|
|
Post by PTH on Mar 27, 2003 16:37:35 GMT -5
"Sous le feu des critiques de plusieurs pays membres de l'Union européenne, l'administration Bush a tenté jeudi, par la voix du sous-secrétaire d'État américain Alan Larson, de défendre sa décision d'attribuer des contrats de reconstruction en Irak à des compagnies américaines, qui plus est proches du Parti républicain." "Sous le feu des critiques de plusieurs pays membres de l'Union européenne, l'administration Bush a tenté jeudi, par la voix du sous-secrétaire d'État américain Alan Larson, de défendre sa décision d'attribuer des contrats de reconstruction en Irak à des compagnies américaines, qui plus est proches du Parti républicain." www.cyberpresse.ca/monde/article/1,151,1062,032003,244459.shtml www.cyberpresse.ca/monde/article/1,151,0,032003,244456.shtml *sigh* |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Mar 27, 2003 16:57:29 GMT -5
Wow, that totally caught me off guard! ;D Who would have guessed, eh?
How many MacDonalds will there be? Maybe they'll have a "feelawful" on their menu.
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Mar 27, 2003 17:47:17 GMT -5
Right.
The American companies that have been awared the contract for 'control and maitenance of the Port of Umm Qusar that the report speaks about only retain that contract, from what I recall, as long as the US is running a military government in Iraq (prior to the UN government controls being set up and what not - in other words, the transition period between Saddam and the new government).
Perhaps the French would like a contract because they were so 'eager' to get into the frey.
There's such a thing called security clearance in a military zone. This is niether suprising nor relevant. The French and the Germans are just upset that they can't reap the profits of an ill managed oil for food program anymore.
As for the Haliburton thing... we've retred this one a couple times. It's old hat. Trust me, there's not a whole lot of companies that put out oil well fires, let alone have the resources to do it for an entire country. Maybe three world wide.
Once again - the French, Germans and Russians have all been shown to have ulterior motives to be against this war. Stronger ulterior motives, I might add, that the Us has for it's supposed war mongering. This is just another symptom of the case. The EU groups want the US to spend all it's money then give them a better than fair shot at the rebuilding.
Please.
Later,
|
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Mar 27, 2003 18:26:50 GMT -5
The American companies that have been awared the contract for 'control and maitenance of the Port of Umm Qusar that the report speaks about only retain that contract, from what I recall, as long as the US is running a military government in Iraq (prior to the UN government controls being set up and what not - in other words, the transition period between Saddam and the new government). And the end of that transition period is now being squabbled over, too. The US wants to retain control - it opposes the UN taking over control of anything.... The French ? Where are the French mentionned in either of these articles ? As to French eagerness - the French were perfectly willing to participate in a war against Iraq, once a clear resolution had been passed by the UN, which would have required time to let the inspectors do their jobs. Not because we need to prove that Saddam is an evil SOB, but because the "threshold for war should always be very high" (quoting Robin Cooke here). Unless you disagree with M. Cooke on that count ? Germans and French now ? Again, the articles mention no names.... Yeah, and I'm sure that there are only a handful of firms that could manage a port, right ? The US signed contracts with its usual American suppliers, which is normal and predictable, and fits IMO admirably with US goals. That has been stated by you, but not "shown" as in "proven". Every single reason for the French, Germans or Russians to oppose this war for ulterior motives has an exact reciprocal US benefit to war. You can't assume bad faith from them and good faith from the US here. WTF ? They were against the war, so it's not as if they were pushing the US to throw money into this.... Pretty much sums up my thoughts too. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Mar 27, 2003 21:56:03 GMT -5
Yup, that's it PTH.
It's all a global conspiracy. Of course the US awarding a contract to an American company has nothing to do with the fact that the port need to be controlled to ship both humanitarian supplies and military support. Needs to be controlled by a religable country that can be hel accountable for their actions.
The US wanting to install a military government until the dust settles is just a ploy so they can steal all the oil. It's a giant conspiracy I tell you. It has nothing to do with the fact that the country will be in chaos and the US desires to prevent bloody tribal warfare. If not the fact that Germany has been threatening to veto anything that has to do with rebuilding Iraq that involves the UN.
It's all about the oil. It's all about US imperialism.
Back it up. Just once back up something you say with something resembling logic.
Later
|
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Mar 28, 2003 2:49:20 GMT -5
I'm really sorry. I thought you could read French.
Of course it won't seem logical if you can't read the articles.
|
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Mar 28, 2003 3:44:18 GMT -5
Interesting (disturbing, but not particularly surprising) that Bush is becoming increasingly hesitant about the role of the UN in post-war Iraq. Soon it may be impossible to argue that the US wants a UN controlled Iraq and never had any plans to control it itself, but of course people will accuse the UN of not doing its job, and when a US puppet regime is put in place, it will somehow be all France's fault.  |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Mar 28, 2003 7:48:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Mar 28, 2003 9:16:00 GMT -5
I'm sorry I can't read French too.
But I can still get the articles translated. And while the translations through Babel Fish are really, really rough - I tend to get an idea of what the article is saying.
I still don't see how this supports anyones theory of the US wanting all Iraq's oil (although I may soon have to concede that point if Bush keeps pushing the UN away).
