General discussion

  • Creator
  • #2296733

    Excluding countries that opposed the war in Iraq from reconstruction


    by maxwell edison ·

    Excluding countries that opposed the war in Iraq from those that will reap the largest profits in the country’s reconstruction is “perfectly appropriate and reasonable,” a White House spokesman said yesterday.


    or tiny:


    Should this indeed be the policy?

    Is this fair?

    Will this, after all is said and done, really be the case?

    What will be the long-term repercussions?

    (My thoughts later.)

All Comments

  • Author
    • #2673667

      How Stupid

      by oldefar ·

      In reply to Excluding countries that opposed the war in Iraq from reconstruction

      I find the policy as reported to be foolish on several aspects.

      First off, the policy seems to make the action in Iraq based primarily on business opportunity. There are a number of morally valid reasons for the coalition actions to remove Saddam. Business is not one of them. The policy taints the reputation of all 63 coalition nations by implying profit was one of their key justifications.

      Second, the policy equally taints the reputation of many nations that opposed coalition action in Iraq. The moral high ground they once could claim is lost with their outrage at being excluded from prime contractor status. Canada, France, Germany, and Russia exposed their own focus on self interest with their reaction to this policy.

      The whole issue could have been avoided with a simple alternative approach. Reward those who risked life and treasure by adding a participation factor to the bidding, similar to the way veterans receive a small ?bonus? point when applying for government jobs. All things being equal, the bidding firm from the coalition country wins over the neutral and opposition firms, and neutral country firms win over opposition country firms. However, any firm can win with a significant business advantage (value) over other firms. This would reward coalition members and allow opposition nations to hold on to their supposed moral position while still insuring Iraqis are getting a legitimate reconstruction effort.

      The long term repercussion is in the perception of people everywhere. By creating a fight over money, greed becomes the common denominator of all governments. What a setback for humanity, what an opportunity for those who would impose their own brand of morality on others, what a shameful commentary on mankind.

      • #2673424

        Some Points:

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to How Stupid

        1. The countries who opposed the war in Iraq, did more than simply “oppose” coalition efforts. They attempted to undermine, or otherwise create obstacles in the effort. One has to wonder, how many lives could have been saved had these countries done the right thing, rather than simply serve their own financial interests. And when I say, “do the right thing”, I not only mean in the liberation effort, but also as it pertains to over twelve years of UN resolution violations, about which these countries did nothing – except help Iraq violate, of course.

        2. The restriction does not prevent companies from these countries (France, Germany, Canada, Russia) from bidding on projects as sub-contractors, but only as general contractors. (A fact I have yet seen reported anywhere in the news. Gee, I wonder why?)

        3. The restriction does not prevent companies from these countries (France, Germany, Canada, Russia) from bidding on projects on which they have existing interests and/or infrastructure. For example, the French would be prevented from bidding on the construction (as the general contractor, not as a sub-contractor) of a NEW power plant. But if an existing French built power plant is in need of repair, the French could indeed bid, as a general contractor, on that particular project. (Another fact I have yet seen reported in the news.)

        4. The restrictions are not set in stone. The door is not totally closed on the issue, but is, most likely, being used as leverage to entice some of these countries to forgive existing Iraqi debt, something the French, Germans and Russians have been reluctant to do. The new Canadian prime minister, for example, has been told by President Bush that things could be worked out to include the Canadians, at some time and to some degree, in the reconstruction.

        • #2673396

          except help Iraq violate, of course.

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Some Points:

          “which these countries did nothing – except help Iraq violate, of course.”

          1) US oil conglomerates knew EXACTLY WHO’S oil they were buying and how it was aquired. The US is as much at fault of breaching sanctions as any smaller country that survived by selling the Sanctioned oil to the USA.

          “(A fact I have yet seen reported anywhere in the news. Gee, I wonder why?)”

          2&3)I assume your are referring to American news, which is Republican fed to turn the people AGAINST the allies in order to accept the US ignoring thier Allies, how many US citizens have slammed Canada, Germany, Russia and France for NOT joining the effort. They must appear as the enemy in order to justify such ridiculous actions.

          Just the next chapter in a very predictable story. Can’t we just skip to the last page already and get it over with?

        • #2671105

          American News

          by topesblues ·

          In reply to except help Iraq violate, of course.

          “American news, which is Republican fed to turn the people AGAINST the allies in order to accept the US ignoring their Allies”….,Most of the American network news is extremely liberal and for the most part anti Bush

        • #2671078

          Perhaps with all of YOUR channels

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to American News

          I can see this as true because you have more US channels than I do, I do see a very Republican slant to the Canadian news from the USA or from USA news that is networked here.

          The print media is practically owned by Republican organizations as are many of the leading magazines. The sources of ownership were provided and well supported in another discussion, not be me but another peer.

        • #2671070

          Oz – a challenge

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Perhaps with all of YOUR channels

          I suggest that you don’t understand the difference between “Republican” and “Democrat”. I further suggest that you don’t understand the difference between “conservative” and “liberal”. I further suggest that you don’t understand why a person might lean one way or the other, and why that person might overlook or dismiss the other perspective, or why there might be no middle ground. I suggest that you don’t understand the difference between “left” and “right”. I suggest that you wouldn’t recognize a bias one way or the other if you saw it.

          My challenge to you is to explain such things. Explain what “news” channels you are seeing, and be specific, and why you think they are biased, and which way they are biased. Explain what news organizations are biased towards the left, which are biased towards the right, and why. Include television, radio, and print media.

          Are you up to the challenge?

        • #2671067

          An addendum to the challenge

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Oz – a challenge

          I further challenge you to explain such things without the benefit of ANY research whatsoever. Don’t do any Internet searches. Don’t refer to ANY other sources. Don’t copy ANYTHING from ANYWHERE. Don’t go back to ANY other discussion threads. Use only your own words. Use only your own thoughts. This is a closed book test, if you will. Of course, this part of the challenge relies totally on the honor system.

          And to be fair, I certainly wouldn’t ask you to do anything I wouldn’t do myself. So if you would like, I’ll do the same so everyone can compare our respective results. Moreover, if we need a “third party” to act as a go-between, I might suggest Julian might be interested in such a role. I might even go one step further, and suggest that Julian start a whole new discussion thread. It could be rather interesting, don’t you think?

        • #2671056

          First of all

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Oz – a challenge

          I am not really interested in doing anything to appease you, that’s completely impossible as you’ve proven time and time again.

          Secondly, there is no question that YOU are more politically versed than I am, if that’s what you are trying to prove.

          Thirdly, I have been discouraged by yourself as well as others from speaking my mind as opposed to presenting only facts. You obviously haven’t liked these facts and want some personal input instead.

          Fourth, I thought I was done talking with you as you will never agree or credit me with anything even if I completely agree with you.

          Lastly, why would you pick Julian (I assume you mean as a mediator as opposed to roaddog, guruofdos, JimHM, drvctrlgrl (sp?), or anyone else for that matter.

          But in closing, rather than just play your head in the sand game, at least I responded as to why I won’t play your game.

          If such a discussion WAS started I may respond after seeing participation but not just to play a game or let the ever great Maxwell prove his bias once more.

        • #2671043

          My answers

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Oz – a challenge

          This was not intended to “appease” me or to play any kind of game, and I don’t have anything to prove. It’s just that, over the course of time, you’ve gone from one who claimed to be, shall I say, politically naive’ and proclaimed to be proud of it, and you showed a disdain for the various political labels, to someone who throws labels around, tagging other people, tagging sources, making charges of political bias, and so on. So my suggestion to you was that you don’t really understand what political bias is or is not, but yet you rely so heavily on such arguments.

          Moreover, it has been you who has waffled back and forth when it comes to voicing opinion versus presenting facts. You’ve criticized both, yet relied on both. (You’ve even relied on “false facts”.) I’ve always been a proponent of supporting one’s opinion with verifiable facts. Opinion which is baseless of fact is really pretty worthless, at least as far as intelligent and productive discussion is concerned.

          Your forth point, I guess I can’t say anything about it. You’ll think as you will. However, there has been an occasional glimmer of civility between us from time to time. But if you’re not up to it, who am I to suggest otherwise.

          And I picked Julian for a couple of reasons. First and foremost is his knowledge of, and background in journalism. Not only does he have a great understanding of such things, but I think he might enjoy it to some degree. And even though I think he is sometimes swayed by political bias in the media, he’s savvy enough to see it. Another reason I suggested him is that he wouldn’t be someone who might be prone to take my side, so to speak. Whereas RoadDog or Jim are closer to sharing my political ideology, Julian is probably closer to the opposite end of the political spectrum. Actually, I think Julian would be easier on you than he would be on me, especially since you both share a disdain for President Bush. The other two you mentioned, one of them, guru, hasn’t been around for a while and he isn’t really a political animal. As for Denvrgrl (or whatever the handle is), I think she’s a little too naive’ to have a full understanding of a lot of things. She, like many others, seems to base political opinion on emotion rather than reason. But it wouldn’t have to be anybody, for that matter. In fact, just for grins, I might just start a thread myself.

          But I’m not surprised that you’re not up to the challenge. Your lack of consistency in such matters makes it clear that you would struggle with such an undertaking, and you might have to admit that you’ve been mistaken far too many times than you would care to admit.

          You said that you wouldn’t want to see “the great Maxwell prove his bias”. Well, I don’t need to prove my bias, I admit to it. But unlike you, my bias is based on well thought-out reason; it’s based on a core set of principles; and it’s consistent. Bias, in and of itself, isn’t a bad thing, as you’ve suggested. But if a person can’t rationally and consistently explain his bias, and especially if a person can’t admit his bias, his opinion is not much better, at least not any more consistent, than the color of a chameleon.

          An analogy would be if I, for example, dissected and argued with everything you said about promoting heavy metal bands. What I know about such things you could shove into a thimble and it would rattle like a BB in a box car. Kinda’ like your knowledge of politics in the world arena. The difference is, I admit my ignorance while you try to fool everybody into thinking that you know what your talking about.

          But, oh well, I tried to give you an opportunity to show me I was wrong. And I tried to do in a very civil and most intriguing way, don’t you think?

        • #2671033

          NO I don’t Max.

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Oz – a challenge

          Your post is riddled with little pot shots as usual that show me that you are not interested in opening a discussion rather than taking further potshots.

          I have admitted to NOT caring about politics and not following US or Canadian politics to any depth. THe past year on this forum has opened my eyes to many things American. When was the last time I called you a pig headed, arrogant and undereducated? OK you got me on that one, but I have learned a lOT about US politics as a result of these discussions.

          Being a resident in a socialist driven country, having been told that I am a Socialist Liberal Demorcat and having a left-wing accepting public, I must say I sway to left-center.

          Understanding, again from here as well as other sources, that the US is corporately or RIGHT-WING driven, as is the presidency, how am I to see eye to eye with someone right-center or Republican?

          We live in different countries with different, make that almost opposite political views, although we sometimes see some common ground when discussing more ‘CENTERED’ topics.

          I used to speak as I felt, very socialist ‘people’ thing to do. You refused to accept a personal opinion as valid unless backed with fact, as you do now. I then started to look for sources that echoed MY feelings so as to offer s link to someone else’s thoughts as opposed to my own, it seems more accepted.

          Duering this time, I uncovered some interesting facts and reports that I saw completely eye to eye with, this is now wonrg as I am being accused of not speaking my mind and looking for information to make me seem intelligent. I always thought individual thought was intelligent whereas just copying links was weak and unintelligent (sheep).

          You seem to have been upset that someone was trying to extinguish your patriotic rants and taunts at the world and quickly took to attacking my character as opposed to my thoughts. I think my analogy, only from meeting and dealing with Americans, that Americans aer sheep and followers to the government set you off. You firmly belive in your government and it’s stand in the world.

          Now you must admit, there have been ‘commoners’ who have solidified my point by saying things like “if it wasn’t for us, you’d be speaking German” , “We saved your ass once and you’re lucky”, “why is it always America helping others and others whining about it” etc.

          I have met more of these people than politically firm people such as yourself and that therefore explains my thoughts toward MANY or even MOST Americans as blind followers.

          I completely disagree with GWB and his policies of late. I completely disagree withthe POSED reason for war. I comletely disagree that America is the best place to live n the world (by the way, even with such a miniscule population, Canada was chosen as the second favorite place to live on the globe again this year), I guess Iraq was number one.
          These are MY thoughts and feelings.

          Now lets see what I have read and how well I understand your basic political positions in the US.

          Right-wing is represented the capitalist corporations and big money in the USA. Left-wing will never be a strong opposition because of this, just as right-wing is a vast minority in Canada.

          Republican government is right-wing and therefore the leader of the Republican government is also right-wing. Corporate America is right-wing, therefore large corporations and BIG BUSINESS in America must also be right-wing biased.

          Network TV and the US media constitutes some of the biggest corporations in the US as well as the major oil companies.

          Reporters are generally Left-wing because of having a more worldy viewpoint and subjusction to people storie more than corporate stories.

          If the Reporters are saying that they are being heavily censored by thier editors and the White House censorship, is it not reasonable to conclude that the left is being controlled by the right? Especially since left is a minority in the USA. Then would it not also be resonable to conclude that the Right-wing media, will show a positive bias toward right-wing, Republican or GWB?

