gets to foot the bill? sounds like a conservative issue really
so much for free market economy
so much for the US taxpayer not bearing the burden for GWB's lies
Dec 11, 2003 7:29 AM
|in response to this issue, if we are contractors or subcontractors for rebuilding, how is that a burden? its not a conservtive issue, the economy and foreign relations are the two issues dems have had the most to cry about. it is an american issue though. the lack of response from dems
indicates that the correct decision was made and it gave
plenty of notice to our "allies" ahead of time. chalk another one up for bush's team.
|it's called a deficit||MJ|
Dec 11, 2003 7:35 AM
|while private US companies (namely Halliburton) may indeed beneift - the US deficit is now the largest in history - a big portion directly attributable to the Iraqi adventure and that is indeed a burden - particularly since your average tax payer isn't gonna benefit from profits but will be burdened by a lasting deficit
chalk up another one for private business at the expense of the US tax payer
you have to look past the end of your nose to see the wider perspective
|not that again..||bill105|
Dec 11, 2003 7:45 AM
|more haliburton conspiracies? chalking one of for private business IS the american taxpayer.|
|not that again..||MJ|
Dec 11, 2003 8:49 AM
|and do you think that Halliburton's profits are going to be plowed back into reducing the record breaking deficit level or into profits?
hmmm I wonder
it's pretty self-evident - forbidding Euro companies from involvement in Iraqi reconstruction while asking those same countries for financial assistance with reconstruction isn't going to impress anyone - and certainly won't diminish the ever growing deficit
will it? do you have anything of substance to say or are you just running your mouth again?
|What do companies do with those profits? nm||Live Steam|
Dec 11, 2003 8:51 AM
|I guess we could ask those guys from Enron?||MJ|
Dec 11, 2003 8:54 AM
|point is if the US private sector involvement in Iraq is the answer to the record breaking deficit then why is Bush asking for financial assistance with Iraqi reconstruction?
how obvious is this point?
|Please tell us more||No_sprint|
Dec 11, 2003 8:59 AM
|Nothing could help us Americans more than a guy like you with an obsession with our continent and men on our continent.|
|is there a point to your post||MJ|
Dec 11, 2003 9:53 AM
|or do you actually have something to say?
how about you challenge me to a fight
betwen the two of us - you are the only one exhibiting the latent homosexual tendencies that cause you such upset and incite you to threaten me with violence
Dec 11, 2003 9:08 AM
|They overstated their earnings and hid their losses. Where does that apply here if Hal is going to actually be making big profits?
As to your second point, more money in the pot, more chance for greater profits. It's really a very simple concept, don't you agree?
Dec 11, 2003 9:55 AM
|not with a $1b daily deficit and continued requests for financial asdsistance from countries whose companies are excluded from reconstruction
is that what you mean is a very simple point?
|not that again..||bill105|
Dec 11, 2003 9:33 AM
|why should haliburtons profits be put towards reducing the deficit? thats your socialist side taking over your body again. and i really dont think the u.s. deficit is any of your concern.
and btw, i dont believe we are trying to impress anyone.
|when I vote in the next US election||MJ|
Dec 11, 2003 9:58 AM
|it will certainly be something that will be raised by the Dem candidate
$1b daily deficit - requests for international assistance being turned down - it ain't rocket science
if your whole point is that because I'm not in the US I don't get an opinion on the issue - well then that's exactly the problem here
keep asking people to help in Iraq and see how many jump to when you exclude their countries companies...
it's very simple - and oh so free market
|and that is why you haven't seen anything.||rufus|
Dec 11, 2003 9:46 AM
|cause all you'll do is give us crap claiming how we're all just inventing conspiracy theories, how the administration is doing the right thing by telling all those terrorist supporting socialist panty waists to go to hell, and how the contracts are being given to the compnaies with the most expertise for the job.
it's a lost cause for us to argue, cause all you'll do is slap us down, call us whiners and traitors. but anybody not blinded by ideology can see it for what it is; the US and it's allies profiteering off a war that didn't need to be fought. how many other countries are we going to destroy, just so american companies can go in and rebuild them?
Dec 11, 2003 9:51 AM
|I think the question would be more legitimate except for one fact: it's the United States' money. If they were loans, which Iraq had to pay back, it would be a highly questionable practice. But I think the U.S. can do what it wants with its own money. No?
