[eklipse]

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/09/in...D-DIPL.html?hp

WASHINGTON, Dec. 9 — The Pentagon has barred French, German and Russian companies from competing for $18.6 billion in contracts for the reconstruction of Iraq, saying the step "is necessary for the protection of the essential security interests of the United States."

The directive, which was issued by the deputy defense secretary, Paul D. Wolfowitz, represents perhaps the most substantive retaliation to date by the Bush administration against American allies who opposed its decision to go to war in Iraq.

The administration had warned before the war that countries that did not join an American-led coalition would not have a voice in decisions about the rebuilding of Iraq. But the administration had not previously made clear that French, German and Russian companies would be excluded from competing for the lucrative reconstruction contracts, which include the rebuilding of Iraq's infrastructure and equipping its army.

Under the guidelines, which were issued on Friday but became public knowledge today, only companies from the United States, Iraq and 61 other countries designated as "coalition partners" will be allowed to bid on the contracts, which are financed by American taxpayers.

Not about money, huh?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by eklipse:

Not about money, huh?

Not for France, Germany and Russia it isn't.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by eklipse:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/09/in...D-DIPL.html?hp


Not about money, huh?

woflowitz is another neocon.

[lil'babykitten]

Anybody here surprised by this? I'm not.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Anybody here surprised by this? I'm not.

In all seriousness, this is US taxpayer's money. It makes perfect sense for the US to direct it toward coalition partners. I doubt that France, Germany and Russia honestly thought that they would be financially rewarded with US Treasury checks. Moreover, you would think that given their moral stance they wouldn't want to benefit from an invasion they opposed.

No, this should be expected. What will be more interesting is how Iraq's relations are with them once sovereignty is restored. In particular, will Saddam's arms loans be forgiven?

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Anybody here surprised by this? I'm not.

Of course not. Maybe if French, German or Russian companies contributed more generously to election campaigns....

Remember Senator Wellstone's amendment to the Homeland Security Bill? The one that would ban companies that expatriat profits to offshore holding companies or incorporate in Bermuda to avoid taxes from getting government contracts?

Remember all the Senators that sabotaged that amendment and then spoke at Wellstone's funeral about what an inspiration he was?

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Moreover, you would think that given their moral stance they wouldn't want to benefit from an invasion they opposed.

Indeed, I hope France, Germany and Russia tell the US to shove it anyway!

What will be more interesting is how Iraq's relations are with them once sovereignty is restored.

Wait for it.

[eklipse]

Don't the Iraqis get a say in who rebuilds their country?

[Logic]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
In all seriousness, this is US taxpayer's money. It makes perfect sense for the US to direct it toward coalition partners.

im·pe·ri·al·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-pîr--lzm)
n.
The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.
The system, policies, or practices of such a government.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by eklipse:
Don't the Iraqis get a say in who rebuilds their country?

Don't be stupid eklipse!

[sanity assassin]

Let's not forget that the 'reconstruction' of Iraq will be paid for by the Iraqis, the revenue from oil exports, so the US taxpayers can be secure in knowing that their money will come back to them. Not bad eh? You bomb a country to oblivion, then charge that nation for being bombed.

Also, most of the contract work, so far, has been given to Rummie's companies, and a few others in the Bush brigade. Nothing like going to war to line your coffers.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Heh.


:"I'm diametrically opposed to this war with every fiber of my being! No good can come of it!! I'll go to my grave denouncing it!! It's a terrible travesty...! No blood for oil! No racist yadda yadda…"

: Great! Then you won't mind not participating in any financial gain as a result of the war, and surely must agree that such should only be granted to coalition nations that actively participated in the war effort!”

:"WHAT!!??!! WHY...!! HOW DARE YOU!!! THAT'S OUTRAGEOUS!!!!!!"

:"Gee, what happened to the 'I'm opposed to this war with every fiber of my being' stance?"

:"Well come on! I didn't think that actually meant I WOULDN’T GET ANY MONEY OUT OF IT!!"

[lil'babykitten]

Hey Crash, did anyone in this thread say that?!

[thunderous_funker]

Just as invading Iraq wasn't "humanitarian" (even if you think it necessary), opossing Bush's adventure wasn't "humanitarian" either--at least not as long as the Sanctions were in place.

I thought everyone knew this?

[eklipse]

: I don't see anyone here complaining because France didn't get a share of the spoils.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Logic:
im·pe·ri·al·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-pîr--lzm)
n.
The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.
The system, policies, or practices of such a government.