          This isn’t for oil they say? GWB was born in a puddle of oil, some of the largest companies in the US are also OIL companies. They supprt GWB, they have billions to help with supporting him.

          Iraq cut off Americas oil. America buys oil from those who trade with Iraq for oil.
          would it be so ridiculously ‘naive’ to then put two and two together and surmise that GWB has an interest in gaining a better deal for his greatest supporters?

          So how does GWB aquire a better and cheaper source of a LOT more oil than it presently receives? Either makea deal with Saddam, impossible, or get rid of the one person standing between him and oil.

          Now you can’t go invading counties just to get the oil, that’s terrorism in itself. GWB needed to find fault with Saddam and Iraq that would be great enough to justify action.

          UN inspectors WERE finally allowed to inspect for WMD, Saddam was opposed to having US members of the UN inspecting, not inspections themselves. The UN then discovered several (a dozen I think) warheads that were unused but MAY be used as WMD if the right payload was added. He obtained these by trading with Russia as a result of the UN’s oil-for-food program. GWB wanted to inspect all goods in and out of Iraq under the OFF program and took 18 months to inspect a dellivery of medical supplies and food going to Iraq. This pissed off the Iraqi’s and once again UN inspectors were asked to leave.

          GWB then started claiming that they had WMD and the people of America were at risk of a possible attack from WMD and that Saddam was not cooperating.

          Other countries thought the UN had been successful in its inspections as they had already uncovered these empty war heads and wanted them to continue on a successful mission.

          GWB wouldn’t stand for this and ordered attack.

          I know this is very simple to one such as yourself and I beg for your acceptance of my humble theories. I also know that you disbelieve and will discredit my statements or my character as a result.

          Again, I knew none of the details but I didn’t belive a word Bush said from the get go. You insisted that I proved my THOUGHTS, however you’re supposed to do that, so I found several sources (you don’t buy the political stand of such sources so they are easy to discredit in the US). You then start saying that I’m not speaking my mind and simply posting links to sources I don’t understand, although I agree with MANY (not all) of thier views.

          As I’ce said so many times before Max, what makes you happy? What can one do to possibly have a discussion with you without the NEED to agree or be shunned?

          If I was Pro-Bush and totally Pro the war, you would have never questioned my sources, ideas and thoughts. No matter HOW they were formed.

          Because I oppose GWB, you expect me to explain why, I explain why and you tell me to prove it, I prove it and you tell me to form my OWN opinions.

          You can’t accept opposition in any way it seems, whether from the heart or from agreement with facts.

          How about I do this.

          Max, I completely agree with your political views in every aspect of the term. I love the way your president runs the country and I believe he can do no harm. I wish I was American too so that I could live under your Republican government instead of this carefree BS that Canada tries to sell us. I uess in some way you could say, I’m REALLY jealous of America and it’s highly educated people who so justly kill one another when they are imposed upon.

          God Bless America, and nobody else.

          Thank you, I see the light, and you have converted me.

        • #2671550

          Thanks for the recognition …

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to Oz – a challenge

          I really do appreciate the fact that you apparently accept me as a sincere person, despite our different viewpoints in many areas.

          You, yourself, have gone up a few points in my rating for this attitude.

          As for starting a discussion, or even adjudicating one, I don’t think much would be achieved as there are too many issues to which the general public is not savvy, and which won’t be found on websites.

          I do believe there were multiple issues involved in the decision to invade Iraq, but without being inside the minds of the president and other top people in the administration, this would be impossible to prove.

          Possibly one or two years down the track, these “other” motives may become clear, but it will still be impossible to prioritize them.

        • #2671044

          My side

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to American News

          “Most of the American network news is extremely liberal and for the most part anti Bush”

          PERSONALLY, only because I’m no longer allowed to post sources that are not MAx’s, I think MANY reporters are left-wing mainly due to thier worldly knowledge that allows them to see people in need BUT as I’ce said before, these left wing reports are often disallowed and discouraged by the editors if not the white house.

          The media outlets in the USA are multi-multi-million dollar corporations and networks. Seeing as the money hungry corporations seem to all be right-wing , this then creates a right-wing bias to reports shown in the news.

          When a left-wing reporter is complaining of his editor censoring information and refusing to print photos, articles etc. THat in turn shows us that the right represses the left in America.

          With Canada being mainly left-wing suported, the right has a hard time being heard here.

          People don’t give credit to money hungry corporations and prefer to conduct business with much smaller ma and pa operations that directly support the community and it’s people.

        • #2671035

          Media Corporations are not right-wing

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to My side

          How can you say with any degree of accuracy and credibility that “media outlet corporate America” is prone to Republican right-wing bias? Another challenge to you – Prove it. Better yet, I can prove otherwise without even trying.

          Disney owns ABC. Michael Eisner, the CEO of Disney, is a registered Democrat and a heavy contributor to the Democrat party and Democrat organizations, such as People For the American Way, a group whose stated goal is to monitor and counter the “divisive” (as the say) agenda of the Religious Right.

          CBS President, Les Moonves, admits to being a passionate liberal and registered Democrat.

          CNN founder Ted Turner is a staunch Democrat, and was married to liberal activist Jane Fonda.

          Time Warner is overflowing with executives who were very active supporters of Democrats. The late co-chairman Steven Ross gave at least $190,000 to the Democratic National Committee. Timothy Boggs, Time Warner’s vice president for government affairs, gives thousands to Democrats, including $10,000 to the DNC in 1994. Common Cause found Time Warner to be the Democrats’ largest supplier of soft money.

          Warren Buffet, the second richest American, is a Democrat and a very vocal critic of President Bush’s tax cuts.(Okay, he’s not in the media business, but he sure is in the corporate business.)

          Washington Post editor, Ben Bradlee is quite popular in Democrat circles, and his wife, Sally Quinn, is one of the most liberal editorial writers in America.

          One more: Larry Ellison, CEO of Oracle, (not media) is a staunch Democrat, a Democrat party supporter, an FOB (friend-of-Bill), and Oracle was a popular corporate destination of many Clinton administration folks when they all left office.

          Shall I go on? I could cite a dozen or more examples of how corporate America, especially in the media business, is anything but right-wing.

          The notion that corporate America is automatically “Republican” simply doesn’t stand up under even the slightest bit of scrutiny. And to think that the corporate media organizations are right-wing is an even weaker assertion, and one that can obviously be proven incorrect.

        • #2671024

          I’ll concede….partially

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Media Corporations are not right-wing

          You arevery ‘right’ in your insinuation that many large networks are owned by Democratic supporters.
          These owners aren’t neccessarily the ones who dominate the views reported.

          Logically speaking, the networks have NOTHING without coporate sponsorship and advertising.

          These advertisers dominate the color of the stories they are funding.

          Given the fact that MANY of these corporations are completely right wing, the owners of these stations are often pushed to show politically right-wing biased stories to keep sponsors paying out for network advertising.

          So it is not necessarily the OWNERS of the stations and I stand corrected on that statement, but theowners are swayed by the advertisers or station sponsors that fund these networks, this anti-Bush or Anti-War sentiment is avoided as neccessary.

          There are some left-wing sponsors however in America these companies will often be smaller companies and therefore do not have th emonetary voice needed to balance the media shown.

          Therefore, I again conclude that the media is colored and biased to the right by corporate funding, but NOT neccessarily the network owners.

        • #2671015

          I find this very interesting …

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to Media Corporations are not right-wing

          Why then do frequent contributors to these discussions carry on about the “lefty biased media?” Do they have it wrong, or is there some aspect I am missing?

        • #2670989

          The answer, Jilian. . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Media Corporations are not right-wing

          ….is that there is only one poster (Well, maybe two. There’s a new fella around here now.) who claims that there’s a right-wing bias, right-wing controlled, right-wing influenced, whatever he wants to call it, in the general media. That assertion is absolutely ludicrous. That’s why I suggested a little challenge for him to fully explain the difference between left and right and so on. For anyone to suggest, as he has done, that the White House routinely censors the news media is ridiculous. Do they withhold information concerning national security issues? Absolutely, as they should, and just as other war-time administrations have done in the past. But to think that they censor or control or influence the media in general is laughable. More than 90% of all people in the journalism profession in America voted for the other guy, Al Gore. And I would guess that 70%, maybe as high as 80%, share a hatred towards President Bush with people like OzMentalCase and you. So to think that they play softball, so to speak, with the president shows a gross lack of understanding and observation.

          By the way, Julian, don’t you think a discussion on basic political philosophy would be interesting? I could go on and on as to why I’ve developed the political opinions that I have, and I would find it interesting to see how others develop theirs. I’d like to think that all of my political opinions and subsequent actions are based on a core set of principles, and everything is built up from those principles. Contrary to what has been charged, I never “blindly follow” any politician. I believe that he or she works for me, not the other way around. To illustrate this, all one has to do is know that I disagree with our president on several issues, and I despise several things he’s done. His most recent blunder was to sign a campaign finance reform bill that infringes on certain freedoms of speech. Unlike him, I’m against the death penalty. And our “socialized programs” should, in my opinion, be scaled back, not added to, such as a recent addition to our Medicare boondoggle. But why do I support the guy then, one might ask. And the mere fact that one might have to ask a question such as that, shows a basic lack of understanding of our political system. It shows a “one-issue” mentality. And all too often it shows a “shoot from the hip” kind of mentality, or a going along with the political flow mentality.

          Oh well, I tried.

        • #2670963

          And speaking of “blindly following”. . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Media Corporations are not right-wing

          …One certainly can’t deny that many people have such a hatred of George W. Bush (for whatever reason), that any opinion they form on him, his policies, his decisions, or whatever, are structured only to support that predisposed hatred.

          Blindly following one’s hatred. What an awful way to think. What an awful way to live.

        • #2670916

          My point exactly

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Media Corporations are not right-wing

          Obviously you have an evenig conference with the various political administrations of America each evening and get your information directly from Gore, Bush etc because it is the ONLY truth available.

          Other people who aren’t as worldly and fortunate to have such friends are reliant on the media’s scrambled opinions as well as others to try and decide for themselves how they feel about a political stand.

          First of all, I belive about 4% of everything said here, that’s not my source and I don’t follow Americans although I do share some similar views. I prefer world news, and news from vareious countries, compared to what is shown here and the US. This way I can make up my own mind instead of being lead.

          As predicted you will not respond to anything in agreement or disagreement to your suggestions and Max once again is adamant that he is the only correct voice and can post links to support his statements, just as everyone else does, but those statements are garbage because Max doesn’t support them and nowhere in Max’s world would you find such statements.

          I agreed you were correct in that the news agencies are NOT OWNED by right wing citizrns but are controlled by the corporate giants that are.

          Yuo are now implying that everyone is against Bush and that he is the minority.

          From what I’ve read in nin biased poilitical education pages is that USA is MAINLY right wing controlled and Canada is left.

          You also previoulsy stated quite some tim eago that BUSH did win the majority vote, that Gore was full of BS regarding the narrow margins.

          So if Bush won the majority vote, Republican or Right-wing is the preferred and majority in the USA.

          How would so many left wing advertisers help your TV networks if people wanted to see right wing advertising?

          Your advertisers drive the media, you deny this?

          Despite WHO owns the networks, they rely on advertising sponsors and don’t choose personal opinion over staying in business, you deny this?

          Advertising sponeorship in the US is mainly from MAJOR corporations and big business, you dany this?

          Big businesses are mainly capitalist right-wing supporters of Bush, will you deny this?

          If big buisiness controls advertising, which in turn controls media, how can you say that it is not right-wing driven?

        • #2671528


          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Media Corporations are not right-wing

          Hi Julian, you raise a valid question. I also have noticed that reports coming from the US question BUSH regularly, however I think what I’m referring to is the ability to show images of war have been denied by the right wing and the media has been obligated to abide. It’s not so much pissing off GWB as it is pissing off the corporate sponsors which some have refused play a part in this. Now I’m starting to see American citizens who completely stand for capitalism, agree that the RIght-wing Republican side is the majority voice in the USA that won’t agree that sponsors of the US media are mainly Republican suporting, or capitalist companies. These companies would instantly pull any advertisement and support if Bush were to take a shot or if America’s name was shown poorly.

          I don’t know what you guys see other than what is shown here, obviously. What I’ve seen here is a HEAVILY opposed Left wing government that has shown MANY left-wing reporters who claim thhier work is disallowed due to censorship from the WHite House. What more would you guys like? I can’t call him, I can’t call Bush, I can only go on what I see. Why would I think otherwise?
          Does Bush disagree with the left wing statements and claims? Is that odd?

          If I don’t support Bush myself for my own reasons which I’ve clearly stated many times, what is it that would possibly make me accept his allegations before someone from a left-wing or Canadian/local source?

          What is completely wrong here is my political views are being challenged. My views are supposed to be respected as they are voiced. How and Why I feel a certain way or reach a certain conclusion that maakes up my mind is not an issue nor should it be questioned.

          Funniest thing is I was asked to offer MY personal opinion without sources or supporting arguments. No links, just my thoughts.

