Now the French want contracts to reconstruct Iraq

[clk]

Just one more reason to hate the French:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=540&e=1&u=/ap/20030325/ap_on_re_mi_ea/war_france_rebuilding_iraq_2

Also, doesn't Chirac just look like a weasel? I mean, seriously, just look at his face!

[renata]

Originally posted by clk


Also, doesn't Chirac just look like a weasel? I mean, seriously, just look at his face!

Yes, but Bush does look like a chimp. Is it better to look like a chimp or like a weasel? :)

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blbushchimpanzee.htm

[billiefan2000]

after what France does to its Jewish and Christian Population

http://rr-bb.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=77653

I say we dont need the JEW HATING FRENCH helping the US at anything.

I say to France:

Go George Michael Yourself (a line that Colin Quinn said on SNL)

[Rose]

Has someone spiked the table wine in France? By what means do they think they can insert themselves into the reconstruction efforts in Iraq? It seems as if they're going to claim some sort of moral superiority while blatently trying to get in on the bucks, without having done anything to have brought about the change of regime that will permit Iraq not only to rebuild from the war, but from the damage wrought by Saddam's decades long rule.

[clk]

Originally posted by renata


Yes, but Bush does look like a chimp. Is it better to look like a chimp or like a weasel? :)

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blbushchimpanzee.htm

Bush looks just like Curious George, and acts like him too. The only difference is that Curious George is smarter than Bush. Anyways, I think it's better to look like a monkey than like a weasel, but that's just my opinion :D

[clk]

Originally posted by Rose
Has someone spiked the table wine in France? By what means do they think they can insert themselves into the reconstruction efforts in Iraq? It seems as if they're going to claim some sort of moral superiority while blatently trying to get in on the bucks, without having done anything to have brought about the change of regime that will permit Iraq not only to rebuild from the war, but from the damage wrought by Saddam's decades long rule.

Well said. Man, those guys are sniveling little rat bastards, aren't they?? Do the French piss off anyone else as much as they piss me off?? I'm not even for the war, but the French still make me angry.

The French need these construction contracts to make up for the loss of revenue from arms sales to Hussein.

[billiefan2000]

Considering the hate in their hearts towards Jews and Israel and the USA and there are plenty of evidence of that and in fact enough to fill the state of California from coast to coast with by the way,should it surprise us what these bastards in france are acting like.

[Rose]

LukeT, you hit it on the head, though I might quibble with the word need vs. the word want.

I think most of my frustration and disgust with the French is not that they have opposed us. After all, we are acting on what we percieve as our National Interests, and certainly any other nation has the right to do the same. What does infuriate me is the fact that the French pretend to do it for reasons other than the purely financial. It's been an open secret for several years that the French are owed money by the Iraqi governent for various purchases. But the French have cloaked themselves in a cloak of pious impartial virtue, and this I find offensive. I have yet to see that any of France's actions have been taken for any reason BUT the promulgation of their own agenda of protecting their investments. Until and unless they will at least admit those motives exist, I find it hard to bother to listen to ANYTHING they say.

That, and I just don't like the French; my reactions to German and Russian resistance to our efforts doesn't run as deep. Then too, I can understand the Russian delimna more, and neither the Germans or the Russians have been making the level of public comments the French have. Damn, I hate these self-analysis sometimes. And it's a good sign I might need to go get some sleep...

[dsm]

Originally posted by Rose
Has someone spiked the table wine in France? By what means do they think they can insert themselves into the reconstruction efforts in Iraq? It seems as if they're going to claim some sort of moral superiority while blatently trying to get in on the bucks, without having done anything to have brought about the change of regime that will permit Iraq not only to rebuild from the war, but from the damage wrought by Saddam's decades long rule.

There's something illogical in this statement. The implication seems to be that the best method for getting business (bucks) in the world is to destroy a country and then make sure that you are the only one they can go to to rebuild the country. Hmmm. :rolleyes:

Are you afraid that the French could win the contracts in a fair competitive bid?

Originally posted by dsm

Are you afraid that the French could win the contracts in a fair competitive bid?

It isn't about could. It is about should.

[Martin]

I thought reconstruction was supposed to benefit the Iraqi people. Exactly why should the French not get involved? Are there motives somehow different from our own in this matter?

