Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
lets hope there isnt to much of a fall out over the contracts in iraq thing. pluses and minises both ways
Originally posted by Aquarian
Shutting the 4 countries out from reconstruction projects (especially when those same 4 countries are contributing money to fund the reconstruction) because they did not jump on the war bandwagon is wrong if only on issues of appearance.
Originally posted by jimnyc
just out of the most lucrative contracts.
They are free to bid on the rest. At least this was in the articles I read.
I think this explains a lot though, especially why those countries didn't want to go to war to begin with - MONEY.
They didn't want to lose out on the money and contracts they already had with Saddam.
You're teling me!!! Two years ago we were in a war on Terror searching for Osama Bin Laden, now we've managed to expropriate all the oil under Iraq and have 24 million Iraqis under military occupation. What happened? Greed did.Greed works in mysterious ways.
Those went to Haliburton before the war started.
The $187 B is the construction money authorized by Congress. Other than the 3 Billion or so from the donors conference (which the four countries that are now locked out of the process were asked to attend.) what other moneys have been slotted for Iraq. I think your reffering to their option to sub the work from the primary contractors, the opportunity for which may or may not materialize.
That statement seems odd, does being locked out of a these contracts now mean that you were making a profit dealing with Hussein? Is that your argument? What did Canada have to do with Hussein? As for Germany and Russia, Iraq owed them money, that was their primary interest in the country. Guess what, Iraq still owes them the money.
Got a link detailing this financial connection? I've heard a lot of loose talk on the right but seen very little in the way of data.
You're teling me!!! Two years ago we were in a war on Terror searching for Osama Bin Laden, now we've managed to expropriate all the oil under Iraq and have 24 million Iraqis under military occupation. What happened? Greed did.
Originally posted by jimnyc
Oh, so there are no lucrative contracts left? Then why are these babies whining about unfair treatment?
There is 187 billion set aside for reconstruction, they have been locked out of the upcoming 24 contracts to be awarded totalling 17 billion. Do tha math, that's a whole lotta money left to spend on rebuilding.
Do you understand the concept of a contract? Do these contracts still exist and will they be renewed? I DON'T THINK SO!
Baker is going on what the White House called an initial fact-finding mission to France, Germany and Russia as well as war backers Italy and Britain to seek a restructuring of Iraq's $120 billion foreign debt.
Here's one for you:
http://www.usainreview.com/2_11_Chirac_Connection.htm
No witnesses, no dates, no details. No dice.as one U.S. intelligence expert somewhat facetiously put it, "France will jump on board with the U.S. the minute their agents in Baghdad get done shredding all evidence of their illicit arms sales to Iraq."
No Jimmy, the $187B is the bill for the opportunity. You don't see the oil companies offering to pay that, do you? We (the people) get to pay it. Bushs' cronies get the gold, we get the shaft.Sure, I guess it was all about stealing oil and oppressing the Iraqi people. The government votes to spend 187 billion dollars because we are so greedy.
'Cause it is unfair treatment.
The 17 Billion was all the contracts set to be bid on this week. According to the US Government more contracts are going to be available in the future, but the rules governing who can bid on them would have to change now, or these four countries will remain locked out of the full $187 B.
I understand contracts and government contracting, do you understand the concept of Iraqi national debt, cause that is what is owed to Germany, Russia and France, among others..
No witnesses, no dates, no details. No dice.
No Jimmy, the $187B is the bill for the opportunity. You don't see the oil companies offering to pay that, do you? We (the people) get to pay it. Bushs' cronies get the gold, we get the shaft.
Originally posted by jimnyc
How is it unfair? You claimed all the lucrative contracts have already been given out, so why would they be angry at being shut out of peanuts?
And the government has already stated that the lockout only concerns the upcoming 24 contracts, that they have not yet locked them out of the other contracts.
Coalition of the willing? Try the bribed. The problem is that the stick is so big (the prospect of your young men and women dying in Iraq) and the carrot so small ($187 B split) that none of the major powers are likely to be interested. They will simply use the opportunity to paint us as a renegade imperial power bent on self-aggrandizement. We as a nation certainly are not but our president appears intent on portraying us as such. You are aware that they are gaining standing in the world community at our expense, aren't you?