          If my thoughts aren;t accepted, what the hell am I expected to do. It’s, as prediected, one of Maxwell’s little games. He lives for politics and enjoys to battle his one sided political wit whenever possible. No matter what your opinion is you will ALWAYS be incorrect as he has spent much longer studying HIS political views than I have mine, therefore I am not entitled to opinion or belief in another sideof the story. It’s the exact same thing as Muslims not believing Christianity, Hindu’s not believing in Bhuddism etc.

          There is no difference once the old wise man has voiced HIS personal opinion.

          It’s as you’ve said, an issue that can be thrown back and forth perpetually until the final truth is in some way uncovered. Whether it happens now or in twenty years if ever, bottom line is it will not be resolved here. Especially when falling upon a deaf ear.

        • #2671523

          Sorry mate ….

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to Media Corporations are not right-wing

          but your credibility has just gone right out the window with your assertion that I “hate Bush.” I do not hate anybody. It is a waste of emotional energy to hate. I most definitely do NOT hate Bush any more than I would hate any person just because I don’t agree with their actions or agenda.

          You have really slipped on a banana skin with this one, pal, by assuming that you know MY feelings towards another person.

          The terms left wing and right wing need to be redefined when applied to modern, industrial societies. There are no longer hordes of down-trodden masses who need a voice to speak for them. The main problem for the Labor Party in Australia right now is to develop a whole new policy structure which clearly distinguishes it from the Liberal Party, but does not rely on traditional policies which are no longer relevant.

          Mark Latham, who was voted in as leader of the Federal opposition on December 2, seems just the person to do this. With still almost a year before the next election, he is already being treated by the media as prime minister elect.

        • #2671522

          Too quick to judge

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Media Corporations are not right-wing

          I think it’s maybe that some are

          Too quick to judge
          Too ‘slow’ to consider


        • #2671504

          So sorry, Julian

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Media Corporations are not right-wing

          Perhaps that was a poor choice of words on my part. But to explain my choice of words, I would consider Bush-hater, Bush-basher, Bush-critic, and so on, all synonymous.

          I suppose that, just like the word “bias”, perhaps the word “hate”, when used within or outside any certain context, is open to interpretation, depending on one’s perspective. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe you’ve spoken about President Bush with an underlying tone of scorn, you’ve suggested that he is dishonest, and you’ve indicated that you see him as a genuine threat to world stability. You said that you consider him an unlikable man, and you’ve wondered about, as you’ve suggested, the God-like infallibility which American Republicans give to Bush.

          You’ve never spoken kindly of President Bush, at least not that I can recall, and you’ve been a harsh critic of his policies, his actions, his words, and, what you’ve perceived to be his motives. In fact, you’ve been, in my opinion, one of his harshest critics within these insignificant threads.

          If I’ve incorrectly grouped all of those things into the single word “hate”, I certainly do apologize and retract my assertion. But if you wouldn’t mind indulging me on this, what one word description would have been more accurate or better suited in that particular circumstance?

        • #2671476

          Definitely the wrong word ….

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to Media Corporations are not right-wing

          I don’t know how you can reconcile the words “hate” and “critic” as synonymous. The first describes a very strong negative emotion, the second may mean a dispassionate discussion or overview.

          As I said, I don’t hate anyone. I think I could live with the description “severe critic, with a cynical bias.” I think that should cover the various comments I have made on Bush and his policies.

        • #2671473

          I hate it when I have to issue a retraction

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Media Corporations are not right-wing

          My use of the word hate in that context was not only incorrect, but inappropriate as well. As I think you may know, I’m a stickler for using the most accurate words possible to relay my thoughts. I often say that words mean things; be specific with your choice of words; say what you mean and mean what you say. Unfortunately, I fell prey to a common American infliction, using the wrong word, especially considering the potential international misconceptions, and I used what might be considered slang instead of what would have been more precise.

          Look through these discussion threads and notice how many Americans (or other nationalities as well, for that matter) admit to hating Microsoft, and especially hating Bill Gates. Or they hate this or that or him or her. A common expression is, I hate it when ______ (fill in the blank). Or, man, I just hate that guy. Or, I hate people who cut me off in traffic. A fan of a certain sports team might hate an opposing player or hate the fans from the other team. But in reality, they don’t really hate anyone, they just like their guy better, or they like their preference better.

          Just for grins, I did a TechRepublic search of “I hate”. Here’s a small sample of what I found, and these were in the articles:

          “If you hate Bill Gates, Windows XP, and the whole Office Suite…..”

          “….and programmers hate to talk about…”

          “You begin to hate your host country and everyone and everything connected with it.”

          “It was great to meet with other people who hated this country as much as I did.”

          “Our policy also prohibits this sort of hate mail….”

          And those are only a few examples of, what we now know to be, an improper use of the word hate.

          Do a Web search using the words “hate Bush”. (Man, there are a bunch of them.) Do you really think all those people really “hate” President Bush in your context of the word hate, or do they hate President Bush in the watered down slang context that I intended to imply?

          Oh well, in this day and age of political correctness – walking on eggshells – be careful what you say, someone might be offended, I guess I stumbled.

          However, I’ll assume that my apology and retraction for my grammatical blunder is accepted. If not, if you still choose to be offended, I suppose there’s nothing I can do about it except hope that you eventually get over it.

          By the way, do a Web search using the words Hate America. Do they really “HATE” America? (And if they really do, is it their problem or ours?)

          Okay, enough said.

        • #2673346


          by john_wills ·

          In reply to Some Points:

          I think you mean “not yet”.

        • #2671907

          Yet to see?

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to yet

          or “am yet to see”?

      • #2673420

        Some comments:

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to How Stupid

        You said, ” the policy seems to make the action in Iraq based primarily on business opportunity.”

        But that does mean that the initial Iraq policy WAS based on business opportunity. If there is any “implication” that profit was one of their key justifications, then it’s a false implication. This argument is right up there with the “stealing” Iraqi oil nonsense. There are simply no facts to support such “implications”. But I suppose there will be some who make them anyway, regardless of how false they may be.

        Your whole argument is based on “perceptions”. Personally, I find it refreshing to have an administration that acts on principle, and not what the “perception” might be.

        • #2673382

          Max you amaze me: “stealing” Iraqi oil nonsense.

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Some comments:

          Haven’t you READ any of the articles previously posted to the contrary?

          Have you only read one side of all the information for or against your opinions?

          It seems as if you strictly refuse to see another side? This doesn’t really show me that you’re the heads up and ears open person you claim to be at all.

          In the Report to Congree that outlined the sanctions, how they were deemded to be breached it doesn’t take a matermind to see the underlying but carefully worded truth.

          If you STILL do not think that BUSH is after the oil and you refuse to comprehend other viewpoints, why don’t you take a back seat and see how it unfolds, instead of continually trying to see recent changes and advancements as a way to justify your opinions.

          The feelings AGAINST this war have NOTHING to do with not believing that Saddam was a good guy or that the people didn’t need to find liberation. It doesn’t have anything to do with the USA’s ability to help Iraq become a better place or th eability of US soldiers who bravely stand for thier commander in chief.

          The underlying problem, is that GWB insisted this was too imperative to wait for an imminent attack on the USA by a dictator who alledgedly had WMD that came from dual purpose imports that were traded by smaller countries in order to fullfill a demand made by the US oil conglomerates.

          YOU fed the fire and reacted before it got too big to stomp out. This blame is being pushed upom other countries now unjustly.

          America has ALWAYS bought Iraq’s oil, when it was limited as a US export BY SADDAM, BUSH was quite pissed off for being cut off and purchased the oil from third parties instead. They don’t have the same economic strnght that the USA does so they were obliged to fill US demands by tradnig dual purpose goods. The USA was in charge of inspecting said goods and was WAY behind and dilly-dallying about getting inspections cleared.

          MANY of these inspections were for badly needed medical and food supplies that other countries were shipping to Iraq. By delaying them for upto 18 months, the USA was starving Iraq of needed supplies, while still receiving thier oil from smaller third parties. Where is the logic in this ONE WAY trading? America was as much to blame for sanction breaches as anybody was.

          the only answer to this, justify an attck to the public of America. This was done by focusing on dual-purpose imports, which were aired claimed to be chemical weapons and WMD. With the Anthrax scare that swept America, this was a piece of cake to convince Americans they were under threat and that an IMMEDIATE invasion was justified and completely neccessary.

          They then supported BUSH’s advances without Allied support and shook an angry finger at those who wouldn’t join in. When WMD were NOT found in Iraq, the focus was quickly turned to Tony Blairs resoning of Liberating a repressed country and so the new effort was justified.

          Again, all of this has clouded the fact that America’s oil was cut off by Saddam and Bush didn’t like it, because his suppliers were FORCED to trade ‘questionable goods’ for oil and the USA couldn’t keep up inspections in a timely manner.

          This way, Bush has HIS oil, how can they argue with him now? US companies and corporate advisors can now gain control of the distribution, which they were denied before.

          NOW he is professing to cut others out of the rebuilding of Iraq and reaping HUGE monetary rewards. This also claims America’s independance as Iraq’s saviour and makes it easier still to gain COMPLETE control of the much needed oil.

          Now, PLEEEEASE show me something to prove this wrong, I would love mothing more to find out it was a true humanitarian effort ad would gratefully step down from my oppositioen if prof is whon. I don’t think we will know the outcome until it happens though.

          First, read the US Embassy Report to Congress again, as I don’t think you have done yet.

          Now in closing, I know you don’t want to answer my posts but in this case it would just show your inability to address an opposition and defend your own statements.

        • #2673354

          In Marketing

          by oldefar ·

          In reply to Some comments:

          There is a well known axiom that perception is reality. This is why I find both the policy and the reaction to it so stupid. The perception could have been negated with a simple change in statement by the US, or by ignoring the policy by any of those who opposed the Iraq action.

          Now the other point that is missed is that the money in question is all US provided funds, not Iraqi and not UN money. What is spent on US firms reduces the national expenditure, while still coming out of the US government budget. What is spent on firms from coalition nations leaves the US economy. What goes to the direct cost of hardware, software, and other real property in Iraq is what is truly provided to Iraqis. The value to Iraq is the long term benefit from the projects.

          A key potential political issue for the current administration and Congress is the money that leaves the US, especially to firms from countries that did not join the coalition. The policy is a way to avoid most fallout, although I think it underestimates the willingness of Americans to help others.

        • #2671908


          by oz_media ·

          In reply to In Marketing

          I think your last comment speaks volumes and I couldn’t agree more.

          I am often guilty myself when I speak of Americans in general as opposed to the administration iteself and even moreso the few that are responsible of such decisions.

          This had mads it appear as if American independance is taking on a new meaning. Instead of freedom it is now screaming of domination and isolation as opposed to alliance. Unfortumately when Bush speaks or acts, he does so as a voice of the country. When actions are unfavoured by other countries, this makes them (myself included) see “America”, not just GWB, poorly.

          I think this is less dramatic in other countries as the people don’t tie themselves so closely to the government or its decisions, whereas US citizens are adamant about thier political superiority and military might to sort world affairs and they back the presidents every move without question or being unpatriotic.

          One thing I must ask is, understanding that this money would be spread pratically worldwide as opposed to within the country, woudln’t the US companies STILL be producing American products from American hardware and resources every day anyhow? These companies hopefully already have work year round and gerenrate a large portion of American revenue, employ American citizens, pay American taxes and provide finished products.

          With extended term contracts in Iraq, these companies would simply be unable to cater to local needs whilst working in Iraq. The ONLY change I see is the money spent WITHIN the American economy, which I think you suggested was the main concern.

          An alternative that allowed other contrators to bid on Iraqi contracts would still allow fair tender to US companies. A chance to bid fairly, therefore only removing thier ability to seize a contract unless it is based on competency and abilty to secure materials and quality workmanship at the lowest possible cost.

          I would be interested in the suggested logistics behind the decision. Transportation of materials could effect cost if the contract is isolated to coalition forces. The source and cost of materials; If there will be a positive impact in Iraqi and surrounding businesses as a result of gained contracts and material demands or if it will be more corporately selective.

          The more I think about your ideas, the more questions I have myself. Unfortunately as always we must sit back and speculate as it is well out of our control. I suppose what’s done is done, whether good or bad, what is to happen will happen.

          I just hope there’s is enough time to see the final facts, underlying truths and possibly think twice about re-electing such a questioned and opposed leader next time around.

        • #2671857


          by oldefar ·

          In reply to Understimated

          The cost of shipping has a couple of components.

          First is the shipping firm’s infrastructure, an imbedded cost recovered over time. If the shipper is a US firm, the US tax dollars at issue go back to recoup this which in turn puts money back for capital developement.

          Next is fuel. The major consumption costs of fuel are not with the raw oil but with refining, fuel transport, tax, and profit. Again, when the fuel is from a US refiner the money returns to the US economy.

          Finally, we have the manpower costs. Again, if US merchant marines and longshoreman are involved the paychecks feed the US economy.

          The distance factor is a nit in the total cost. The money saved by shipping from say Europe versus the US is not the driving factor. The real driver is how much of that money returns to the US economy versus a European economy. The same applies to the goods being shipped.

          This is the same argument with internal resources versus external resources in business. If I spend $100 on a service with an outside firm, that is $100 that leaves the company. If I spend $150 with another department, the money remains within the company. Saving that $50 is false economy unless it costs me revenue (external money coming into the company) by my pricing structure.