[patnray]

Contracts should be issued to the lowest qualified bidder in an open and public process. Using contracts to reward our cronies or punish those we feel have snubbed us is a gross misuse of power and borders on the kind of corruption we are allegedly fighting against...

Maybe we should let the Iraqi people decide who they want to rebuild their country.

[Martin]

Originally posted by LukeT


It isn't about could. It is about should. And? The French shouldn't get the contracts? Even if they happen to be best suited to a particular job?

[dsm]

Originally posted by LukeT

Maybe we should let the Iraqi people decide who they want to rebuild their country.


Hmmm. How long do you think it will be before "their country" will actually be their's again? First, there is the war to win. Then there is the peace to win and that could be the longer issue...

You don't really think Bush, Cheney, etc., will let anyone other than their old friends in the oil industry rebuild the oil infrastructure of Iraq, do you? ;)

:D

[PogoPedant]

Originally posted by LukeT
Maybe we should let the Iraqi people decide who they want to rebuild their country.
That's crazy talk. ;)

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by dsm
You don't really think Bush, Cheney, etc., will let anyone other than their old friends in the oil industry rebuild the oil infrastructure of Iraq, do you? ;)

I'm fairly certain that no matter which companies are chosen to do so, Bush's political opponent's will find a way to paint it as a payback to Bush's (or the Bush family's, etc...) old friends in the oil industry.

Unless every contract is awarded to TotalFinaElf, that is. Perhaps even then.

MattJ

[Rose]

dsm, my personal feeling is that I'd as soon cut the French out cold on the matter as give them a contract to simply sweep the streets of Baghdad. But I'm willing to consider using French firms if they can provide adequate service.

What does amaze me is the demanding tone coming from the French. They actively opposed our actions, they continued to berate and act against our efforts, and then they expect to step in and reap some financial benefits while we continue to provide security and assistance? It's hilarious that they carry on with this arrogant air. And it's obvious they're not thinking in terms of what good they can do for Iraq, as opposed to simply raking in the money. IF the French can offer anything in the reconstruction that we cannot get at a reasonable price from any other nation, let em in. But I expect they'll be at the bottom of the list.

It does bring up a good question though. What criteria are to be used in deciding what contracts, and who gets them, in the reconstruction efforts? So far, i'm not overly concerned. There is a natural bias towards using people whose capabilities are known to you personally. But part of the justification of the war will rest in how well we handle this job, and I hope that it is done properly and well.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by LukeT
Maybe we should let the Iraqi people decide who they want to rebuild their country.

Are you talking about permitting a sovereign nation to practice self -determination even if it chooses a goverment that may not be Pro-American or pro-west? How uncanny.

Are you trying to say that brown people are not inferior and therefore can make their own choices? That is revolutionary.


Everytime a country in the Mideast has attempted democracy or a regime change in the last century a western country has interfered when their interests were not served: True, when given a choice for democracy, the people of some Muslim countries voted for fundamentalist theocracies. The response: western powers saw fit to try and subvert the newly elected government, and civil wars broke out.

Britain, France, Russia, and even the very benign United States have interfered in most Islamic nations in Africa and Asia. There is just no pleasing some western nations.


PPG

[dsm]

Originally posted by aerocontrols

I'm fairly certain that no matter which companies are chosen to do so, Bush's political opponent's will find a way to paint it as a payback to Bush's (or the Bush family's, etc...) old friends in the oil industry.


Soooo... You do think Bush, Cheney, etc., will control the process...? :confused:

:D

[dsm]

Originally posted by Rose

It does bring up a good question though. What criteria are to be used in deciding what contracts, and who gets them, in the reconstruction efforts? So far, i'm not overly concerned. There is a natural bias towards using people whose capabilities are known to you personally. But part of the justification of the war will rest in how well we handle this job, and I hope that it is done properly and well.


More to the point, when the war is over, Bush (et.al.) will have A LOT of bridges to rebuild (and I don't mean the physical ones in Iraq). If he handles the "peace" as badly as he handled getting us into the "war", then the US is going to be painted as "invaders" who were after Iraq's oil by much of the world and we are going to have a bad time in the world economy for years to come.

[Baggle]

Everytime a country in the Mideast has attempted democracy or a regime change in the last century a western country has interfered when their interests were not served
You know, I am not a Middle Eastern historian by any means, but how exactly is this true when just recently Turkey screwed the USA grandly(as is their right to do if their democratically elected gov't so chooses) and the USA is yet to interfere with their interests? We the USA now interfere with Turkey's interests?