Yes, and what is the likelihood that any of these contracts get renewed? Iraq has already stated they WILL NOT renew contracts with France and Germany - or any other country that didn't offer assistance to their country. I guess they stand to lose a lot of money over the war.
Please, here's another one:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=7454Where there's smoke there is fire. Now the cowards stand to lose plenty more in future revenue.
That's exactly my point, this wasn't about greed - as it affected the wallets of every American - including "Bush's cronies". Are you inferring that they don't pay taxes?
Or that they don't deserve to get paid for their work?
Why we went to Iraq is more complicated than that. In my opinion, the convergence of three major influences drove us to war with Iraq after 9/11.Or are you saying we destroyed stuff solely to make money on the rebuilding?
Today, Iraq continues to withhold important information about its nuclear program... It retains physical infrastructure needed to build a nuclear weapon.
No-Bid contracts are more lucrative than open bid contracts. Haliburton, Bectel, et al got the no bid contracts; these are for open bid contracts.
Coalition of the willing? Try the bribed. The problem is that the stick is so big (the prospect of your young men and women dying in Iraq) and the carrot so small ($187 B split) that none of the major powers are likely to be interested. They will simply use the opportunity to paint us as a renegade imperial power bent on self-aggrandizement. We as a nation certainly are not but our president appears intent on portraying us as such. You are aware that they are gaining standing in the world community at our expense, aren't you?
Jimmy, there is no Iraq Government. There is Bremmer, the US Government Appointed Iraqi Governing Council and the US army. All power issues from Washington so couching your speech with phrases like"Iraq has already stated" is disingenuous.
How much were the French/German contracts worth? Can you demonstrate a connection between the leadership of France and Germany to the corporations profiting?
First, this guy works for Fox News as a political commentator. The only place this argument gets significant play is on Fox, precisely for the reasons I mentioned (no proof).
Further, in this instance, the Russian company has a point. If you'd read their argument, they surveyed and developed a plan for the oilfields in question, they submitted an offer and that offer was accepted. Don't you think they should be able to profit from their efforts?
The US can refuse to honor the agreement, but we do so at our own peril. Expect Russia to retaliate in kind, or more likely, whip our ass some more up at the WTO. Screwing the Russians doesnt help the Iraqi people, Jim, it helps GWBs' buddies who work for US Oil companies.
Of course they pay taxes. We all pay taxes. We all don't get no-bid contracts from the government though. I use my political connections to get $61 Mil. Does the fact I pay taxes on it make it any less graft?
That's why you bid out contracts, to insure you get a fair price for the work being done. We didn't do that with Haliburton, we gave them a contract and said "tell us what it costs you, and we'll add X%". That's called cost plus contracting and it is an invitation to steal.
Originally posted by jimnyc
So since Halliburton received the most lucrative of contracts, that means the remaining bilions of dollars worth of contracts are not lucrative? Not very good logic.
Dude...like.
And who gives a rats ass if the 'major powers' feel slighted or not,
they certainly didn't look very powerful when they refused to help Iraq out of it's problems. They couldn't stop us from going to war. They can't get us to pull out. They can't stop us from excluding them from contracts. They just aren't as powerful as you'd like to think.
"Sure, we'll donate money to help Iraq in it's time of need"
a few short weeks later:
"What, we can't make billions of dollars out of this? Ok, we're going to keep our money then"
Sounds like "I'm taking my ball and going home" that I heard back in the 3rd grade.
Tell that to all of the other nations that recognize them as the Iraqi government. Why didn't they bar them from meetings claiming they were an illegitimate government? Your constant need to dig up dirt on the current administration only makes you look silly.
I could, but I'm not going to scour the net looking for data
Both countries had oil contracts with Iraq that they profited a quite a bit from. The loss of these contracts hurts future revenue. I don't really care a bit at all about the individual companies in France and Germany that made out.
I guess 3.5 billion dollars since the sanctions were eased is peanuts.
urchasing power parity - $1.54 trillion (2002 est.) "Not seeing why they would want to keep peace with Saddam to retain this contracts makes me wonder if you have a problem with your eyesight.
Most certainly. But things get a little hairy when them contracts become more important to you than the Iraqi people that were being killed by their leader - the very same leader that was paying you those contracts.
This is funny, every oil company is in the hands of GWB.