          This was the core logic of the GM/EDS business when GM owned EDS, and is a factor in such things as what shows are purchased by a particular network when it is owned by a firm like Disney.

        • #2671769

          Ken while I fully argee with what you are thinking

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Consider

          Unfortantly most Americian Companies “Outsource” their products and the like a few months ago I ordered a Bell Crash Helmet directly from Bell and they used to be a well trusted US firm who made excelent products and when it arrived here there was a “Made in Itialy” sticker on the helmet and on everything connected with the thing.

          By allowing US companies to provide whatever for rebuilding Iraq it will to some extent help the US economy but big business being what it is, is mainly concerned with their bottom line and are not the slighest bit concerned about their moral obligations to the country in which they have their headquarters. In all likely hood they will take the business and outsource it to the cheapest contractor who they can get and it will end up with nothing of US manfacture being used in the rebuilding of Iraq but the CEO’s and the like will get big bonuses. While that will help a bit it is not how it should be with the money being spread out over a large area and not confined to the corporate leaders pockets.

        • #2671856

          Perception Observation

          by oldefar ·

          In reply to Understimated

          The question of how important oil was to the Iraqi invasion is another example of perception becoming “reality”.

          Bush and Cheney were both involved at one time in the oil business. Cheney headed Haliburton at one time. Therefore, anything done by the current administration must be about oil. This ignore that Bush also owned a baseball team at one time (the US went into Iraq for sand to use in our baseball field infields?), and ignores that most politicians receive support from the people that knew them during their business careers.

          Another perception is that the US and only the US has problems with a peace keeping role. Everyone seems to have missed that recent threat by the UN aide missions to withdrawl from Afghanistan unless something is done to improve the security there. This is being handled by German and Canadian peace keepers! Yet every comment here that is critical of peace keeping efforts is directed at the US. Likewise, the Ivory Coast is in near chaos under French peace keeping efforts.

          And so it is with perceptions. Don’t confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up!

        • #2671841

          Well done

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Perception Observation

          Your point is made well and I understand your viewpoint as to how the imfrastrusture is internally fed and rewarded by remiainging inside the country. I see this as a way to save the American economy and not neccessarily the fastest and least costly for Iaq.
          The only excuse for this that I can see is that America is the one spending the money so keeping it internal would be more profitable to the US.

          I still don’t believe that in the end it will be logistically cheaper than outsourced. Your $100 and $150 examples make sense but I think the figures would not be so simple and may be a lower resulting cost if at least bid onby others.

          Like I’ve said, when all is said and done, if the USA can provide a better service for less money then all the power to them. It is strictly a closed door of opportunity that should be opened to allow fair competition, create the lowest possible cost and eliinate the exorbitant bids found in a limited market. Competition always creates a better end user cost.

          As for US oil, again you have a valid point that a persons past and business contacts will obviously be a supportive vehicle for that preson when in office.
          The underlying truth is that American Companies (BP and Texaco Chevron for example) have been gaining great benefit from oil-for-food program, this in turn strenghthens the US economy for as you addmitted GWB’s supporters. To assume he has NO monetary or political interest in supporting these companies would be grave misrtake. The main sanction breaches were breaches of the “Oil-for-food” (OFF) program. Therefore the quest for Iraqi OIL is the reason of the sanction breaches. This oil was then in turn sold to other countries in order to support the demand and boost the traders economy. Texaco/Chevron and BP are just two of the major petroleum companies that are up on arms about not receiving a return on the millions invested into the “OFF” program. This has been expressed in the form of demonstrations and marches, one such ‘march’ was the reason for my looking into the matter to begin with.
          This isn’t just specualtion based on prior association, however I do see your point, I just don’t buy into the innocence.

          This situation was created by but not limited to the US sanctions, Iraq had cut off American trading and therefore forced American companies to buuy through third party or smaller countries, who were inturn breaching sanctions to meet the US demand and generate a greater profit by accuiring oil at the lowest possible cash cost.

          That’s my take, while America isn’t directly responsible for the cause of this war (other than the fact that they initiated the invasion)it WAS a US companies that fed the continual sanction breaches with a higher demand for oil.

          Logic only proves that if oil was the need, that conquering Iraq would remove these third parties and allow direct trade in Iraq thus eliminating the need for trading with the offending countries.
          With Saddam in place, his sanctions would not be lifted until US sanctions were also lifted. Saddam had GWB by the *&^^, now GWB has regained control of distribution and administration of Iraq’s oil fields.

        • #2671684

          US Companies

          by oldefar ·

          In reply to Well done

          Your post that has BP (British Petroleum) as a US oil company got me searching for just what the nationality of particular companies really are.

          What I found was a great deal of confusion. Between mergers, acquisitions, holding companies, divisions, and subsidaries, a great many of the multinationals no longer have clear national identies that I can find. Just what criteria should be used when saying a company is US, or British, or French, or whatever?

          Some possible criteria includes:
          – location of headquarters of the highest corporate level
          – nationality of the executive management team
          – nationality per incorporation documents
          – prevailing nationality of shareholders
          – primary operating locations based on production, or based on sales

          So what makes BP a US oil company in your mind?

          Is it possible that nationality no longer has any meaning with the top 5000 multinational firms?

        • #2671646

          An interisting point Ken

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Well done

          Just how do we now define International Companies when they are so tied up with other countries.

          They now are worlwide companies and owe allegience to no country and are generally a Law unto themselves perhaps this is the New World Order and we just haven’t realised it yet.

          We used to have a company here who originally made steal called BHP it now owns gold/uraninum/copper mines and god only knows what else and has merged with Billiton in the UK and while their headquarters are currently here in AU I can’t see it staying that way for too long if only for the time as we are way out of the major trading area time zones here.

          Perhaps thsi is the way things will go and eventually we will no longer have Governments but only respond to International Companies who are constantly buying each other out for greater profits.

          Next thing you know there will be a food called Solyent Green being sold and we all know where that comes from don’t we?

        • #2671596

          Reply To: Excluding countries that opposed the war in Iraq from reconstruction

          by mrbill- ·

          In reply to Well done

          I’m waiting for Rollerball!

        • #2670597

          BP oil

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Well done

          Actually Texaco/Chevron is Canadian based also. WHat I was referring to but failed to make clear was that these companies are importing oil to supply US demand at US gas stations and US refineries. They are doing so in other countries but my point was that people have pften pointed the finger at third world or smaller countries as the reason behind sanction breeches. These breeches wer also a way of supplying US oil companies with their supply. Whther or not they are based solely in the US is irrelevant, these are companies conducting business in the US,we don’t have BP in Canada, and therefore the sanction reeches were also being fuelled
          (oun sorry)by the demand from the USA. It’s not just everyone else who’s to blame, you had them breach your OWN ssanctions to assist in US demand.

        • #2671077

          A close reality

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Well done

          It will become a reality and if you look at HOW much oil is produced in Iraq, 100 Billion is chump change.

          This is not a ridiculous idea, it is the reason for sanction breeches that started the whole mess, you can’t turn a blind eye now, although I know you all will as predicted and deny everything as it surfaces just as you ALL have since the onset of the war.

          Bush denies it, you deny it and even when proven wrong you simply change your stories and say that’s where you stood all along. From mail I’ve received, this is not a singular observation but one that’s expected.

          You’ll never be wrong no matter what you do, I wish it was that easy. Stick your head in the sand and it never happened.


        • #2671767

          Silly me

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Perception Observation

          Here I was thinking that Iraq was only invaded so that they could be taught to play Baseball.

          Are you telling me there where other reasons?

          Sorry Ken but I couldn’t resist all this lot is so screwed up that I really can’t take it too seriously as there are only a few contributers here like you who are showing some common sence and not getting carried away with national ideals. Anyway now that they have caught Saddam with out any real resistance things just might start to improve in that neck of the woods. And it looked really good with him cowering in a celler to avoid being caught hardly the way he used to show of is it?

    • #2673401

      Was this unexpected?

      by oz_media ·

      In reply to Excluding countries that opposed the war in Iraq from reconstruction

      I think it has been raised by several discussions here. If the USA attacks ALNOE, THEY will reap the rewards. That’s is another reason the BUSh was so hasty when jumping on the campaign, HE wants to reap rewards for America. His Allies had NO say in the matter, he acted AGAINST the wishes of the majority of his “allies”. I’ve said many tmies, this themn gives him the ability to cut off all others and reap the rewards himself.

      Now I had specifically referred to his want for Iraq’s oil and this topic is regarding the reconstruction contracts.

      With the reconstruction contracts ONLY being given to participating Alllies, what do you expect happens when it comes to Georgie sharing HIS oil? I think he should move to Iraq himself and he can control HIS oil on HIS terms in HIS new found country, He may as well hyphenate his name to George W. Bush-Hussein. A free Repubican man with a free country that ‘dictates’.

      As for Canada being cut out, pretty much any opinion I offer will be construed as bias, but I think with the amount of tiime, money, lives and resources spent on rebuilding Afghanistan after the US moved out, it would only be just that we AND Germany are also allowed to bid for the reconstruction contracts in Iraq.

      He ignored his Allies and now pushed them aside and spat on them for helping clean up his mess, sounds like he wants WWIII. In which case the US would stand alone and it’s citizens should be concerned. I sure as hell wouldn’t want to be in America if Allied forces joined to attack the USA. You haven’t faired to well at defending your OWN country so far.

    • #2671895

      UK, France, Russia, US, Germany collectively should take blame…

      by tr_member ·

      In reply to Excluding countries that opposed the war in Iraq from reconstruction

      Well apart from the countries I mentioned in the Title, let us blame all those countries that played havoc and are still playing havoc in middle-east and Africa.

      STOP SELLING WEAPONS!!! The left hand sells the arms and the right hand extends helping-arm. Ironic.

      To me it is simple, US led the war. It is natural that it enjoys the booties of the war. It is a different issue, about the negative opinion US is going to have thru out the world.

      Hope there is competetive bids within US companies. That is the least we can expect from the US government. It will be shame if it is just Haliburton that takes all the spoils of the war. Let’s see if it is going to pay the $60million that it overcharged the US government 🙂

      • #2671874


        by oz_media ·

        In reply to UK, France, Russia, US, Germany collectively should take blame…

        The first country you mentioned in your title just finished fighting beside you as your ONLY ally in this war, think again.

        • #2671872

          sorry, hit submit by accident

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to UK??

          You mentioned that there have been countries selling what was claomed to be “Dual-Purpose goods” or arms. If you are talking of the Sanction greaches with Iraq, that was to supply the US demand for Iraq’s oil that was ONLY available through third parties. Weapons were sold by Russia but were anitquated and not effective weapons of war against a stronger nation, yet alone the ability to launch an attack OVERSEAS to the USA with WMD, that was complete horse***t, logistically and technologically impossible.

          The US was alone by choice. They launched the attack, invaded the country, lost MANY American soldiers and innocent Iraqi’s by choice, not neccessity.

          Don’t go whining now.

        • #2671845

          Am not whining…

          by tr_member ·

          In reply to sorry, hit submit by accident

          …cuz, I don’t have to :-)))

          I meant all those years of cold war where both US and Soviet supplied arms and knowingly supported ‘bad’ regimes.

          I am sure tribes, clans, ethinic people in Africa clash almost all the time. If they did not have the modern warefares, they might just use bows and arrows. But, is it really not possible for the developed countries not to sell any weapons of destruction? I am serious, I really want to know why the countries can not stop their arms factories from selling them.

        • #2671840

          An assumtion

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Am not whining…

          I can only assume, not being IN the industry or privy to knoweledge of the industry, that there is a huge gain from ANY corporation trading arms to help one country fight off another as with the armed and CIA trained Talbian. This only came back to bite the USA in the butt.

          I think the only way to stop such action, again just speculation, would be to remove yourself from political interest in said countries, or in simpler terms, mind your own business?

          THis then raises the question of how does one form key alliances with a country in order to benefit from it’s resources without being involved. I think the interest in the Middle East relations has always been, here I go again, a need to benefit from the most important resource
          these countries possess oil. I don’t think America has any interest in Saudi sand or Taliban dust huts or Iraqi footballs, they have but ONE major resource that the US is one of if not THE highest consumers of, crude.

        • #2671819

          What about the diamond producing nations…

          by tr_member ·

          In reply to An assumtion

          …Nobody talks about that these days? I have seen couple of documentaries about the ravage that has been caused there. I don’t blame the developed countries directly for that. We as people should realise how our money power, wants, needs do affect people – local, domestic and global.

          It would be ironic, if we sit on our high pedestals and pass comments, when we know people are amputated and forced to work in the quarries so that our ears and necks glow with elegance. And, we can not keep thinking how those people are barbaric, and keep having civil wars all the time 24/7, 365 days, decades after decades, when our arms makers utilise the opportunity to make some nice money.

        • #2671817

          What do you mean?

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to What about the diamond producing nations…

          Forgive my ignorance but I really don’t understand your view here or how it is relevant?

          Perhaps you could elaborate.

        • #2671700

          Pardon me…

          by tr_member ·

          In reply to What about the diamond producing nations…

          …yeah it is kinda irrelevant. But I see a distant analogy.
          We very well turn our head, close our eyes, sometimes even help the dictators/tyrants/evil-doers and when things don’t go to our likings, then we turn and portray ‘holier than thou’ attitude.