... the US is going to be painted as "invaders" who were after Iraq's oil by much of the world...
I think that when Iraqi companies own and operate all of the oil wells and Iraq becomes a big time(huge?) player in the politics of the region and also the world economy because of their sudden vast wealth(as opposed to Saddam's wealth), people may think differently. From what I've heard about Iraq, I cannot see how they will do anything besides prosper. 2nd largest oil reserve in the world? Whewwww! Seems very likely to me that Iraq may become the next Saudi Arabia, except democratic. If this happens and Iraq stays in tact, Iraq really will become a flagship nation of the middle east, the likes of which has yet to be seen. Should be very interesting to watch, and I hope for the best for the Iraqis; they really have a chance to make it big here. I think that seeing Iraq like this or even working towards this will change many negative views of this war, and America will be at least partially redeemed in world opinion. Or am I wrong?

-Baggle

[schplurg]

Fine, let the French help rebuild, as long as they get none of the profit until the money it cost the coalition to fight this conflict is repaid in full.

How's that?

[Baggle]

Ya know, my take on this matter is that the United States et al paid for this war, so they should at least get a bit of that money back by means of hiring their own contractors to do the rebuilding. Sure, they may only get <pulls number out of arse> 5% of the contract money back from taxes, but 5% may still be a big number. $50,000 on every million, actually. Money is money, as I am fond of saying.

The US will benefit in other ways as well, since the money that they pay these contractors will eventually be pumped back into the economy by company employees and management. This example uses America, but all members of the coalition should be eligable for bidding.

The fact that French receives none of these contracts is not why it should be run like this, but it is an outcome of it being run like this. It's just a nice icing on the cake:)

-Baggle

[ZeeGerman]

Originally posted by Baggle

You know, I am not a Middle Eastern historian by any means, but how exactly is this true when just recently Turkey screwed the USA grandly(as is their right to do if their democratically elected gov't so chooses) and the USA is yet to interfere with their interests? We the USA now interfere with Turkey's interests?



I think that when Iraqi companies own and operate all of the oil wells and Iraq becomes a big time(huge?) player in the politics of the region and also the world economy because of their sudden vast wealth(as opposed to Saddam's wealth), people may think differently. From what I've heard about Iraq, I cannot see how they will do anything besides prosper. 2nd largest oil reserve in the world? Whewwww! Seems very likely to me that Iraq may become the next Saudi Arabia, except democratic. If this happens and Iraq stays in tact, Iraq really will become a flagship nation of the middle east, the likes of which has yet to be seen. Should be very interesting to watch, and I hope for the best for the Iraqis; they really have a chance to make it big here. I think that seeing Iraq like this or even working towards this will change many negative views of this war, and America will be at least partially redeemed in world opinion. Or am I wrong?

-Baggle

I hope you're not wrong. But come to think of it, I can't recall a single country where such a large treasure is used failrly for the benefit of the whole country. There seems always to be a small group of very greedy people who control the business for their own wealth. Even the oil rush in the US in the beginning of the last century lead to a dominant group (Standard Oil) which had then to be seperated by the supreme court.

Zee

[subgenius]

Originally posted by LukeT
The French need these construction contracts to make up for the loss of revenue from arms sales to Hussein.
The US has been the largest purchaser of Iraqi oil until December 2002.
The Saudi's just won the biggest trade contract with Iraq.
Know who they beat out?
Kuwait.
We're all whores, we're just quibbling about the price.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


I'm fairly certain that no matter which companies are chosen to do so, Bush's political opponent's will find a way to paint it as a payback to Bush's (or the Bush family's, etc...) old friends in the oil industry.

Unless every contract is awarded to TotalFinaElf, that is. Perhaps even then.

MattJ
Or maybe its true, and you're in denial.
Maybe?

[Baggle]

Zee,
The thought went through my head as well. It will probably happen just like that. There will be a rich minority that controls most of the wealth. However, if the USA does its job right, that shouldn't matter too much to the future of the nation. If corruption is controlled and a fair wage is established, it seems like the nation will flourish. Some of that wealth will trickle down to the lower classes and eventually enough of the lower classes will save enough money to move up the rung.