I think the words you are looking for are "bidding" on a "U.S. Government" "contract."

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by sanity assassin:
Let's not forget that the 'reconstruction' of Iraq will be paid for by the Iraqis, the revenue from oil exports, so the US taxpayers can be secure in knowing that their money will come back to them. Not bad eh? You bomb a country to oblivion, then charge that nation for being bombed.

Also, most of the contract work, so far, has been given to Rummie's companies, and a few others in the Bush brigade. Nothing like going to war to line your coffers.

Wrong. This is out of the $20 billion appropriated by Congress a few weeks ago. This is US taxpayer's money.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I think the words you are looking for are "bidding" on a "U.S. Government" "contract."

....that "establishes economic and political hegemony over another nation".

[sanity assassin]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Wrong. This is out of the $20 billion appropriated by Congress a few weeks ago. This is US taxpayer's money.

Wrong again, the tax payer's money is being fronted just now, but the returns will happen in due process, once the revenue from the Iraqi oil fields start paying. Over time, Iraq is paying for the rebuilding of the country, so the money is meaningless, it'll come back to the US in the end.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Hey Crash, did anyone in this thread say that?!

No, just suggested that such was 'imperialism', or that perhaps they should have contributed to election campaigns (whatever that has to do with anything!)

Just as Simey suggested, and all on the 'anti-war' side should be beside themselves with joy that France, Germany and Russia won't be participating in Iraq's reconstruction, and I would even add (hopefully) not be participating in any oil contracts thereafter for the FAR foreseeable future.


To those 'anti-war' folks who are on the same page on that point, my hats off for at least having some consistency!

[sanity assassin]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
No, just suggested that such was 'imperialism', or that perhaps they should have contributed to election campaigns (whatever that has to do with anything!)

Just as Simey suggested, and all on the 'anti-war' side should be beside themselves with joy that France, Germany and Russia won't be participating in Iraq's reconstruction, and I would even add (hopefully) not be participating in any oil contracts thereafter for the FAR foreseeable future.


To those 'anti-war' folks who are on the same page on that point, my hats off for at least having some consistency!

Don't worry, the contracts were all worked out long before Iraq was even invaded, Bush and his muppet brigade will be lining their pockets for a few more years.I guess the wealth that Dubya's Granddad garnered from the Nazis is running out, nah, doubt it, they're just greedy.

[Developer]

Originally posted by sanity assassin:
Wrong again, the tax payer's money is being fronted just now, but the returns will happen in due process, once the revenue from the Iraqi oil fields start paying.

The money is returned to the tax payers? Really?

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by sanity assassin:
Wrong again, the tax payer's money is being fronted just now, but the returns will happen in due process, once the revenue from the Iraqi oil fields start paying. Over time, Iraq is paying for the rebuilding of the country, so the money is meaningless, it'll come back to the US in the end.

If you mean the massive profits from reconstruction will be expatriated by American companies, then I agree with you.

If you mean that the taxpayers are ever going to see even the tiniest fraction of this trillion dollar adventure paid back to them, I'm afraid your optomism is grossly misplaced.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Developer:
The money is returned to the tax payers? Really?

No, not really. I don't think he knows what he is talking about. There was a move in the Senate for a portion of the $20 billion to be made in the form of loans. But Bush said he would veto the bill if that was done and the idea was dropped.

The entire $20 billion is in the form of grants. This is a matter of public record. Feel free to check.

[Developer]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
If you mean the massive profits from reconstruction will be expatriated by American companies, then I agree with you.

If you mean that the taxpayers are ever going to see even the tiniest fraction of this trillion dollar adventure paid back to them, I'm afraid your optomism is grossly misplaced.

Oh man, I place this clever socratic question to make him realize this himself, and you all ruin it.

[sanity assassin]

Originally posted by Developer:
The money is returned to the tax payers? Really?

Not to the taxpayers directly, but the money that Iraq will generate from its oil exports will go straight to the US, and into its system, and thus the US taxpayers will not be out of pocket in the long term. Do you honestly think that any government, especially the US will just give away $20 billion without expecting it back? let's see them completely wipe out 3rd world debt.

Nah, taxpayers don't really get back any money directly anyway, but they do benefit from money generated via various sources, whether its from taxes, or revenue generated form debts abroad.