          No one nation is to blame, it is the people.

        • #2671843

          Reason for the order of listings…

          by tr_member ·

          In reply to UK??

          I started with the colonial days 🙂
          UK and France were two of the major players. Well the Dutch and Spaniards are content with their own nations and do not seem to meddle into.

          Russia and US, played havoc during their cold war days. Countries were pawns in their hands.

          Well Germany has relatively kept quiet, but has know to been supplying arms.

          I did not add a disclaimer ‘partial list of countries’. Would that put a happy smile on your face? Or do you want me to move UK to the end of the list :-))

          No nation is perfect. I understand that. But these countries definitely need to acknowledge their doings.

          I believe these days Corporations/Companies are the THING. Nations/Governments are losing their meanings.

        • #2671839

          That’s better

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Reason for the order of listings…

          You had mentioned the UK and others involvement except the USA, which you have included now.

          It appeared that you intended to blame everyone but America, which of course is wrong.

          Your point is that almost everyone is to blame where I do agree with the facts behind this, it seems wrong for everyone to accept blame except the major offender Iraq. THis is a global situation, it should has been resolved via global or allied force, thus bringing us full circle to my statements that the US acted prematurely and was unprepared for the invasion single handedly (excluding the UK of course). The need for war was not my question, the hasty and unneccessary action by GWB is. Will he do this next year somewhere else? Will he again look for a source of fear to justify a hasty and premature invasion somewhere else and cost more US lives? It’s not so much the end result as it is the means of achieving it I disagree with.

        • #2671821

          USA got mentioned in the original listing as ‘US’

          by tr_member ·

          In reply to That’s better

          …I did mention USA as US in the orginal listing after Russia 🙂

        • #2671816


          by oz_media ·

          In reply to USA got mentioned in the original listing as ‘US’

          Sorry I somehow overlooked that

    • #2671887

      Not excluded from all work

      by road-dog ·

      In reply to Excluding countries that opposed the war in Iraq from reconstruction

      There is a glaring misconception as relates to the universality of the bid restriction, that being that the prohibition only covers work being paid for by the US. The US taxpayers are covering the bill, then we decide who to purchase from… it’s as simple as that.

      The US cannot, and is not prohibiting Iraqis from procuring from anyone those things needed for reconstruction or anything that they might want that was unavailable under sanctions.

      That is another thing that galls me, that the price tag for reconstruction also includes lots of infrastructure that was not destroyed by us, but neglected or nonexistent under Saddam through his diversion of the nation’s economy as his personal 401 K plan.

      One must consider the fact that if you were not on Saddam’s good side, you lived in the stone age.

      Many in the US are talking about the 80 billion as if we destroyed 80 billion worth of bridges and power plants. This is entirely not the case.

      • #2671870

        I see some of your point

        by oz_media ·

        In reply to Not excluded from all work

        But there are other sides to what you’ve said too.

        You mentioned “The US taxpayers are covering the bill, then we decide who to purchase from… it’s as simple as that.”

        This does make sense, your taxpayer s money was also pissed away by the billion for this war too.

        All that aside, when it comes to reconstruction of Iraq would you rather that your money was spent inefficiently? If ONLY US corporations are to have the bids for this work, and also understanding the limited number of companies CAPABLE of carrying out such a task is limited, do you think they will bid fair? No.

        Will the costs of shippng and building in Iraq possibly be less than the same work performed by a Russian, German, French or British company? No.

        Does it make ANY logical sense to ship millions of tonnes of steel from USA to Iraq instead of Europe to Iraq? No.

        It will me more expensive with reduced competition and much more expensive logistically.
        This is without even beginning to look at labour costs. It doesn’t make sense, it’s just childish, if you want what’s BEST for Iraq and the US economy, you must also be prepared to look for the most cost effective and efficient resources. Now if this turns out to be the USA then so be it, but if not, you are just mindlessly wasting taxpaers money due to a teenage grudge.

        • #2671854

          Perceptions Again

          by oldefar ·

          In reply to I see some of your point

          The policy only applies to the 18B approved by Congress for the reconstruction effort. It does not apply to any money given to Iraq as a grant by any other nation, it does not apply to any money from the Iraq treasury including any debt restructuring.

          The policy only applies to prime contractors. As a prime contractor, the actual work and the bulk of the expense can still come from any other nation’s firms.

          That the policy became an issue indicates a poor understanding of perceptions all the way around – US and every country offended by the policy!

        • #2671833

          Fair enough

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Perceptions Again

          Of course if it is YOUR money you are free to spend it as you wish.

          If an American company quoting 1 million dollars of your money for a job would have quoted $600,000.00 of your money to win the same contract if there was healthy compatition it is your choice to allow and accept the higher bid by the same firm.

          That’s still not healthy business, if the contract is awarded to the US either way.

          I didn’t pay $1400.00 for my DVD player even though I bought it from a local store, because they have compatition. I still bought the unit from a Canadian store and paid Canadian taxes and wages because it was a better deal due to competition for business. Monopolies dont help people or the economy, they help themselves.

        • #2672106

          Fair enough

          by money ·

          In reply to Fair enough

          By last count ther are 63 countries that are eligible to bid. Now if France, Germany, Russia, ect. decide to contribute by forgiveness of debt or my understanding of either troops or more funds to the reconstruction they are or will be eligible to bid on Primary contracts also. I also beleive that tho not mentioned whomever wins these contracts should do like the British required of the US when we reopened RAF Fairfored that a per centage of locals be hired. US contracts require that the contractor hire or subcontract a per centage of minorities.

    • #2671771

      Now that they have caught Saddam

      by hal 9000 ·

      In reply to Excluding countries that opposed the war in Iraq from reconstruction

      What do you think is going to happen in Iraq now?

      Do any of you think things are going to improve quickly?

      • #2671766

        Fantastic News

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to Now that they have caught Saddam

        Some very telling quotes:

        Adnan Pachachi, member of Iraq’s Governing Council, said Saddam’s capture will bring stability to Iraq. “The state of fear, intelligence and oppression is gone forever”, Pachachi said. “The Iraqi people are very happy and we look forward to a future of national reconciliation between Iraqis in order to build the new and free Iraq, an Iraq of equality.”

        “I’m very happy for the Iraqi people. Life is going to be safer now,” said 35-year-old Yehya Hassan, a resident of Baghdad. “Now we can start a new beginning.”

        Ahmad Chalabi, a member of Iraq’s Governing Council, said Sunday that Saddam will be put on trial. “Saddam will stand a public trial so that the Iraqi people will know his crimes,” said Chalabi.

        “We are celebrating like it’s a wedding,” said Kirkuk resident Mustapha Sheriff. “We are finally rid of that criminal.”

        “This is the joy of a lifetime,” said Ali Al-Bashiri, another resident. “I am speaking on behalf of all the people that suffered under his rule.”

        Ayet Bassem, 24, walked out of a shop with her 6-year-old son. “Things will be better for my son,” she said. “Everyone says everything will be better when Saddam is caught. My son now has a future.”

        “I don’t give a rat’s ass what some insignificant Canadian know-nothing might say”, said Maxwell Edison, a prominent American patriot. “President Bush did the right thing, and history will prove as much.”

        • #2671752

          I see a morality battle now

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Fantastic News

          Now that Saddam has been captured I think his regime will be toppled faster as they slowly lose the morale to fight for thier cause.
          This IS without question the turning point in the war but these men are much more dedicated than the Taliban who were not really ideologistic followers and I fear much more is expected before we see an end to the conflct. I guess we can all just hope for the best as always and work hard to bring Saddam to justice. I think the public humility of Saddam’s capture AND the importance of the media coverage of his trail and degredation of character will help to quickly demoralize the remaining resistance.

          I think this will now become a much more cerebral battle and it is going to be reduced to beating the mental capacity of the opponent as opposed the Afghan war in which the enemy was physically unfit and illequipped for resistance. The US has always held pride in the capability of the army to break down a man mentally before rebuilding him into a soldier, perhaps the drill sergeant mentality may come in handy now.

          Another very positive thing to consider is that without any doubt at all this has DEFINITELY improved troop morale on the US side.

          My hat’s also off to the backstabbing bastards who ratted him out and the troops who executed the capture of this man as he cowered in a hole without the nuts to do himself in, it shows the weakness of the enemy’s leader.

        • #2671656

          Good words from OZ?? Wow

          by dksmith ·

          In reply to I see a morality battle now

          Not only is it the capture of Saddam that is significant, but the fact that he gave up so easily.

          He also had documents on him that are critical to his master plan. What a sad, sad man. I pity him more than I hate him. Now put a bullet in his skull when we are done with him and throw his body in the street.

          I will pray for his soul, though.


        • #2671643

          Now I’m depressed

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to I see a morality battle now

          Last night all the media was as happy as a pig in mud that Saddam Hussain had been caught and without a single shot being fired but 16 hours latter they where all back to their doom and gloom taticts telling us all that would listen that now that Saddam had been cauf=ght it was now going to get far worse as all those Arribs who just hate the West and the US in particular will now be comming across the border to kill as many yanks as possible.

          Apparently the media here seems to think that the conflict was kept small because of thsi man because no one else wanted to see supporting him but now he has been caught like a “Rat in a Hole” there will be two major factions involved the remains of his old rulling council who will fight to the death to regain their previous power and then those who hate Americians and just want every chance to kill as many as possible. From what the media here is saying it was Saddam who was preventing these people from comming into the country but now that he’s gone they have open slather to do as they want.

          Now if this is correct talk about being caught between a rock and a hard place this thing will either end quickly or blow up completely and the general citizens of Iraq are not important here anymore they are just necessarty to be there to protect those who want to kill everything in sight.

          Maybe if I shoot my TV I’ll feel better!

        • #2670702


          by laredoflash9 ·

          In reply to Now I’m depressed

          The old axiom”kill them all and let God sort them out” comes to mind. Yeah, that would make us the evil empire. But, I just get this nasty feeling when a whole religion, I won’t mention any names Muslim want to kill all the infadels that are not muslim….Hmmm, It is time for another holy war. We could drop the bomb in Iraq and make it into a European parking lot. You know how hard it is to get parking in New York! Well, tell them to park in Iraq. Just a though….Rod

        • #2670609

          I don’t know about you Colin but…

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Now I’m depressed

          if I see one more view of the inside of Saddam’s mouth I will put a guiter amp through the TV.

          We don’t usually shoot things here, other than “the s*&t”.


        • #2672114

          I’ve had a gut full of that 30 second video clip as well

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to I don’t know about you Colin but…

          But the exception of my wife and 11 other people who where loocked up on Jury Service I don’t thnk that there has been anyone who hasn’t seen that piece of video a couple of times at the very least.

          Anyway when she got out of the Jury and was free the last thing that she wanted to see was that and while we don’t usually shoot things here I do have a French Dueling Pistol that is very old and a mussel loader flint lock and it would be interesting to see someone else fire it as I’m not stupid enough to try it out. But right at the time when I posted the previous post it was on TV again for the 10 millionth time and I was just fedd up to the back teeth with seeing the same thing over and over again and the flint lock was looking very interesting.

        • #2672076

          Media Overkill it ruins music too

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to I’ve had a gut full of that 30 second video clip as well

          I first noticed how the media floods the market and eventually kills the story from overexposure when ACDC released Bck In Black in 1980.

          I loved the new vocalis, he wasn’t Bon Scott but he was great and full of growly energy that was pretty contagious.

          The radio played it OVER and OVER again and literally made me get sick of it before I bought it. After the airplay died down, I went and bought it (yay LP’s)and loved it again.

          They North American media is absolutety pollution to the mind. They trsh every artist they find by creating a time sensitive pop sound and then blowing up the artist to be bigger than life. By the time the poor guy/gal had finally managed to learn about the business in the industry, they are no longer flavour of the week, from overplay, and have to learn how to deal with working hard to keep the career going. Most can’t keep up once the label and the promo is gone.

          Todays Notrh American Media is exactly why there is a demand for e to get bands heard in Europe and Japan. Nobody serious wants to deal with the market here anymore, it isn’t loyal and can’t be trusted. It is an industry for media not talent.

        • #2671932

          OZ you’re totally correct about the media

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to I’ve had a gut full of that 30 second video clip as well

          But for a good laugh very late one night or early one morning I was channel surfing while there was a download going on and I stopped on our local Australian Broadcaster and they where raving about a “New group” they had just discovered and how good they where I was about to change the channel when they mentioned the name SLADE and it made me think that someone had taken on that name again and this is what the promo was all about. When the video clip started it was Slade from nearly 20 years ago but as they had just been “Discovered” I suspose that meant they had a whole new audience.

          But then again I’ll admit to getting old as once a young girl came up to me and said “Did you know Paul McCarthy was in a band before he was in Wings?” Well I’m the first to admit that I didn’t understand her untill the penny dropped and I realised she was talking about The Beatles who she didn’t know the name of but just that Paul was in a band prior to him being in Wings.

          I guess that is showing my age isn’t it?

        • #2671108

          age is a wonderful thing

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to I’ve had a gut full of that 30 second video clip as well

          I stopped at the bar after the seminar this morning and decided to opt for the SkyTrain to New West to drop by the ‘Ozmedia’ office.