I suppose things could go in a completely different way, but if everything pans out, it seems like this may be a probable outcome. The more I think about it, the smarter I think this administration might be. If the democratically elected gov't that is put in place ends up liking the west, it could do a massive amount for public opinion in the middle east towards the west. If it doesn't like the west, then the US will not have lost much and still get to play the "we liberated Iraq's people" card.

-Baggle

[ZeeGerman]

Originally posted by Baggle
Zee,
The thought went through my head as well. It will probably happen just like that. There will be a rich minority that controls most of the wealth. However, if the USA does its job right, that shouldn't matter too much to the future of the nation. If corruption is controlled and a fair wage is established, it seems like the nation will flourish. Some of that wealth will trickle down to the lower classes and eventually enough of the lower classes will save enough money to move up the rung.

I suppose things could go in a completely different way, but if everything pans out, it seems like this may be a probable outcome. The more I think about it, the smarter I think this administration might be. If the democratically elected gov't that is put in place ends up liking the west, it could do a massive amount for public opinion in the middle east towards the west. If it doesn't like the west, then the US will not have lost much and still get to play the "we liberated Iraq's people" card.

-Baggle

That's a very optimistic stance, but there is certainly nothing wrong with being optimistic. However, there are so many open variables in the equation.

1. the allies have to end the war without too much blood shed among the civilians (looking good so far) and the outcome HAS to be a complete removal of Saddam and his regime clique.

2. Even if the war ends quickly, will the people in Iraq wellcome the US as liberators? If not, who will be the mediator? UK? Hardly, for the same reasons. France? Over America's broken bleeding body. Russia? What do they know about democracy. Germany? Trying right now to maintain some order in Afghanistan, not very successfully. The UN? We will still have to see what's left of the UN after the war, right now it's "irrelevant".

3. rivalries between sunnits and shiits have to be handled (is that even possible for a western mediator with a christian background?)

4. What about the Kurds in the north, the oil fields in that area and Turkey (just the right mixture for endless problems, even civil war)?

5. Not only should the democratic Iraq be pro western but it has also to be accepted by its non democratic islamc neighbors (not looking so good now)

These questions make it hard for me to share your optimism. I still believe that this war could and should have been prevented and I agree with my government's decision to have no part in it. But then - as somebody else already posted - maybe the right thing is happening for the wrong reasons.

Zee

[Baggle]

I understand your points. I am not about to debate them, however. Planning for things like that is a bit beyond my scope. My real point was that the US gov't obviously has this in mind, and may already have a rough outline of a plan. If the US gov't can pull it off, and the fact that they actually started the war points to them thinking they can pull it off, then the outcome will be favorable. Whatever tricks they have up their sleeve, if they pan out, they will make an enormous return on their investment. How it'll happen, I don't know.

-Baggle

[ZeeGerman]

Originally posted by Baggle
I understand your points. I am not about to debate them, however. Planning for things like that is a bit beyond my scope. My real point was that the US gov't obviously has this in mind, and may already have a rough outline of a plan. If the US gov't can pull it off, and the fact that they actually started the war points to them thinking they can pull it off, then the outcome will be favorable. Whatever tricks they have up their sleeve, if they pan out, they will make an enormous return on their investment. How it'll happen, I don't know.

-Baggle

I wish I could have such confidence in my government as you have in your's ;)

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by ZeeGerman




3. rivalries between sunnits and shiits have to be handled (is that even possible for a western mediator with a christian background?)

4. What about the Kurds in the north, the oil fields in that area and Turkey (just the right mixture for endless problems, even civil war)?

5. Not only should the democratic Iraq be pro western but it has also to be accepted by its non democratic islamc neighbors (not looking so good now)



you touched on some very real, very complicated points. At the moment the US and Britain appear to be sticklers when it come to the borders of the new Iraq. They say dividing the country up is not an option. (Turkey too is very set aginst the dividing up of Iraq).

As with Palestine and India which were once protectorates or under Britsh rules, Iraq was also a hodge podge of groups that had no say how the boarders in the region would be determined (by the UK , France, and Turkey).

Similar problems have occured in Africa because of the dividing of that continent between European powers in the 18th and 19th century.

When these nations gained the opportunity for self determination the different factions turned against each other. Many of these "young" nations today are experiencing civil wars.