Later
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Mar 28, 2003 9:30:43 GMT -5
(although I may soon have to concede that point if Bush keeps pushing the UN away). Later It's a political tactic. Blair is getting hammered at home so Bush plays the relunctant bride until Blair drags him, kicking and screaming to the UN alter. Blair is a hero and everybody loves him again. Bush joined because his friend "convinced" him and he always listens to his friends (:  . Then again, if the French and Russians keep pounding on the tqable t hat they don't want the US to have anything to do with reconstruction of Iraq then all bets are off. I wonder why the French would say that? Could it be...........OIL? Trying to figure out politicians and political moves should not be undertaken by sane man. |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Mar 28, 2003 9:49:34 GMT -5
Interesting speculation, but I don't see Bush being dragged anywhere by anyone internationally, if recent history is an indicator.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Mar 28, 2003 10:24:28 GMT -5
Interesting speculation, but I don't see Bush being dragged anywhere by anyone internationally, if recent history is an indicator. It's a timing issue. Any involvement of the US with the UN will be counterproductive to the stated goals at this time. The intent of the French and the Russians is to drag the US into the UN and embaress them, not cooperate with them. France's is no longer contesting that this war is about US and oil interests. Their latest statement is that the US should pay from their pockets to rebuild Iraq but should not use Iraqi oil revenues or void existing contracts. That includes the quarter of as trillion dollar contract to TotalElfFn that rapes the Iraqi's economy. Everybody knows that it's about "principals" with France, not oil or francs. The Bush-Blair scenario will not take place until after the fall and military stabilization of Bagdad. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Mar 29, 2003 0:33:19 GMT -5
I still don't see how this supports anyones theory of the US wanting all Iraq's oil (although I may soon have to concede that point if Bush keeps pushing the UN away). That's a pretty significant point to concede, isn't it? |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Mar 29, 2003 1:17:24 GMT -5
It would be. It wouldn't change my outlook on the war (regardless of why the US is doing it, the war to rid Iraq of Saddam Hussien is a just cause, but that's another discussion) but it would change my view of the US leadership.
Later,
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Mar 29, 2003 1:26:38 GMT -5
It would be. It wouldn't change my outlook on the war (regardless of why the US is doing it, the war to rid Iraq of Saddam Hussien is a just cause, but that's another discussion) but it would change my view of the US leadership. Later, Oh God, he's cracking............. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Mar 29, 2003 2:24:29 GMT -5
Me? Cracking?
No. I just prefer to use logic. The main argument that the anti-war people have thrown up this far is some foolishness about Bush being only in it for the oil. Just because I say that reason is illogical and do my little song and dance about it doesn't mean my only reason for support this war stems from what I say to contradict the theories.
But just as I don't buy into their 'blood for oil' theory, I don't by into many of your Machievellian theories either. What can I say? I'd suck as a politician. But I stick with Occam's Razor. If the theory requires too many leaps of faith, then it's probably not the right theory right?
George Bush can be wrong. Still don't mean the war is wrong.
Later,
|
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Mar 29, 2003 17:14:05 GMT -5
IF GB (or his staff) is only in it for the oil, that doesn't bode well for the Iraqi people, does it? It suggests to me there is a good possibility things will not be much if at all better for them after the war, and when you consider the other wars and increased terrorisism that may come out of this war, not to mention the precedent now set for any country to go and use military force to cause a regime change in another country, it seems to me the negatives of this war far outweigh the positives.
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Mar 29, 2003 20:24:41 GMT -5
A regime change bodes better for the Iraqi people period.
|
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Mar 29, 2003 20:48:54 GMT -5
A regime change bodes better for the Iraqi people period. I flatly disagree with that statement: what if the new regime is even more brutal than the current one? |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Mar 29, 2003 22:00:18 GMT -5
But there is a chance, a good chance in fact, that the condition will improve. Whereas under Saddam Hussien there is little chance that anything will change - except possibly get worse when Uday and Qusay take power after Saddam dies.
We're talking possibilities for the future. Under Saddam and his sons, there is little, if any, hope. With US intervention the possibility that the future will be brighter for the Iraqi people is increased a hundred fold.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Mar 29, 2003 22:16:34 GMT -5
But there is a chance, a good chance in fact, that the condition will improve. Whereas under Saddam Hussien there is little chance that anything will change - except possibly get worse when Uday and Qusay take power after Saddam dies. We're talking possibilities for the future. Under Saddam and his sons, there is little, if any, hope. With US intervention the possibility that the future will be brighter for the Iraqi people is increased a hundred fold. In fact, Uday and Qusay may be far worse. Who's idea was it for the Fedayen? And why? The chances of the regime beign worse then Saddam? Never. It will reflect badly on the Americans and they will make sure it does not happen. Chances that it will be better? Ask the northern Kurds. Best time in their entire history and then some. Why are they ecstatic anout the Americans? They have schools, democracy, freedom for gassing, in short, thry have a life when they use to only have misery. Iraq was one of the best Arab countries 20 years ago until Saddam got preoccupied with dreams of regional domination and vainglory. Iraq free and prosperous? Their time will come again. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Mar 29, 2003 23:03:33 GMT -5
But there is a chance, a good chance in fact, that the condition will improve. Whereas under Saddam Hussien there is little chance that anything will change - except possibly get worse when Uday and Qusay take power after Saddam dies. We're talking possibilities for the future. Under Saddam and his sons, there is little, if any, hope. With US intervention the possibility that the future will be brighter for the Iraqi people is increased a hundred fold. I still think that the chances for improvement in Iraq, although perhaps greater now than they were a few months ago, would be much greater still if the US were really in it to make things better and not for other reasons. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Mar 29, 2003 23:36:40 GMT -5
Ergo a regime change is bodes well for Iraq, no?
Also, what reasons do you have to doubt the reasons of the US? Or it this just a general anti-America 'because they're big bullies' no reason thing?
|
|
.