          A cute lady early fortyish and her girlfriends were on the train in VERY short miniskirts. Needless to say (without being a TOTAL pig) very little was left to the imagination.

          I thought I was busted when her girlfirend whispered to hear that I was looking at her. She spent a few stops staring at me, as I stood red faced looking for a way out “busted!!”, she smiled and gave me her card and asked me to call her on the weekend. I guess I’ll stay in town ONE more day.

          So hey, let the cougars run free, age isn’t THAT bad after all. (Not that I’m much younger anyway)

    • #2671572

      You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

      by mrafrohead ·

      In reply to Excluding countries that opposed the war in Iraq from reconstruction

      They didn’t support those of us that fought, died and foot the bill.

      So why in holy hell should we allow them the luxory of reaping the benefits now that there actually may be some? We shouldn’t let them suffor. They had no faith in us then. Let’s give them no perks now.

      We let these countries piss on us all the time. Why help them now. Why let them dip in the pot. Screw them all. They always shit on us yet hold out their piss ant hands. I say for once we knock it away. If their troops weren’t fighting with ours, they don’t deserve this benefit.

      Anyone that was in it with us though, grab them by the nuts and get them in line with us and make sure they are benefiting with us if anyone if to benefit.

      France can take all of their oil they got under the table along with Russia and consider that their benefit and count their blessings that we don’t come in their and confiscate it and then light their freaking carpets on fire…


      Those asshole countries have NO rights to bitch!


      • #2670603

        You’ce been ansent for a while

        by oz_media ·

        In reply to You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

        I think as a result of eing away or not participating, you have missed some key points.

        First of all though: From what we are expected to belive now, America is only there to HELP Iraq rebuild into a democtaric country (even though the US asked Saddam to fight AGAINST a democratic government to gain power in the first place).

        Your interests are not your own, or are said not to be as you want what’s best for the POOR Iraqi’s. Why then should American capitalist action now rule over the establishment of the country? It MAY cost millions more, if not in an openid arena. Is it that your companies are scared that they may not gain higher profit margins if equal bid competition is allowed? This would not be in the best interests of Iraqi’s.
        Opening up a bidding tender to all countries would NOT mean the US is cut out of the picture,just that they can’t monopolize on the situation and the Iraqi people and the American txpayers get the best deal, even if solely provided by US companies AFTER a fair bid.

        YOU as a citizen, will not gain any benefit from this unless LESS taxpayers money is spent, which is only possible with equal bidding on tender. Why support the monolpolistic anc apitalistic companies that will bid as if in any other government contract, $1500.00 for a front door, $20,000 for a new carpet etc. Have you even seen government labour and construction contracts? It’s scary as hell how much YOUR and MY governments spend on construction contracs, they are unlike any other when it comes to estimated costs.
        Whereas MOST companies will use standard flooring glue or adhesive for fabricating wall panels, the government contracts require extremely expensive “modified” glues and adhesives that adhere to different regulations. When a contractor sees a government contract, he starts to water at the mouth as the dollar signs appear in his eyes.

        I have worked VERY closely with government contracts in the past for panels, chalkboards and white boards for schools, ferries and police agencies througout Canada and the USA. It is embarrassing how much money is wasted.

        This is NOT a reasonable way to conduct business within yor own country, yet alone when trying to SAVE another and provide rapid and cost effective solutions. Just wait and see, I subcontract a few guys who work at installing Canadian government contracted goods, these are also goods contracted by te US government to Candian suppliers, the governments get riped off blind and they know it, now you feel that 19 billion should be spenton American government contracts as opposed to equal opportunity tenders that retract exobitantly overpriced costs?

        Are you helping these guys or making money off them?

        • #2671104

          Reply To: Excluding countries that opposed the war in Iraq from reconstruction

          by mrafrohead ·

          In reply to You’ce been ansent for a while

          considering it will be our money in the long run, it doesn’t really matter anyhow…

          and yes, it will be. it always is, always has been, and probably always will be.

        • #2671055

          That’s not even

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Reply To: Excluding countries that opposed the war in Iraq from reconstruction

          That’s not even the slightest bit logcial whatsoever.

          Considering it will be your money in the long run…what does that mean? It’s your money to begin with isn’t it?

          “and yes, it will be. it always is, always has been, and probably always will be.”

          will be, is, has and will be again What?

    • #2670718

      Lets put it this way – after hitting the lottery would you give

      by jimhm ·

      In reply to Excluding countries that opposed the war in Iraq from reconstruction

      Lets try it this way – you have 6 possible friends – you plan on doing something. 3 of your friends call you stupid, backstabe you and cry that you aren’t playing fair. The other 3 friends support you – assist you and defend your position.

      Then What ever it was you were doing – you won. You are now going to spend millions of rebuilding this thing… and you share that money with the 3 friends that supported you.

      Now the 3 friends that backstabed you – and badmouthed you are crying they want part of that money…

      Would you say no problem – here – you slapped me in the face – you stabed me in the back – you called me names to the world – but I forgive you heres a few million… Wrong … Screw the French – Kiss My Ass Germany – you all had your chance to support the effort … but didn’t … so now sit on the side lines for the crumbes that fall from the table…

      • #2670706

        bad friends

        by laredoflash9 ·

        In reply to Lets put it this way – after hitting the lottery would you give

        The French!? Hey! They don’t bath often, that is why they have perfume and other stinky products. They can fly a kite when it comes to Iraq…The Germans!? Didn’t we save them also some years back? Man, greed has gotten atta hand here. The spoils belong to the victor. The rest can go fly a kite. Politically correct be damned!

        • #2670669

          Excluding countries that opposed the war in Iraq from reconstruction

          by money ·

          In reply to bad friends

          The French, Germans, Canadians, and Russia all had financial interest in Irag before the war. They were supplying weapons, constuction of the underground facilities, involved in the power plant and oil construction business. Very little of this hit the news wires. The Saudis have financial interests in CNN and CitiGroup. Why would you destroy the hand that feeds you. Now that the hand is gone these governments want a piece of the action. I say forgive the debt and you can bid. The French and Russians really cannot provide troops because they are more hated than the US because they were true occupiers or want to be occupiers.

        • #2670655

          Currencies of Life

          by oldefar ·

          In reply to Excluding countries that opposed the war in Iraq from reconstruction

          Time, money, security, knowledge, and prestige.

          What I see in most in these posts is a focus on prestige. Almost every position is based on an aspect of national prestige whether the poster supports or opposes the policy.

          If our governments showed more maturity and leadership than us, this could be a non issue. The objective is to rebuild Iraq so that Iraqis can focus on establishing their government, and to prevent unneccesary suffering by innocent and ordinary Iraqi citizens. The requirement is an influx of cash and credit to acquire the necessary infrastructure pieces and skilled labor to install these. To meet the security needs of the politicians in the US, there must be some level of reward to the 62 coalition partners for the cash the US provides. Hence, the prime contractor on each project is a coalition nation firm. To meet the security needs of the world, participation must come from those best capable of completing aspects of each project. Hence, project participation is open to all. To meet the security needs of the non-coalition nation politicians, they could state they feel the US is wrong with its policy but will focus on rebuilding Iraq. To meet a common world security need, they could add that while they feel the US policy is wrong, it is understandable since it is US money. This prevents the issue of prestige from becoming a barrier for future common objectives.

          As for who bailed who out over what and when, it would pay to remember that friends help friends because they want to. There are no strings, no future payments required. Business dealings have payment schedules, both current and deferred. I always thought that civilized, peace loving, humanity respecting nations allied out of friendship or did not out of higher values, and no payments were expected.

          I appreciate the efforts of Germany and Canada in trying to achieve peace keeping in Afghanastan, especially considering that Germany is nearly broke thanks to their efforts at reunification and involvement in EU. The shortcomings of those peace keeping efforts is a reflection of the environment and need for time to accomplish objectives, the same as the efforts of coalition forces in Iraq and French efforts in the Ivory Coast.

        • #2670613

          They can’t be primary – but can be secondary

          by jimhm ·

          In reply to Currencies of Life

          Germany, Canada, French and Russian can not be primary contract bidders on things, but can be secondary or subcontractors of those same projects.

          If those countries were trutly interested in helping Iraqi rebuild they would forgive the Billions that Iraqi owes them – a little tit-for-tat… No they just want a piece of the American 37 Billion without risking anything – but just taking the glory after the fact.

          I say – you want a piece – put in something, like the 2 Billion Iraqi owes France – or Germany.. Iraqi the people of Germany and France forgive all you owe, we will start fresh and as friends.. But do you think they will … Never in a million years.

        • #2670588

          But the US will

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to They can’t be primary – but can be secondary

          As always Jim you try to smell of roses but reek of S&*^t.
          You have such a narrow minded and simplistic, “down your nose” view of the world that it scares me to think others may share a similar belief.
          When are you going to see that the USA is in Iraq for money, not freedom of the poor people.

          When your opportunity to capitalize on Iraq is jeopardized to start to point the finger, stick it back up your nose where it is warm and welcome.

          How does securing Prime contract bids possibly HELPthe people in Iraq. I’d be interested in seeing how cost will be controlled how bids will be fair etc. without competition. Did you used to work for Microsoft? As a Novell guy, I thought you’d see this deifferently but as always you see t with a negative spite toward anything or anyone unAmerican. You isolate yourslf while pushing others away and get pissed when others won’t stand beside you?

        • #2670579

          Our 37 Billion – spend it with whom we want – not who others think

          by jimhm ·

          In reply to But the US will

          That 37 Billion is part of my taxes paid to the US government – so I have a right to say who it can be spent with … And as to that No French – No Germans – No Canadains – Bristish Yes – America Yes – Others who helped Yes … Those that didn’t … Let Them Eat Dirt..

        • #2670559

          What about Canadians?

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to But the US will

          Well Jim, Canadians and Germans are STILL in Afghanistan fighting for the freedom from terrorism alongside US troops.
          The Iraq war also being equated to another part of ridding the terrorists from the world would then place Canada’s and Germany’s troops alongside American as ACTIVE supporters of the war aginst terrorism. This we all agreed to when we started the war in Afghanistan.

          Given the fact that the USA has many times the population of it’s allies it is not unreasonable for a certain country to refuse to continue to spread thin and comit ALL of it’s troops toward an already questionable effort.

          Canada’s limited troops have been spread VERY thin between peace efforts in other countries,the many used to combat the recent forest fires in Canada and then sent to fight more in California. We simply don’t have the expendable number of troops that the USA has.

          We can’t take them from duty and have relacements sent in again and again because we have fewer available. The USA has an almost perpetual number of available replacements. Some can gain much needed rest and then be ready to return for further duty whle others rest, you could probably sustain your army forever based on sheer numbers of available troops. This is also why the US and Russian effort in WWII was so successful in reducing the Nazis, not neccessarily that you Won WWII by having better men or ability, war with such losses is becomes a numbers game.

          So perhaps Canada and Germany are justified in asking for FAIRNESS in Iraqi contracts, not control or a hand out but fair business.

          OK so Canada and Germany are in because they supported America, but now that raises the question “at what time prior to the war in Iraq do we consider it too long ago to be considered supportive of America?” If Canada gets in for helping, then shoudln’t other countries who also helped in Afghanistan? How about in the Pacific during the war aginst the Japanese that you brought upon yourselves? Korea?

          That would be too long ago to be considered an ALLIED party though.

          Hang on, you (Americans)constantly refer to historical events to justify your actions, maybe other countries should be included!

          So where does your ‘selective humanitarian’ effort reach to? The corporate pockets of America, of which you will see no personal direct benefit, or anyone who wishes to offer a helping hand and help you to rebuild this country in the most cost effective and efficient manner?

          Pull the toilet roll from your eye and see the world instead of your patriotic tunnel vision.

          I can say that based on YOUR theory, I would also agree that you should reap any monetary recompensation you can get, IF you are in it for the money.
          In the eyes of a Liberation attempt or Humanitarian effort, it makes no sense to not seek out the most cost effective and efficient solution available. As I’ve said before, this may PROVE to be solely from US companies, but only if they are forced to bid fairly.

        • #2672107

          You don’t have the right to tell Americans where and with whom to spend

          by jimhm ·

          In reply to But the US will

          You as a non-tax paying american citizen don’t have the right to tell the US government where and with Whom they can spend our dollars. That would be like us tell you Canadians to spend 40 billion in Africa on AIDs relief – or Forgive the Iraqis the some odd billion they owe you …

          If you want to win – you have to play. You can’t sit on the side lines – wait till the end of the game – then demand to get part of the spoils of the victor when you didn’t play or risk anything.

          Go Eat Dirt – Until the German, French, Canadian forgive Iragi of the billions owed – I would say you all get nothing – nada – zippo – zero – goose egg – put your hands back in your pockets.

          It our 37 Billion – and you and the UN have no rights to tell us how to spent it or with who to spent it with …

          Go Cry somemore – and blame it on that America Patriotizm – That America Pride – That America against the world … Your Wrong as normal …

          That would be like me telling you to take 100 Canadian dollars out of your bank and give spent in that store … WRONG! – Your are such a closed minded pig head … I have an open mind have accepted but not agreed with some of your ideas – but you are just a pig head – can’t see any other idea besides their own…

        • #2672072

          How can you be so way off al the time?