And you wonder why liberals are the laughing stock of the world.
I am so glad...sucks to be you!
Contrary to your pathetic teachings in the other thread, Halliburton did not make money off the overcharging.
And I still say tough shit for the companies whining about Halliburton getting the job. They were clearly the most qualified, end of story.
This isn't a small downtown building being erected. This is oil infrastructure in Iraq that no one knew better than Halliburton. Paying less for less work that wuld take longer makes no sense.
I'm not replying to your "PNAC is running the world" conspiracy.
You wrote a long post in which you advanced your argument very little in my judgement. That said, at least you chose an approriate way to end your post.You should run for King Liberal, you'd mostly likely get voted in with record numbers and they can crown you with a golden tinfoil hat.
Lucrative: In excess of normal profit margins. As for the logic, it is your statement. If it is wrong I'd correct it.
Unresponsive to the quoted portion of the prior post that it purports to respond too. Also factualy incorrect, the US government is not a company and does not posses the same lattitude as a corporation in the awarding of contracts.
We will, next time we ask them for their help and they tell us no.
Contrary to the thoughts of Lennin, all power does not issue from the barrel of a gun. Take a look at the population and wealth of the EU, then take a look at the exchange rates between the currencies since our adventure in Iraq began. You might want to review recent events at the WTO while your at it, they have influenced american domestic policy in areas related to international trade. That strikes me as pretty powerful.
Some of the smaller countries in the world are the richest, and have no impact whatsoever on the rest of the world. Luxembourg and Bermuda are 2 of the top 3 richest countries in the world. Sure, they're powerful alright! If they can't participate in the rebuilding of Iraq, why should they contribute to it? The fact you find this noteworthy indicates you've allowed your partisanship to cloud you reasoning.
The UN recognized our council as a governing body only on the condition that it create a schedule for free elections and stick to it. It is a placeholder, waiting the election of the real Iraqi government. The fact that you don't seem to understand that is baffeling.
Then stop making your baseless claim.
Than how do you ever hope to prove that Chirac was personaly interested in maintaining the regime in Iraq? Additionaly, that wasn't even part of your argument. You stated it was Chiracs personal relationship with Saddam that made france oppose us, giving that claim up now in favor of the "national interests" of france dictating his actions. Here's news for you Jim. That's the mans job, protecting Frances national interests.
From the CIA on the subject of Frances economy.
"GDP
Yup, peanuts.
":Exports:$307.8 billion f.o.b. (2002) "
Value of the Iraqi contracts in their peak year $0.65 Billion.
"Exports - partners:EU 61.3% (Germany 14.7%, UK 9.8%, Spain 9.6%, Italy 8.8%), US 8.7% (2001) "
If you can't prove a personal connection to Iraq on the part of Chirac, you need to drop this argument because you don't have a shred of evidence to back up this charge either.
We did business Saddam as well, so your point is moot.
Whose more popular with the rest of the world, Clinton or Bush? The rest of the world isn't laughing at anybody in the US, btw. We have an extremist administration who is following an undeclared agenda. The only people laughing are the ones who don't see how dangerous that is.
:yawn:
I can take you to school, I can't make you learn. Do the math, the contract is for cost plus a percent. The paying double for the gas doubled the dollar amount halliburton recieved. If you can't dispute it (and you can't) let it drop.
You have a link that supports that position, Haliburton is uniquely qualified. An unbiased industry analysis will do unless you are claiming a special knowledge of the oil development business.
and just giving the work to the V.Ps' company is so much easier. The only people who think Haliburton was "uniquley" qualified to do that work is Haliburton (and thier ex-employees).
That's fortunate, since I don't have one. PNAC members fill leadership positions in the administration. You can't dispute that so you ridicule it. Tough, its' a fact.
You wrote a long post in which you advanced your argument very little in my judgement. That said, at least you chose an approriate way to end your post.
Originally posted by jimnyc
Drink some coffee before you post next time. Gaining contract worth billions of dollars Vs. No contract with a profit margin of Zero = you look stupid again! What is their profit margin thus far from rebuilding in Iraq?
Well, looks like your wrong again, as usual. The USA DOES control the contracts and THEY ARE limiting who has the right to bid. All that's left is the whining from the bitches.