It isn't "American Profiteering" - ALL of the money in question is coming FROM America in the first place. Since when can't we spend our money however we want to?
|A point so disingenuously overlooked by the media and ...||Live Steam|
Dec 11, 2003 10:02 AM
|our liberal friends here! :O)|
|so you support redistribution of wealth?||rufus|
Dec 11, 2003 11:20 AM
|taking working men and women's tax dollars and giving them to halliburton?|
|Those dollars go somewhere, no? Iraq won't build itself (nm)||TJeanloz|
Dec 11, 2003 11:25 AM
|Well if you put it that way, YES||Live Steam|
Dec 11, 2003 12:17 PM
|Hal and company will need employees to do the work. So they hire more people to fill the jobs. They work and EARN money. Hal has good earnings as a result of the new contracts. Their PPS rises so the stockholder now has something more valuable to sell or leverage. The difference with this distribution of wealth plan is that those that benefit from it either worked for it or risked an investment in an American company to get something in return. It was not simply handed to them. They had to participate in the grand idea known as a capitalist economy.
So yes I do agree this is redistribution of wealth the old fashion way. People earning it.
Dec 11, 2003 2:30 PM
|I think you've left some speechless, ya know, using those four letter words: work and earn!|
|It was not simply handed to them.||rufus|
Dec 11, 2003 7:08 PM
|the contracts were. no bid, just dropped right in their laps.|
|It was not simply handed to them.||bill105|
Dec 12, 2003 6:22 AM
|fyi - haliburton has been involved in every war since vietnam. from kennedy on.|
|big freakin' whoop.||rufus|
Dec 12, 2003 8:36 AM
|you mind explaining what that has to do with them getting multi-billion dollar no-bid contracts from this administration, and then gouging them on prices?|
|big freakin' whoop.||bill105|
Dec 12, 2003 12:32 PM
|what would you charge to deliver gas into a war zone vs non? maybe you can get the contract if they bid it out.|
|maybe i could. too bad that won't happen. nm||rufus|
Dec 12, 2003 1:14 PM
|the old fashioned way: no bid contract and price gouging.||dr hoo|
Dec 12, 2003 4:28 AM
|Yep, that is the old fashioned american way all right.|
Dec 11, 2003 9:55 AM
|to see the negative. nobody told anybody to go to hell. our "allies" which really arent, are the money driven ones of they wouldnt have been doing billions in illegal trade with iraq. illegal not because we said it was but because they said it was in the un. voted on it and approved it. they still circumvented their own rules for profit. so smoke that.
they broke the rules, were asked to help us ahead of time (with 17 un resolutions from the un, not that i give a crap what the un says) told they wouldnt be allowed to help in reconstruction, didnt help in the war and now pay the price. kinda ironic if you ask me that they now whine.
|a Eunuch and his obsession with another continent||No_sprint|
Dec 11, 2003 8:17 AM
|and men on another continent.|
|How does the "average taxpayer" not ...||Live Steam|
Dec 11, 2003 8:28 AM
|benefit when US companies are enjoying profits? Please explain this economic conundrum!|
|How does the "average taxpayer" not ...||bill105|
Dec 11, 2003 8:36 AM
|overlook, he aint from here|
|It's a real non-issue||Live Steam|
Dec 11, 2003 7:31 AM
|They are not allowed to be prime contractors on any contracts issued by the US and/or coalition. They can be subs. They also can be prime contractors on contracts directly issued by the Iraqi interim government and on any contracts drawn on funds donated to the fund held by the World Bank.
I don't think it's unreasonable to not allow those that opposed the war, to benefit from it now. They trashed the US and now want to profit from the blood of our men and women. The money used for the contracts they are not allowed to bid for is US taxpayer dollars. I say they shouldn't be entitled to it. Let them dig deeper into their pockets to help the reconstruction or join the coalition.
|I think it was COUNTRIES not COMPANIES that opposed....||Tri_Rich|
Dec 11, 2003 7:42 AM
|the war. To punish companies headquartered in Germany for the actions of the German government seems petty.
I don't understand the logic behind the move, unless it is simply an attempt to justify giving GOP friendly corporations big contracts. I don't think Fiji has any competition for Haliburton.
Unfortunately I also think this will add to the anti-US feeling in the rest of the world, probably a planned move to create a more us vs them feeling and help re-elected GWB.
Wow I am cynical today.
|yes - it's those details that our rabid neo-con friends can't||MJ|
Dec 11, 2003 7:44 AM
|grasp - but ho hum what can we do other than watch the deficit mount - something like $1b every day at the moment...|
|Stupid that a Brit cares! nm||No_sprint|
Dec 11, 2003 8:16 AM
|the germans understand||bill105|
Dec 11, 2003 7:52 AM
|this is from one of their newspapers
The German newspaper Der Tagesspiegel sympathized with the U.S. position.