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to But the US will

          I’m sure you never used to have such a comprehension problem before.

          I haven’t said HOW you should spend your money.
          I DID pay LOTS of US taxes for several years as I ran a business in the USA, so you can skip that assupmtion.

          I suggest opening up the market so that YOUR companies can STILL gain the upper hand and all the contracts they want, but they must do it by offering a fair and reasonable bid.

          YOUR closed minded idea, is to let a select few, control a government contract, you have either NEVER seen how a government contract is handled by a manufacturer or contractor, or you feel thay they should spend the highest possible dollar amount (your money) for rebuilding Iraq and YOU get less for more.

          If this was Canada, I would WANT the bid opened up to reate a FAIR BID. How stupid are you man??

          If there was ONE grocery store in your town, so you think you’d get good value for money? NO.

          Wake up and smell the bacon, stop thinking of just yourself and realize that the whole reason you invaded Iraq was to help them, or so we are now told. This is becoming harder and harder to believe while making MY theory that the corporate pocket created this war seem all that more credible. You are hurting your country with your ideas, not helping it.

          What a dork!

        • #2670590

          The French, Germans, Canadians, and Russia all had financial interest in Ir

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Excluding countries that opposed the war in Iraq from reconstruction

          You missed the US, don’t foget that when pointing your finger.

        • #2672105

          And the US has forgiven their Debt of around 2 billion

          by jimhm ·

          In reply to The French, Germans, Canadians, and Russia all had financial interest in Ir

          So what about you all – up there in the North. French are thinking about it – German’s may do it – Russians say No Way –

          So what is your stance on that – Write it off as a bad investment – and move on … You all can afford it … national healthcare – may take a little hit … but what does that matter when it comes to helping the world…

        • #2672068

          You keep wanting to help the world

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to And the US has forgiven their Debt of around 2 billion

          You know Jim, first you say America should reap the benefits of providing reconstruction contracts at the highest possible cost to america, then you turn around and take the humanitarian “help the world” stand.

          If you have no point, don’t try to make one.

          If you have no idea what you’re talking about, don’t try to talk about it.

          To say you want it all and then say others want it all and you want to help the world is nonsensical BullS*&T. When you have something valid to say or offer I may respond next time, if not, I’m done wasting time going in these circles with you, you have no idea what you’re talking about.

        • #2672061

          Oz – you said don’t forget the US

          by jimhm ·

          In reply to You keep wanting to help the world

          Well – The US has forgiven 2 Billion – What has Canadian forgiven – What Has France Forgiven – Germany – Russia – Out of the 40 Billion owed by the Iraqies..

          You say in one breath what about the US – We did our part plus are providing 37 Billion more to rebuild. What have the Canadians done … NO A F’en Thing have they … So clean up your own house first… Before tossing a stone across the river ..

        • #2672048

          Np problem

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to You keep wanting to help the world

          You seem to be very in tune with inside information from the White House, perhaps you could tell your pal GWB to ask Canada and Russia to remove all troops from supportive action with the USA.

          They could all be home for Christmas and let you clean up your own mess for a change, before you are once again terrorized.

          This would be impossible though because American troops have no idea how to spell ‘peace keeping’ yet alone perform it. There’s more to war than battle, when you realize that you will also realize how much Canadian AND German troops have helped the USA over the years.

          This is NOT an issue of who does what for whom. It is an issue you have switched rom being monetary to humanitarian, back to monetary, then to humanitarian and now to monetary again.

          YOU tell me Jim, besdies what is best for your country (which seems to not interest you), is this in YOUR mind, not what you’ve heard or been told but what YOU think, a humantiaian effort to HELP Iraq or a petty political game surrounding who gets the most money.

          Your post tells me only ONE thing, American companies should have control, no matter HOW much more of YOUR money it costs. This is NOT humanitarian at all as it is COMLPETELY centered around American gain, not Iraq’s.

          Lastly, this is in NO way whatsoever an issue of who OWES who what, it is an attempt to rebuild a country that was already falling apart before you wiped out the rest of it. Just getting HELP in rebuilding and picking up the pieces should make the USA grateful, not greedy. You DEMAND help, you don’t get it (obviously), you need help and are offered help, you turn it down and complain of not getting help. What a cheeky bunch of rejects you all are!

        • #2671199

          Once again – the USA should – but Not Canada or anyone else

          by jimhm ·

          In reply to You keep wanting to help the world

          Once again Oz – the US should but Canada or anyone else dosn’t have to … and if the US doesn’t do it – Oz will cry a blue streak..

          Lets see – you owe $2.5 million and someone is going to help you rebuild a few things around your home to the tune of $2 million. Now they have that all finished – but you still Owe $2.5 million…

          So what would make you better off – if those banks you owed $2.5 million kept the debt in your face – or if they you were forgiven those debts. Same as in Iraqi – if the countries would forgive that 40 Billion – it would help the New Iraqi government with debt control…

          Simple Economics my friend simple economics –

        • #2671102

          See THAT’s where you’re wrong

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to You keep wanting to help the world

          I thought it has nothing to do with economics as this is STRICTLY a humanitarian effort to rebuild Iraq at the losewt possible cost and in the most efficient manner. You have said you want to HELP Iraq, yet every single post you’ve privided is centered areound money and who should be getting a piece. YOU have turned your mind away from helping Iraq or spending the LEAST US dollars possible for this project and turned it into a political debate regarding economics.

          Have you told the Iraqi’s that you want what’s best for them as long as you get all the money?

          In case you haven’t noticed several contracts have been handed out by USAID since MAy this year, several last year but this year seems to have the most. USA has been included in this but MOST contracts aer to European and Iraqi based companies, because it makes logistical and financial sense.

          One American contract was awarded for $489.3 million to Kellog Brown and Root, who Chaney used to be a CEO for from 95-2000, let me guess, you never saw that coming and it must be completely coincidental. This is the exact problem with only alowing Prime contracts in the USA.

          How much of thier money do you think YOU will see Jim? They will hire mainly Eurpoean contractors, because the costs are mudch lower for them and will in turn make a greater profit for the fat pockets, sorry, US company favoritism isn’t going to help you Jim, especially if you thinking of economics.

          Who cares what is owed, that’s not the topic here. Keeping contracts local will STING the USA not help it.

        • #2670950

          No economics where did you go to school

          by jimhm ·

          In reply to You keep wanting to help the world

          Not economics – after the rebuilding has been completed – Iragi and its citizens still have to settle debts that were created under Saddam and his Bath party. Now those debts are over 40 Billion dollars. I can remember how it breaks down – something like 18 Billion French, 12 Billion Germany, 9 Billion Russia, 1.5 billion South Aftica, 2 Billion Canada.

          Now when we turnover control of the Iraqi government to the Iraqis – they still have to pay that debt – plus bring in food and medical supplies and other goods and services to keep their economy alive and well.

          Now – starting with a clean slate or a very reduced 40 billion – would make their economy run much better than – having the 40 billion..

          Economics – Basic Economics…

        • #2670923

          My 1970 Charger

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to You keep wanting to help the world

          I have a 1970 Cahrger RT with a 440 Magnum. Remeber the Dukles Of Hazzard (sams Orange paint and the Rebel Flag).

          It is about as relevant to this topic as your continual refusal to see HOW your money is being spent because it is clouded by national debts.

          DEBT is NOT the issue here at all, whatsoever and it has NO bearing on how YOUR tax money is oissed away. It is a NON issue regarding this topic.

          MY ONLY POINT is that YOU are being ripped off by your OWN companies who are NOT investing the money into the US economy as you so proudly feel they do. THey are charging top dollar because they can, they are only interested in money and greed. YOU are not seeing ANY benefit whatsover.

          SO how does Iraq paying Canada, France or Tattoine and money bear ANY relevance whatsoever to HOW your government is gearing to rip them selves off and feed thier hungry friends instead of doing what’s best for Iraq? It doesn’t.

          If you want to discuss political debts, start another thread.

      • #2670591

        STOP IT ALREADY!!!!

        by oz_media ·

        In reply to Lets put it this way – after hitting the lottery would you give

        This is not an issue of morals, it is beingSOLD to us as a moral issue but it all pertains to monopoly and capitalism.

        Taking away fair bid, creates a monolpoly. Are you prepared to see your govenrment spend 10 billion the following way.

        1) Govenment contract = exorbitant and unrealistic quotatio to begin
        >>One 6X10Chalkboard for a school costs about $1800.00 Canadian. The same chalkboard from the SAME company can be ordered by a non-government business for $700.00. THat’s $1100.00 added for a single govenment contracted item.
        Now that is when several companies are bidding for the contract.
        Now lets take the compatition out of the market and now you have a $700.00 chalkboard selling in excess of $2200.00.

        You have a single item being sold to the government for more than twice its normal cost and this is not the least bit unreasonable, we’ve all heard of $2000.00 toilet seats bought by governments, it’s true.

        So the whole “You stabbed us in the back” routine is about 60 years old now and getting tiring. When you consider worldwide relations you speak with a personal passion and motivation.
        When governments do it, it is political and monetary motivation.

        THere is monetary motivation for the people of America at all. There IS a monetary motivation by the capitailstic contractors, do you think you’ll get a raise because of the extra 50 points of margin? No.

        Why allow ANYONE to reap financial benefit from a country that we are trying to help?

        All opening up fair competition does is reduce costs, it doesn’t mean you are helping others by offering them revenue, relax.

        You can take your ball away from the playground if you don’t want Billy to play but this is a humanitarian effort, or we are supposed to think it is at least.

        You MUST do what is in the best interests of Iraq, if that is sole American contracts then that’s fine, but right now you are just shooting yourselves in the foot by playing reindeer games.

        This is an economical resolution not a capitalistic tea party, grow up already.

    • #2670581


      by dnvrtechgrrl ·

      In reply to Excluding countries that opposed the war in Iraq from reconstruction

      I’m going to have to disagree which is odd. I usually understand where you are coming from.

      I think it’s perfect for those who turned a blind eye. The price you pay for apathy is to cough up your own government funds and your own time and your own people to help rebuild a country in which you sat and watched go down the tubes, twice.

      We need to back over to Afghanistan where we belong…

      … We have Osama’s to hunt.


      • #2670506

        We need to back over to Afghanistan where we belong???????

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to Maxwell…

        (Cut and pasted from a different discussion thread, but the same question.)

        What’s wrong with this picture?

        On one hand, there are those (the naysayers) who say that business in Afghanistan is not finished, primarily because Osama bin Laden has not been captured.

        On the other hand, they downplay the capture of Saddam Hussein, citing that it does not mean the mission in Iraq is finished.

        When it’s convenient for them to harp on ONE MAN to define finality, they will. But when it’s convenient for them to harp on ONE MAN to define insignificance, they’ll do that too.

        The “business” in Afghanistan will go on for years to come, as will the “business” in Iraq. Moreover, no one in the Bush administration suggested anything to the contrary in either case.

        Look at the past action in Afghanistan (and current and future business in Iraq) like you might see the design and construction of a 50 story building. First, there’s the design and planning stage. Second, there’s the stage for the setting of the foundation. The third phase is when you really see some activity. That’s when battalions of construction workers are scrambling all over the place building the structure. The fourth and final stage of construction is the inside finish work. But what do you have? What you have is an empty building.

        One of the first occupants of that empty building is something that could be considered the fifth phase, a maintenance crew, the folks who see to all those nagging little design and construction oversights, the problems that arise, the tweaking of the systems, the changes for the particular tenants, and so on. But what you don’t have is that initial battalion of construction workers who built the thing to begin with. You don’t need it. It’s over-kill. The building is not fully occupied, the building still has some problems (and always will), and scores of issues will still need to be addressed. But the battalions of construction workers have long been withdrawn. They went on to build the next building, even though ALL the work in the first building is not finished and is still on-going.

        The mission in Afghanistan has gone through those first three stages. It’s well into the fourth, and possibly even the fifth stage. We don’t need the battalions of soldiers to see to all those nagging little details. It’s over-kill. They’ve gone on to build the next building, in this case, the next country. (Look out Syria – you might be next. Are you now in the planning stage?)

        The bottom line is this: The business in Afghanistan IS finished, at least to the point where the hundreds of thousands of military personnel are no longer needed. Not only are they not needed, but at its current stage, it’s more effective without them. We’ve shifted gears, the strategy has changed, and a different plan of attack has been developed. To build on the construction analogy, you don’t need a ten story tall crane with a wrecking ball and a dozen construction crews to knock out a little drywall to put in a new door.

        Don’t let these naysayers sucker you into thinking otherwise.


        The results accomplished in Afghanistan up to now, and what still needs to be done:


        • #2672262


          by oz_media ·

          In reply to We need to back over to Afghanistan where we belong???????

          (Cut and pasted from a different discussion thread, but the same response.)

          I think the differences people are seeing is that Saddam was not the target reason for invading Iraq. Toppling his regime, finding WMD and more recently Liberating Iraq were the reasons for the occupation.

          BinLaden had organized trained and ordered attack on US soil which was effectively carried out and many innocent lives were lost, the hunt to FIND BinLaden was the goal.

          Finding Bin Laden and bringing him to justice was the focus and reson for war.

