Payback - French, Germans and Russians barred from Iraq contracts - Page 5

Skyjack666 · December 10, 2003, 20:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Ramo

What's more alarming than shutting the Euros out is that we tend not to use Iraqi contracters even when they can get the job done cheaper, and we're giving contracts to notoriously anti-union businesses.

Germany a France do not "the Euros" make.

Nubclear · December 10, 2003, 20:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Skyjack666

Germany a France do not "the Euros" make.

Really?

Skyjack666 · December 10, 2003, 20:25

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap
Actually, if the French find that this violates terms of the WTO, they can take the US to court.

And they can refuse to forgive any of Iraq's debt to them as well, like the Russians might.

YIPES!

DinoDoc · December 10, 2003, 20:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Skyjack666
Germany a France do not "the Euros" make.

What about Finland? We've banned them too.

Ned · December 10, 2003, 20:25

Well, GePap, I do admit that Baker's mission to resturcture Iraqi's debt will fall on deaf ears in the lands of the weasels -- unless, that is, he can offer them something in return. Perhaps this is why they were excluded in the first place -- so that Baker might have some bargaining chips.

Skyjack666 · December 10, 2003, 20:26

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
What about Finland? We've banned them too.

Things are looking up, then!

GePap · December 10, 2003, 20:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Skyjack666

YIPES!

So the Russians might loose out on a few hundread million dollars (ditto for either French or German companies), but then they get to say "screw you US, Iraq has to pay back all the billions they owe us, and don;t ask us to forgive the debts"-now, how does this help the Iraq situation?

It doesn't. But its not like you want the situation in Iraq to get better, right?

GePap · December 10, 2003, 20:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
Well, GePap, I do admit that Baker's mission to resturcture Iraqi's debt will fall on deaf ears in the lands of the weasels -- unless, that is, he can offer them something in return. Perhaps this is why they were excluded in the first place -- so that Baker might have some bargaining chips.

What chips? The contracts thier companies might get are dawrved by the size of Iraq's debts. Do you think Russian companies woud be given 8 billion dollars worth of these contracts? What the US needs is goodwill and trust-and we just lost a good chunk of that.

Anyone who thinks this would make people join so they can partake in a 19 billion dollar pool is an idiot. Plain and simple.

Skyjack666 · December 10, 2003, 20:32

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap

So the Russians might loose out on a few hundread million dollars (ditto for either French or German companies), but then they get to say "screw you US, Iraq has to pay back all the billions they owe us, and don;t ask us to forgive the debts"-now, how does this help the Iraq situation?

It doesn't. But its not like you want the situation in Iraq to get better, right?

Well, then, that's on THEIR conscience...if they have one.
And since when did they care about the situation? They let the madness go on unabated along with the rest of us. As long as they could do business with Soddom, they were OK with anything that went on.

Bereta_Eder · December 10, 2003, 20:35

They've banned Finland. Way to go....

Just wait 'till Pekka gets here. Although he'll propably blame his communist regime.

Ramo · December 10, 2003, 20:35

Interesting eye-witness perspective on the Iraqi contract racket (as well as the occupation in general):

http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrow...GLyw&user=&pw=

Ramo · December 10, 2003, 20:37

Quote:

Well, then, that's on THEIR conscience...if they have one.
And since when did they care about the situation? They let the madness go on unabated along with the rest of us. As long as they could do business with Soddom, they were OK with anything that went on.

So you're ok with the US acting like petulant childrend and ****ing over the Iraqis?

Kidicious · December 10, 2003, 20:43

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap
Do you think Russian companies woud be given 8 billion dollars worth of these contracts? What the US needs is goodwill and trust-and we just lost a good chunk of that.

Anyone who thinks this would make people join so they can partake in a 19 billion dollar pool is an idiot. Plain and simple.

You raise a good point Gepap. There isn't that much to gain by these contracts for these nations. The only ones who will gain are the individual companies. The Bush administration does a great disservice to the US and a great service to US corporations.