"It is childish to reject the war but to be offended when afterwards no profit is to be made from reconstruction," the newspaper said Thursday.
maybe fiji can weave straw hats for those working in the sun.
|I assume it's a bargaining chip||TJeanloz|
Dec 11, 2003 7:53 AM
|My guess is that they've staked out this spot so they can concede it in return for debt relief. Without this, you have nothing to bargain with.|
|I assume it's a bargaining chip||Tri_Rich|
Dec 11, 2003 7:58 AM
|I would agree with you if we had not seen so much of the "cowboy" ethos from this administration. They seem unwilling to be seen as giving in on anything, even if it gains them something.|
Dec 11, 2003 8:02 AM
|they arent all from texas. dont give on anything? should i point out the ed bill? healthcare spending?, etc. how many un resolutions does a cowboy need before he acts? 18? cause we had 17. even the most lib of libs say they are stratergielically smart even if they dont agree.|
|That is probably the case as ..||Live Steam|
Dec 11, 2003 8:00 AM
|Putin has already made some remarks regarding the forgiveness of Iraqi debt. If I were the Iraqi people I would fight the debt in the World Court. France, Germany, Russia and China all engaged in illegal business with Saddam. The Iraqi paople should not be responsible for that debt. Those countries were playing with fire when they supported Saddam through the business dealings they had.|
|Lord Jesus, Steam, we agree on something! nm||OldEdScott|
Dec 11, 2003 8:11 AM
|We probably agree on more than we're willing to admit to :O) nm||Live Steam|
Dec 11, 2003 8:20 AM
|Yeah, you're really a closet lib! nm||OldEdScott|
Dec 11, 2003 8:25 AM
|:O) nm||Live Steam|
Dec 11, 2003 8:29 AM
|That is probably the case as ..||rufus|
Dec 11, 2003 9:55 AM
|France, Germany, Russia and China all engaged in illegal business with Saddam.
as did halliburton. but they benefit, while the russia, france and germany get snubbed. but we're still buddies with the chinese, even to the point of holding down a free democratic society in taiwan.
encourage democracy in the middle east. subvert in in the far east. in argentina also. glad this administration is consistent in their foreign policy.
|The Europeans should understand this well...||mohair_chair|
Dec 11, 2003 8:12 AM
|if you aren't going to join the raiding party, you don't get to divide up the loot. The Euros have been doing it for hundreds of years, so I don't think anyone really cares about their whining now.
I think most politicians who want to stay in office aren't going to come out and basically say "Let's give the despised French and Germans and other countries an opportunity to take jobs away from Americans, while Americans are dying in Iraq." Liberal, Conservative, or somewhere in between, that's the bottom line.
|John Kerry doesn't agree with your assessment||Live Steam|
Dec 11, 2003 8:41 AM
|He said it was the "dumbest foreign policy blunder ever made by a US president."|
|and where's John Kerry now?||mohair_chair|
Dec 11, 2003 8:47 AM
|His campaign is dead in the water. Deader than dead.
Besides, I think he was talking about the war, not the contracts.
|No that was a quote from yesterday||Live Steam|
Dec 11, 2003 9:04 AM
|I agree he is dead in the water. He is probably dead because of his outlandish remarks and the disrespectful tone he has displayed toward the President. It's rather ironic that he decries Bush's lack of diplomacy, yet he hasn't expressed himself in any sort of diplomatic manner at all. He reminds me of a spoiled child that knows he isn't going to get his way so he wants to wreak as much havoc as possible before he is sent to his room.
He has acted in a deplorable manner. Very un-presidential, if you ask me. From the way he has handled his candidacy thus far, with all of the firings and his daily ranting, I wouldn't trust him with his finger on the buttons of all those nukes. He seems to be rather impetuous. Actually that's probably what gave the ability to commit acts of heroism. I would think one has to act in a pretty rash way when confronted with situations requiring impulsive action.
|You're exactly right, again.||OldEdScott|
Dec 11, 2003 10:01 AM
|Don't know if you recall this, but I knew John Kerry in the old days of Vietnam Veterans Against the War, early 70s, and he was a prick then and I have no reason to assume he's mellowed any. I'd vote for Bush over Kerry, if that tells you anything.|
|I feel like I'm being setup for something :O)||Live Steam|
Dec 11, 2003 10:12 AM
|Twice in one day. Who woulda' thunk :O) Actually I am kind of surprised at how he has handled himself from the start. From afar, to me he came off as being pretty level headed, but I think he has exposed himself for what he really is. Must be the reason for that prenup his wife had him sign LOL :O)|
|He's new new Ed Muskie. Even looks like the||OldEdScott|
Dec 11, 2003 10:27 AM
|Same stature too, but didn't they call him ..||Live Steam|
Dec 11, 2003 11:02 AM
|the "Gentle Giant" or something like that? That race was the first time I became aware of politics. I was 12 :O)|
|hey, no bad-mouthing my former senator. nm||rufus|
Dec 11, 2003 11:21 AM
|Raiding party, loot||Spoiler|
Dec 11, 2003 8:47 AM
|You said it.|
|Does this mean I don't get any tax breaks?||Spoiler|
Dec 11, 2003 8:12 AM
|President Bush announced today that residents of states who's representatives did NOT support his version of the plan will excluded from any tax breaks.