It's all moot, cause we know that the oil revenues from Iraq are being used to rebuild Iraq, and those contracts for the rebuilding are going to mostly US companies. More Jobs, more money coming home, plus all that lovely interest.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by sanity assassin:
let's see them completely wipe out 3rd world debt.

No, let's see France and Russia wipe out Saddam's debt.

[sanity assassin]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
No, not really. I don't think he knows what he is talking about. There was a move in the Senate for a portion of the $20 billion to be made in the form of loans. But Bush said he would veto the bill if that was done and the idea was dropped.

The entire $20 billion is in the form of grants. This is a matter of public record. Feel free to check.

I do know what I am talking about. Public records also show that all revenue from the Iraqi Oil fields are going into rebuilding Iraq, via American contacts, PLUS, Iraq has to pay war reparations to the US, ie, expense for the war, and the aftermath.

[sanity assassin]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
No, let's see France and Russia wipe out Saddam's debt.

Stupid question there. I'm sure the US is making a nice little earner out of Iraq.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by sanity assassin:
I do know what I am talking about. Public record also that all revenue from the Iraqi Oil fields are going into rebuilding Iraq, via American contacts, PLUS, Iraq has to pay war reparations to the US, ie, expense for the war, and the aftermath.

War reparations? You are full of it.

[sanity assassin]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
War reparations? You are full of it.

Go read, maybe you missed out the finer details in where the money from Iraqi oilfields is going, or maybe you're just blind.

[The Ayatollah]

but it is about security. You can't trust France, Germany, and Russia to operate freely in that country, installing telecom systems or infrastructure that they would build in spy gadgets. That is why US telcos get those contracts.

If these countries can't be relied upon as allies, they simply do not deserve to benefit from their treachery and forked infidel tongues.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by sanity assassin:
Stupid question there. I'm sure the US is making a nice little earner out of Iraq.

MINUS $87 billion is not "a nice little earner." That's just the emergency appropriation. It doesn't include the original cost of the war, nor what it will cost next year. Trust me, if Iraq was invaded as an investment, it was a very bad one.

[sanity assassin]

Originally posted by The Ayatollah:
but it is about security. You can't trust France, Germany, and Russia to operate freely in that country, installing telecom systems or infrastructure that they would build in spy gadgets. That is why US telcos get those contracts.

If these countries can't be relied upon as allies, they simply do not deserve to benefit from their treachery and forked infidel tongues.

Still doesn't change the fact that Iraq is paying for being destroyed, they didn't ask top have their nation levelled. They'll be in dent, and paying most of their revenue into American hands for decades to come. Nice little twist to the story, eh?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by sanity assassin:
Still doesn't change the fact that Iraq is paying for being destroyed, they didn't ask top have their nation levelled. They'll be in dent, and paying most of their revenue into American hands for decades to come. Nice little twist to the story, eh?

I give up. There are some minds that are closed.

[sanity assassin]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
MINUS $87 billion is not "a nice little earner." That's just the emergency appropriation. It doesn't include the original cost of the war, nor what it will cost next year. Trust me, if Iraq was invaded as an investment, it was a very bad one.

You're looking short term, and long term is what the US, and any sane country would do. The US is not going to come out of this at a loss.

[sanity assassin]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I give up. There are some minds that are closed.

I thought you gave up months ago? My mind is closed, why not apply that to yourself too, or is just because I don't automatically agree with you. Talk about being closed minded, and please keep your little digs to yourself, I never once took this to a personal level, you did, tells me a lot about someone like that.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by sanity assassin:
You're looking short term, and long term is what the US, and any sane country would do. The US is not going to come out of this at a loss.

You seem to be suffering from some considerable disconnet between the citizens, companies, and government of the US.

Will the US government get its money back?
No. Why? Because its not their money. In case you hadn't noticed, politicians have absolutely no compunction whatsoever about spending money that doesn't belong to them. George W. Bush has taken that traditional passion to heights never before realized by any politician in this country. He has spent and will spend more of other people's money than any president in history.

Will US companies get their money back?
No. Why? Because they didn't spend any in the first place. The Trillions they are "spending" in Iraq for "reconstruction" isn't their money either. They got it from the Government. See above.

Will US taxpayers get their money back?
No. Never. Why? Because the governemnt is giving it to the companies. See above.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
The Trillions they are "spending" in Iraq

Trillions? It's billions. Your decimal point is wandering. According to the CIA World Fact Book, the entire Gross Domestic Product for the United States in 2002 was $10.4 trillion.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Trillions? It's billions. Your decimal point is wandering. According to the CIA World Fact Book, the entire Gross Domestic Product for the United States in 2002 was $10.4 trillion.