Kidicious · December 10, 2003, 20:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Ramo
Interesting eye-witness perspective on the Iraqi contract racket (as well as the occupation in general):

http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrow...GLyw&user=&pw=

So true. The Bush administration is ****ing over the Iraqis and the US taxpayers.

Q Classic · December 10, 2003, 20:55

shut up, you leftie scum. bush can do no wrong. profit is still different from an unfair tax. and what halliburton, bechtel, and bush and d1ck are doing in iraq is perfectly legal and fair, seeing as we were the ones who dealt with the security threat that we constructed and now must reconstruct to prevent it from becoming a future threat.

Kidicious · December 10, 2003, 21:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Q Cubed
profit is still different from an unfair tax.

Nubclear · December 10, 2003, 21:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Skyjack666

Well, then, that's on THEIR conscience...if they have one.

If one can stop a crime but doesn't, they are just as guilty as the person who commited it

And trust me: Russia has *NO* conscience.

The Vagabond · December 10, 2003, 22:10

Quote:

Originally posted by paiktis22
Only in barbaric times.

Times are always barbaric!

The Vagabond · December 10, 2003, 22:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
And trust me: Russia has *NO* conscience.

But we've got such a big soul instead!

Kaak · December 11, 2003, 01:57

Quote:

Actuall Shroeder and Chirac have been too kind to you, they should have warned you more strongly.

Urban Ranger · December 11, 2003, 02:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Skyjack666
Well, then, that's on THEIR conscience...if they have one.

/me finds the irony of that statement is waaay too much.

laurentius · December 11, 2003, 04:14

I hope the Bush administration isnt stupid enough to really expect anti-war countries selling their principals for lousy 19 billion, or probably much less.

What surprises me is that Russia hasnt played tough on US yet. I mean in the Soviet days...

Dis · December 11, 2003, 04:20

I never been as embarrassed to be an american as today

Nubclear · December 11, 2003, 04:22

I know. If the US wants to play hardball, then Russia should step up and play.
Especially now that the tide has turned quite violently against the US.

Imran Siddiqui · December 11, 2003, 04:35

Quote:

I wonder if the excluded countries can sue under the WTO and/or NAFTA (in the case of Canada)?

Why? After all, these are government contracts paid for by American taxpayers. Really, all this is is formalizing something. We could have allowed those companies to make a bid, but then pick an American company in the end.

Dis · December 11, 2003, 04:45

but shouldn't the best company for the job be considered? That is the most logical thing to do.

Ned · December 11, 2003, 05:03

The axis of weasel lack of support for the war, their supplying of weapons to Saddam, their lack of support or contribution to the reconostruction and their insistence on payment in full of outstanding debts will not be forgotten -- by the people of Iraq.

Mr. Harley · December 11, 2003, 05:30

I knew this was going to be a problem months ago. As an individual who loathes NAFTA/WTO, this is in violation of the WTO. The reason the administration says this is a security issue is because that's the only exception. So it seems WTO is good only when it favors the Bush adminstration and US companies. Some of the press is starting to pick up on this, that's how I found out about the security exception.

However, the Europeans and Russia should be careful. Some economists/theorists/talking heads have discussed, damn I can't remember the technical phrase, but the idea that debts incurred by vicious dictators to kill their own people while raping their country's resources are not enforcable on those people once they get rid of the bastard. Debts for genuine economic development would be honored, but not weapons, palaces, bribes, kick-backs, tec. Of course the entire industrial world is terrified of this. I would love to see the new Iraqi council, once they have their own government, do exactly that. Including any US debts from prior to the first Gulf War

.

Nubclear · December 11, 2003, 06:19

All the people's are united in their criticism of the United States concerning it's arrogant, hegemonistic policy of "With us or against us"! All the peoples shall surely choose to be against the current US regieme!

Ned · December 11, 2003, 06:24

Commie T, are you willing to put that to a vote in Iraq?