Then we'll do exactly as we did this time, go without their sorry asses.
Wealth of the country = GDP. Not per capita income, that would be the wealth of the citizens. Compare the GDP of Luxemborg and Germany. Now understand why your prior comment was nothing more than ill informed obfuscation.Ummm, yeah, wealth leads to overall power.
So you're saying they only originally donated money to help the Iraqi people contingent on receiving it back in contracts? And you say you were involved in business? Please, for the love of God, stay as far away as possible from anything I might ever get involved in!
That's written somewhere? That they are not in fact the recognized governement, that they are just there solely for creating schedules? Please link me to this contract. Loosen the tinfoil, boy!
The Security Council this morning, acting unanimously, called on the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq to return governing authority to the people of that country as soon as practicable, and invited the Iraqi Governing Council to provide a timetable, by 15 December 2003, for drafting a new constitution and holding democratic elections.
Hey, just because your too stupid to search and read what money is/was being gained from contracts with Saddam doesn't mean they are baseless - it just means you are dense.
I stated CLEARLY that it was the contracts that France had with Saddam that made them want to avoid war.
And the billions they made is still a lot of money. Nice attempt at another retarded spin though!
Again, dopey, I never said "Chirac personally has contracts", and I gave clear proof that France was making money from Iraq. Was reading that article too much for you to handle? I'll try to keep it in less than a paragraph next time for you. In laymans terms, I'll dumb down for you.
Point is moot? That's exactly the point, dopey! LOL We didn't let money from contracts with Saddam get in our way and cloud our judgement like it did to others. Have you not been following along?
And the point remains, liberals are the laughing stock of the world.
You guys and your tinfoil hat conspiracies crack me up! You claim earlier that you don't go for smoke, you only believe things when there is fire. All of your arguments are based on smoke and ashes. Clinton popular? You've gotta be kidding me!
The only thing worse than a goofy liberal is one that is so wound up in the bullshit he spouts that he thinks it's reality.
You took me to school alright, too bad I learned the basics of kindergarten 32 years ago. Now, remember, you only talk about fire - not smoke. Show us the data sheets that outline the profit Halliburton made from this overcharging.
I don't need an industry analysis to see that they were uniquely qualified...
Here's a quote from an unbiased analyst:
"Certainly Halliburton would have the lead [in the competition for that job], even absent this contract, given the size and scope of their current operations," said Pierre Conner, an analyst with Hibernia Southcoast Capital. "But there's no question they'll start with some footprint there. It clearly puts them in the position where they will know more about the situation and have a bit of an operation there."
You can call all your conspiracies fact from today on, that doesn't make your assertions any less laughable.
For 2 days replying to your posts I can't stop imagining Mel Gibson in 'Conspiracy Theory'.
It wont matter to your "fuzzy math" friends, they have no idea of what we're talking about anyway.
WHOA!!!!!!!!!! France knows how to do that? Could that be why we ignored it?Maybe you should just admit that France gave us their best advice about attacking Iraq and we chose to to ignore it
Like all countrys, France acts out of self-interest. Their interests in the politics of the ME are not identical to ours, but they did warn us that there would be significant destablization of the ME in general and Iraq in particular if we invaded. They were more interested in maintaining the existing stablity. At $189Billion and counting, not to mention the lives lost, it appears thier advice shouldn't have been discounted simply because it came from France.Originally posted by Johnney
WHOA!!!!!!!!!! France knows how to do that? Could that be why we ignored it?
Like all countrys, France acts out of self-interest
Their interests in the politics of the ME are not identical to ours
there would be significant destablization of the ME in general and Iraq in particular if we invaded
At $189Billion and counting, not to mention the lives lost, it appears thier advice shouldn't have been discounted simply because it came from France.
Are you following the argument, Eric? I know you understand cost plus contracting, why don't you straighten them out? You also know the difference between GDP and per Capita income, and which is applicable in questions related to international trade. You choose not to, leaving it to me to "educate" some of these folks on the arguments they are making.Originally posted by eric
Give me a break, you sit here everyday, pulling bits and pieces from internet sites, quickly trying to educate yourself, so as to sound authoritative. Then you try and put people down, does this somehow make up for your inadequacies, sure looks like it from here. Think about it champ!