AP Story from December 2002:
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON, Dec. 6 - In the worst case, a war with Iraq could cost
the United States almost as much as the government spent in the last
budget year nearly $2 trillion, according to new projections.

Researchers concluded in a study released Thursday that war with Iraq
could cost the United States from $99 billion to more than $1.9
trillion over a decade.

The lower figure assumes a successful military, diplomatic and
nation-building campaign; the higher figure assumes a prolonged war
with a disruption of oil markets and a U.S. recession, the authors
say in a study by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

Both figures assume a U.S. involvement in the country for 10 years.

White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe said it was premature to
comment on cost estimates.

"War is the last resort," he said. "We're hoping for a peaceful solution."

The 1991 Persian Gulf War cost America an estimated $61 billion, but
allies reimbursed all but about $7 billion. By some accounting
methods, the United States may have even made a profit.

Direct military spending could range from $50 billion in a short
campaign to $140 billion in a prolonged war with Iraq, said the study
titled, "War With Iraq: Costs, Consequences and Alternatives." The
study was done by the academy's Committee on International Security
Studies.

The report cautioned that aside from the estimates of direct military
costs, all the numbers should be "regarded as informed conjecture."

Occupation and peacekeeping costs could be $75 billion in the best
case to $500 billion in the worst, the study said. Reconstruction and
nation-building costs are estimated at $30 billion to $105 billion,
and humanitarian aid at $1 billion to $10 billion.

Economic ripples of war with Iraq are likely to spread beyond
budgetary costs, with the prospect of raising the cost of imported
oil, slowing productivity growth and possibly triggering a recession,
the report said.

A prolonged disruption of world oil markets could cost the U.S.
economy up to $778 billion, the researchers estimated. On the other
hand, Iraq's huge oil resources could satisfy U.S. needs for imported
oil at current levels for almost a century and otherwise benefit the
economy by $40 billion.

A short war could actually benefit the United States in terms of its
macroeconomic impact, which includes employment, by $17 billion. A
long war, in contrast, could have a $391 billion negative effect.

The American Academy of Arts and Sciences, founded in 1780 and based
in Cambridge, Mass., is an international society of scientists,
scholars, artists, business people and political leaders.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Heh.


:"I'm diametrically opposed to this war with every fiber of my being! No good can come of it!! I'll go to my grave denouncing it!! It's a terrible travesty...! No blood for oil! No racist yadda yadda…"

: Great! Then you won't mind not participating in any financial gain as a result of the war, and surely must agree that such should only be granted to coalition nations that actively participated in the war effort!”

:"WHAT!!??!! WHY...!! HOW DARE YOU!!! THAT'S OUTRAGEOUS!!!!!!"

:"Gee, what happened to the 'I'm opposed to this war with every fiber of my being' stance?"

:"Well come on! I didn't think that actually meant I WOULDN’T GET ANY MONEY OUT OF IT!!"

what exactly are you talking about? I'm not sure you're making the points you're intending to make here.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:AP Story from December 2002:
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON, Dec. 6 - In the worst case, a war with Iraq could cost
the United States almost as much as the government spent in the last
budget year nearly $2 trillion, according to new projections.

Researchers concluded in a study released Thursday that war with Iraq
could cost the United States from $99 billion to more than $1.9
trillion over a decade.

T-F, you are quoting a projection from December 2002 of what combat could cost "in the worst case." Actually, it is ludicrously wrong, as is your shifting of the decimal point. The way you would have it, we are spending the entire budget on Iraq. That's plainly not so.

Since you like incorrect pre-war worst case projections, here is another. It's way off with the exception of the dollar estimate for what the occupation is costing. That's actually pretty accurate.

Researched and written by health professionals, this evidence-based report examines the likely impact of a new war on Iraq from a public health perspective. Credible estimates of the total possible deaths on all sides during the conflict and the following three months range from 48,000 to over 260,000. Civil war within Iraq could add another 20,000 deaths. Additional later deaths from post-war adverse health effects could reach 200,000. If nuclear weapons were used the death toll could reach 3,900,000. In all scenarios the majority of casualties will be civilians.

The aftermath of a 'conventional' war could include civil war, famine and epidemics, millions of refugees and displaced people, catastrophic effects on children's health and development, economic collapse including failure of agriculture and manufacturing, and a requirement for long-term peacekeeping.