We can witness genocide being practiced daily in some nations that have come under rule of despots as horrible or worse than Saddam. Add to that:

4 decades of "influence" from the Democratic West and USSR during the cold war,

the weopons made available to these warlords and despots to buy their loyalty,

the determination of corrupt elitists in these countries to remain in power to reap the rewards of selling the resourses of the nation at the expense of whole communities and the nations debt load..

and the complexities that the new nation states face are overwhelming. :confused:

I am not saying that it was paradise in these countries before European and political entities interfered. In truth, many of the hostilities and hatred go back many centuries.

These groups were placed within the confines of borders determined by outsiders. The "west" has only recently begun to realize the immensity of the problems due to the rising nationalism and demand for self determination by groups like the Kurds.

[BillyTK]

Of course France shouldn't be allowed to profit from the Gulf War. It should be shared equally amongst the coalition forces... er...

[Graham]

Originally posted by Baggle

You know, I am not a Middle Eastern historian by any means, but how exactly is this true when just recently Turkey screwed the USA grandly(as is their right to do if their democratically elected gov't so chooses) and the USA is yet to interfere with their interests? We the USA now interfere with Turkey's interests?

-Baggle

I'm hardly a Middle Eastern historian either but couldn't the US be said to be interfering with Turkish interests by telling them to keep their armies out of Northern Iraq?

If Turkey believes it is in their interests to invade N Iraq who is (are?) the US to tell tehm not to?

Graham

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Graham


I'm hardly a Middle Eastern historian either but couldn't the US be said to be interfering with Turkish interests by telling them to keep their armies out of Northern Iraq?

If Turkey believes it is in their interests to invade N Iraq who is (are?) the US to tell tehm not to?

Graham

...the guys with the bigger guns? ;) :D

[Graham]

Originally posted by BillyTK


...the guys with the bigger guns? ;) :D

It's funny 'cos it's true :(

[daenku32]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usatoday/20030326/bs_usatoday/4991367

Halliburton and others with tight connections to the white house are also forerunners in the rebuilding effort..

I wouldn't be suprised if the military 'accidentially' causes more collatereal damage than what we hope for. Because every additional damaged watering or highway system is just more money to rebuilding industry.

[Scared Chicken]

What does amaze me is the demanding tone coming from the French. They actively opposed our actions, they continued to berate and act against our efforts, and then they expect to step in and reap some financial benefits while we continue to provide security and assistance?

You do know how this rebuild of Iraq will be paid for, dont you ? Oil. Iraqi oil. So you expect the French to not only allow the US to invade Iraq, bomb everything back to the stone age, but then also allow the US to make big profits by having the Iraq pay (with oil) for the destruction no one asked for ? Get a clue.

[ZeeGerman]

Originally posted by Scared Chicken
[QUOTE] What does amaze me is the demanding tone coming from the French. They actively opposed our actions, they continued to berate and act against our efforts, and then they expect to step in and reap some financial benefits while we continue to provide security and assistance? [quote]

You do know how this rebuild of Iraq will be paid for, dont you ? Oil. Iraqi oil. So you expect the French to not only allow the US to invade Iraq, bomb everything back to the stone age, but then also allow the US to make big profits by having the Iraq pay (with oil) for the destruction no one asked for ? Get a clue.

Hey, you can't use such logic anymore. The Iraqis are just mere extras in this play, the really bad guys are the French of course.

:D

Zee

P.S.: Practice your quoting (HTML-wise)

[Scared Chicken]

P.S.: Practice your quoting (HTML-wise)

Better ?
Im getting prudent in altering posts, because b4 you know it, you get called an antisemite, troll or holocaust denier because of it :rolleyes:

[Lemastre]

Originally posted by clk
Now the French want contracts to reconstruct IraqThe French have some nerve thinking to horn in on projects that can profit big American firms that engage in foreign development and contribute heavily to presidential campaigns. Dick Cheney's former employer Halliburton already has the contract to douse oilfield fires, and I would expect it to enjoy a favored role in any postwar opportunities, too.

Originally posted by daenku32

I wouldn't be suprised if the military 'accidentially' causes more collatereal damage than what we hope for. Because every additional damaged watering or highway system is just more money to rebuilding industry.

I just can't let this one slide. That comment is an offense to every man in uniform.

These kinds of comments display a belief that these guys are somehow different from the rest of their fellow Americans. Like there is some vast conspiracy among the robot troops to make money for Joe's Construction Company back home.

Please.