Additionally, residents of any state whose elected officials who refused to support the new Medicare reform will not be allowed to participate in the plan.
What a petty, distructive man.
|Does this mean I don't get any tax breaks?||bill105|
Dec 11, 2003 8:24 AM
|care to reference that news?|
Dec 11, 2003 8:36 AM
|btw: that address is not a real URL either ;)|
Dec 11, 2003 8:40 AM
|:O) nm||Live Steam|
Dec 11, 2003 8:49 AM
Dec 11, 2003 9:27 AM
|getaclue.com is a real web site. i checked.|
|I think you all have missed an important point on this.||dr hoo|
Dec 11, 2003 12:47 PM
|Not that the points you are making are not well thought out and researched! Far from it, you make many fine points.
The things that shows me this decision is ill considered is NOT the financial aspect of it. It is the WRITTEN reason given for the policy.
"Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz ordered that non-coalition countries be excluded from competition for more than two dozen reconstruction contracts, saying in a Dec. 5 memo that the move was "necessary for the protection of the essential security interests of the United States.""
In other words, we can't trust Germany to do this because of security issues, but we CAN trust Azerbaijan! The argument is NOT being made that "its our money so we can do what we want with it" or even "screw you, you pu$$ys, you don't DESERVE the money".
Additionally, Wolfowitz disses other countries competence:
"Wolfowitz also couched the move as vital to the outcome of the U.S.-led war. "An unsuccessful reconstruction effort would have serious negative effects on the ultimate success of the war effort," he wrote. "Thus, it is clearly in the public interest to limit [competition for] prime contractsâ¦"
So, the problem is not economic, but rather another example of the administration PISSING OFF other countries when they DON'T HAVE TO. And this from Bush, who said when campaining that his approach to international relations would be to be "humble", not go it alone, and work with others.
Do we have any bridges left to burn?
Oh, and bill105, if anyone should be outraged it should be conservative free traders. Bush has shown time and time again that his principles on free trade (which he campained on) are near non-existant in practice, and this is just another case of that.
|Once again, while Bush may be right in principle. . .||czardonic|
Dec 11, 2003 2:23 PM
|. . .his devotion to that principle is belied or betrayed by poor poor policy.
I have no particular problem with spending American tax dollars in a way that maximizes American interests. But I don't consider the Bush Administrations's collective ego to be an American interest.
If Bush wants to maximise the amount of money that directly benefits Americans at the expense of free-market principles, then fine. If he is going to be wasteful, he should at least waste that money in ways that will land it in American pockets.
That said, Americans will get the most value and security for their tax buck if Bush puts is churlishness aside and invites other countries to participate in the process, especially by competeing to provide that participation for at the best value.
But this assumes that fixing problems is a priority over doling out favors. Bush has not earned the benefit of the doubt in this respect.
Dec 12, 2003 6:13 AM
|bush's administration deals with issues as the fell they can best best resolved. does he make all the decisions alone or with my full blessing as a conservative? no. put he's a hell of alot better and closer to me than al gore, or some panty wetter like dean. the problems with trade being dealth with were not all part of the 2000 campaign. they deal with them as they see fit.
on the issue of iraq, i fully see the need and desire to exclude the countries who didnt help us, and who were secretly working against us and the world (your world in the un, not mine) through their own greed. on something as important as iraq, how can you trust a country to throw their full support to helping you now that you know they never had your best interests at heart? we should not treat france the same as we treat australia now that we have seen their true colors. your point on azerbaijan is weak. they have almost zero technical presence and bring nothing to the table. but they sure as hell werent selling arms to saddam while the french, germans and russians were.
one other point, with control over reconstruction we now have a bargaining chip as was pointed out above. add to that, our government, any government, never gives you full access to what they know or have as plans and for good reason. thats why we elect someone to do the job they do. if you dont like that, change it. but thats another post.
|To the victor goes the spoils . . .||Steve98501|
Dec 11, 2003 5:45 PM
|The policy won't win Bush any friends among those traditional US allies that didn't support the invasion, but so what? Bush has been quite clear that he's comfortable with unilateralism. Of course, he'd like 'em to help out with the rebuilding, but then again, why should they, unless there's something in it for them.
I recall a phrase that seems to apply to a lot of things like this. "Nations don't have friends; nations have interests."
How do you feel about it? Do you agree with Bush? Do you support the policy just because you support all or most Bush policies? Or do you have substantive reasons of your own for agreeing with it?