Destabilisation and possible regime change in countries neighbouring Iraq is also possible, as well as more terrorist attacks. Global economic crisis may be triggered through trade reduction and soaring oil prices, with particularly devastating consequences for developing countries.

The financial burden will be enormous on all sides, with arms spending, occupation costs, relief and reconstruction possibly exceeding $150-200bn. The US is likely to spend $50bn - $200bn on the war and $5bn - 20bn annually on the occupation. As the report points out, $100bn would fund about four years of expenditure to address the health needs of the world's poorest people.

Source: Reliefweb 13 Nov. 2002.

So: by that estimate, we are looking at about $100 billion for the next 4 years. Where are the trillions?

[Joshua]

The projection of a total cost between $99 billion and $1.9 trillion should have been a tip-off as to the validity of that bit of "research."

[thunderous_funker]

Don't forget Afghanistan. Or future Theaters on the WoT.

So far the spending is much more in line with the worst case scenario predictions than the best case scenario predictions.

We've already spent around $170 Billion and there doesn't seem to be much end in sight. Not to mention that the projections about Iraq's oil revenues have proven to be wildly optomistic. Any fantasies about financing reconstruction from Iraq's oil should be pretty well shattered by now.

Not to mention that the occupation costs are proving substantially higher than most predictions. Mainly beause of the miscalculations about how functional Iraq was. It seems obvious now that Iraq was barely hovering above "failed state" status and now officially is.

Yeah. Saying Trillion now is certainly a "worst case" prediction and I did it for dramatic effect. But don't act surprised as we steadily approach it.

Not to mention all of the unforseen impact it has on oil prices and the US economy as a whole--especially the massive deficit.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Joshua:
The projection of a total cost between $99 billion and $1.9 trillion should have been a tip-off as to the validity of that bit of "research."

Rather than marking a flaw in their research, it should highlight to the observant reader just how flakey the pre-war planning was. The government's own predictions fluctuate so wildly, its hard to believe this thing was signed off on so readily.

Who was the general that Rummy fired when he predicted it would take 400,000 troops and 5 years?

The cost range reflects that vastly different scenarios offered by all the people who were supposedly in charge of "planning" this thing.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Rather than marking a flaw in their research, it should highlight to the observant reader just how flakey the pre-war planning was. The government's own predictions fluctuate so wildly, its hard to believe this thing was signed off on so readily.

The study in the article you posted was produced by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Here is their website. I can't say I have ever heard of them and they are not a government agency. I'm quite sure they had nothing to do with planning anything.

[sanity assassin]

Simey, you just talk crap mate. You have no clue about a good many things. You didn't even know about war reparations. You didn't even know that both S. Arabia, and Kuwait are wanting reparations right at this time, but both the US, and the UN want them to wait until Iraq is rebuilt via most of their oil revenues. You forget about the first gulf war, and war reparations there.
You're so dumb to think that your country went to war with Iraq to free them, and at a monetary loss.

Well, maybe for the US population, the average shmuck on the street, but not the boys in the white house.

Must be nice to get screwed up the a$$ by a Government you support, taking your tax dollars to fund a war which wasn't even needed, under false pretences, and with a country that posed no threat to the US.

I wonder how easy it is for a right-winger to swallow all that, and still support his Gov. knowing that those who actually get rich out of this war, are those in power, those whose companies are carving up the lucrative rebuilding deals, the oil deals, and all those who are doing this, are those few select people in the US Gov. SO funny how how the biggest contracts are going to Bushy boy, Rummie, and the rest of those clowns.

So cheers Simey, for letting us know that you Bush lovers will go to any lengths to defend your man-monkey of a president, even if it meant you had to lose all your wealth, home, and standard of living. Talk about being blinded.

P.s. Please do let us know in a few years time what it's like to get shafted up the a$$ by something akin to a cruise missile.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I give up. There are some minds that are closed.

The air is thick with irony.

[sanity assassin]

Simey, let me know when that huge missile being shafted up yer hole starts to tickle your tonsils.

http://www.postingboard.com/pb/pd/bo...eech/S0000003/

[voodoo]

Originally posted by sanity assassin:
Simey, let me know when that huge missile being shafted up yer hole starts to tickle your tonsils.

http://www.postingboard.com/pb/pd/bo...eech/S0000003/

I think you are turning him on...