          Finding Bin Laden would indicate a Victory in an effort to find Bin Laden,

          Finding Saddam Hussein DOESN’T indicate a victory in an effort to rid Iraq of WMD OR Liberate Iraq.

          One was for the man and his regime, the other was for finding weapons and creating liberation.

          2 goals with reversed accomplishments so far, thus the double edged responses.

        • #2672260

          Sorry Max

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Differences

          But that was just too much fun to avoid.

        • #2672141


          by dnvrtechgrrl ·

          In reply to We need to back over to Afghanistan where we belong???????

          do they have to be naysayers?
          That seems pretty harsh when the plan is so well laid out.

          Cells are what the military is after now.
          Osama is so far underground that he’s not been heard of for a while, the Taliban are no longer in control and Saddam has been caught.

          Does this mean all is well? No, not by any means.

          Cells need to be rounded up and disbanded. Cells need to be dealt with and “reformed,” if that is even a possibility. Terrorist cells, Saddam’s cronies, Osama’s cronies. That is what these issues are supposed to be about.

          Business in Afghanistan is not finished, for more than just “we haven’t caught Osama,” just like business in Iraq isn’t finished.

          If you don’t take care of the offspring/supporters running around each country, the very politics we are trying to remove will be back in power in no time.

          We are far from finished.

        • #2672052

          destroying terrorism by attrition

          by road-dog ·

          In reply to Why…

          This is a twofold approach.

          Firstly, identify, close with, and destroy existing terror cells. Disrupt their training, funding, and logistics in any way possible.

          Secondly, disrupt their recruiting by diffusing the reasons for joining or supporting terrorist groups. This is done by creating an environment that gives people asomething to live for, as opposed to die for.

          We are killing mosquitos and draining the swamp where they spawn.

          Both are an ongoing process. I find it unrealistic to expect an immediate resolution when the problem has been going on for millennia. Terrorism has been a problem for 40 years, many approaches have been tried and have failed. This solution deserves time to work.

          Most of those who are critical of this approach either have no alternative solution or wish to continue the same tried and failed approaches.

          The “unilateral” arguments and other equally nonsensical criticisms are nothing more than a choice to pursue appeasement, which is a nonsolution. Negotiation is appeasement. Dialogue is appeasement.

        • #2672027

          Terrorism has been a problem for 40 years

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to destroying terrorism by attrition

          s much s I agree with some of your statement and disagree with other parts, the line :”Terrorism has been a problem for 40 years” needs to be cleared up.

          Recognizing terrorism and seeing terrorists perhaps may only date back 40 years, I’m not too sure where you’ve decided it began.

          Terrorism as an action has been a fact of life sine the dawn of time. This isn’t some new found way of dictating or attackin gan enemy, it is one of the first and most primitives ways in history.

          Terrorism predates biblical times, if it weren’t for terrorists why would we not have a single united country for the entire globe? People WANT to be segragated and WANT to be different, as they oppose ideas of government and in true anarcjist style create thier own form of government. When this is attacked by the country’s true or elected governing body, a terrorist war for attrition begins.

          Democracy would end this, unfortunately not al lcountry’s accept democracy, the US MAY have a good idea, others MAY follow, but who are you to say it is best for everyone?

          In the case of Iraq, they certainly were repressed and can at last spread thier wings, grow and evolve as a country. HOW this was accomplished I do NOT agree with , but it’s done now and many years down the road, things will come to light as everyone sees or complains of economical change.

          I think fuiighting a war on terrorism can’t be looked at globally, as you said “swatting moquitoes and draining the swamp”, it is a nobel task and one with no short answer, yet I feel much is needed to improve your own country that should become a larger focus than attrition of anothers resources by sucking up to them and ousting thier dictator, bad or good. What if France decided to team up with the rest of Europs and invade America to get rid of drugs and guns?

          There is no doubt that MANY would like to see them off the streets yet many will support them.

          Is WAR justified as a means of resolution for YOUR country? or is it just others, that are smaller, poorer and weaker?

          Whether you feel GWB was after oil or not, the bottom line is, if America uses only American money, to pay Canada and Germany to rebuild Iraq, America will ultimately shine to the NEW Iraqi government. After helping them sort out and rebuild thier country, GWB will see to it that he also has US apointed menbers on the board regarding Iraqi oil distribution, this goes without saying, he already HAS done.

          NOW if YOU rebuild Iraq, if YOU Liberate Iraq, if YOU help create and sustain a worthwhile government in Iraq, WHY shouldn’t you also get the oil and any other benefits you can? Many have already started saying that the USA is completely justified in retaining all the Prime Contracts (which it is, but it would be a stupid and expensive idea). You are also COMPLETELY justified in gaining control of OIL distribution and sharing in the profits to repay your expenses.

          There you have it, BUSH justified his getting HIS oil. A little underhanded but very easy to see.

          Bush wins AND gets his oil, done deal.

        • #2672013

          Look at the record

          by road-dog ·

          In reply to Terrorism has been a problem for 40 years

          My Dad didn’t get a free mercedes after American dollars rebuilt Germany. Hell, he didn’t even get a toyota for all the American dollars spent rebuilding Japan.

          Both of those nations are pretty much independent of American domination, are they not?

          So how perfect does a nation have to be to cast dispersions upon a dictator who has killed hundreds of thousands? Is a policeman with a drinking problem unqualified to arrest a murderer?

          Saddam needed to go, as did the Taliban. What nation (if not the US) is morally pure enough to do it?

        • #2671164

          Trying to figure you logic here – OZ – a little on the squirrely side

          by jimhm ·

          In reply to Terrorism has been a problem for 40 years

          Trying to trace your logic on this one here Oz – I agree, Terrorism has go back way before 40 years. Hell the British used Small Pox against the American indian. The British gave the blankets of victims of it to the indians …

          Before that the some Christians used it against the romans… The name has changed but the actions are still the same.

          Now for you other comments – can put it together – again your go off on that GWB Oil… your like a trotter horse – got those blinders on.

          For years the Iraqis have asked the UN to get Saddam out of power – but the UN Security console would do anything thanks to the French, German, Russian and Canadain reps. They wanted more proof that Saddam was killing civilians. The UN Security console failed at its job to protect people.

          But the US stood up (for whatever reason – Ozzie Oil – or Terrorism) and did a job without the aid or assistance of the Pussys in the UN. So now we are finding – 400,000 in a mass grave – here, 100,000 there, tapes of rapes – beatings – terror of his own civilians. Using gas against the curds.

          What does the UN say – Nothing – “We needed more proof”… You said there were WMD’s and you haven’t found them. Gee – I would have to say something killed 400,000 it put in a single grave.

          When you went off to Ozzieland oil – you lost me on your reason and logic… Everything to you is Oil, remember the US only get 6 to 12% of its oil from Middleeast nations… But who is the largest buyer of Middleeast oil – YOU GOT IT OZZIE – British Petro – Or BP – 85% or more from there, the rest from the North Atlantic… Gee – BP – feeding all that money … Hum I don’t thing George W has any BP Stock, or any interest in BP LTD at all… But interesting – What was the name of that company again …. B….P….

        • #2671090

          Point made

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Trying to figure you logic here – OZ – a little on the squirrely side

          BP was a poor example as one of the MANY oil companies importing to the USA.
          I’ve never seen BP in Canada but have in England. The largest presence I’ve seen is the BP gas stations throughout Washington and Oregon, I don’t know if they are in your state but I’m sure they are. This again,this is just a single entity.

          You still only believe that you are importing 6-12 % of your oil from the Middle East, how about Eastern Europe, Western Europe, and other smaller countries that rely on American demand for thier income, they aren’t drilling it themselves, they are buying it from Iraq, because Bush wasn’t allowed to when he was cut off by Saddam. Bush then started holding off of his OWN inspections and causing a long delay in getting needed food and medical equipment to Iraq citizens. By importing from third parties you are NOT actually importing from Iraq, on paper anyhow. THis will change rapidly now though, Bush has already appointed US members to help control oil distribution, foot in the door.

          When EMPTY, and later found NEVER used, warheads were found in Iraq by the UN, this told BUSH that they had WMD and helped him scare America into attack. Now if I understand correctly, the UN was there to look for such weapons in the first place, they then did thier job and FOUND such items, that were apparently listed but not found in the 12,000 page Iraqi disarmourment report. So if the UN wqas successfully finding empty warheads, what justified the attack? Oh yes, Saddam’s respression! Not Castro but Saddam.

          Now as for WMD, why were they ignored when the US was helping Iraq fight Iran, before helping Iran fight Iraq?!?!? The USA KNEW Saddam had such weapons and turned a blind eye as he used them on his enemy. That was when the US still liked Saddam though.

          The UN was doing thier job, it may have taken some time to clear the air between Bush and Saddam but the UN was allowed to inpsect, DID inspect and found empty warheads, as they were supposed to do. THIS is why other countries decided to LET the UN finish thier job instead of undermining them and attacking Iraq. NOTHING to do with mass graves, liberation, bad schools, lack of medical supplies or anything.

          Saddam pissed off Bush when he restricted US supply as a result of the sanctions upon his country.Bush pissed off Saddam the same way, he restricted much NEEDED supplies from Iraq citizens.

          The UN did it’s job, you just didn’t foolow through with your end of the deal by letting them finish thier job and got all freaked out and were convinced to act out of fear, this way Saddam is gone and people are happy, Bush gets control of oil exporting and development projects so he’s happy. Everyone wins!

          In America.

        • #2671079

          over 100 billion on reconstruction

          by road-dog ·

          In reply to Trying to figure you logic here – OZ – a little on the squirrely side

          Do you really believe that it would have been decided to take the huge political risk of invading Iraq when we could have bought the oil much more cheaply?

          This war was a huge risk, Bush could have pushed for dropping sanctions on Iraq (imposed by the UN, not us, BTW), and purchased oil on the open market.

          Let’s put that ridiculous argument to rest, please?

    • #2670487

      Excluding countries that opposed the war in Iraq from reconstruction

      by money ·

      In reply to Excluding countries that opposed the war in Iraq from reconstruction

      It may be that Canada and Germany are in Afganistan, but at the moment the question is not what monies are available to rebuild Afganistan, it is what monies are available to rebuild Irag. If my house was on fire and the fire department was across the street but because they did not like my opinions about the police department, decided not to save my house, would they be wrong morally, legally or both. That is the same with these far left national leaders.

      • #2670482

        Terrible analogy

        by oz_media ·

        In reply to Excluding countries that opposed the war in Iraq from reconstruction

        It more like, if your neighbours house was on fire and you asked some people ot help you put it out.

        After the main flames were cuenched there is still the need for someone to ensure the fire is out, the timbers are cool enough to not reignite.

        You then run to help another house on fire, your friends stay back to ensure the first is completely extinguished and out, they don’t have enough men to cover both locations as all are still needed at the first becauswe all the time new spot fires keep popping up and they quickly put them out.

        After all the flames are battled, you want the responsibility of rebuilding the house and cut off your friends from any reward because they stayed at the first house, when the second paid revenue and took priority in your mind.

        NOw that’s reality

        • #2672225

          Terrible Analogy Two

          by oldefar ·

          In reply to Terrible analogy

          Its more like, those friends stayed back to ensure the fire was out on the first house, but when the issue of the second fire came up they said “Let it burn, mind your own business, no one appointed you fireman”, and then opposed anyone else helping you with that second fire.

          Not helping because of a lack of resources was not the stated reason for opposing the coalition, and in fact some of the coalition nations are really strained in offering more than moral support to the cause.

        • #2672152

          Terrible Analogy Two

          by money ·

          In reply to Terrible Analogy Two

          Oldefar actually you got what I was saying..Unfortunate reality that scenario I described actually happened when I around 12 or thirteen years old. The Fire Chief and the Police Chief were bothers and it was election time and the Police Chief’s opponent accused the Police Chief of visiting a whore house for pleasure and not to close it down, the irony to this is that the opponent provided the evidence and the Chief still won.

        • #2672057

          Much closer to what happened – good one Oldfart

          by jimhm ·

          In reply to Terrible Analogy Two

          That was really what happened – France, Germany, Canada – who do you think you guys are the Worlds fireman. No we don’t want you going to help them…

          Now when the money is on the table to rebuild – I want my part of the money – waaa – waaa – waaa… Why Can’t I bid on those projects…

          Screw-em let them eat Cake..

        • #2672046

          Your not accomplishing anything Jim

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Much closer to what happened – good one Oldfart

          Te Prime contracts being given to America doesn’t mean American companies do all the work. They just get to control the work. MUCH of this work will be farmed out to Canada, Germany, the UK, France and anyone else who can logistically do better than the USA, which will be many due to the distance you need to ship goods and workers.

          Not opening up the Prime Vontract bids means that a few US companies will rip YOU off, it’s not my money after all. They will SOAK the government, again not MY money and others will get the credit by locals in Iraq as the ones actually there doing the work.

          You are still screwing yourselves as do so often.
          With a mentality like that it is no wonder everyone sees you as ignorant morons that think they know best. What a maroon!

          What will YOU gain, nothing. If Canada and others bid for prime contracts what will you gain, nothing. Sit down Jim, you have nothing to gain either way. This is for Iraq, not you, you will not see any benefit, you greedy, selfish and rather ignorant fool.

        • #2672224

          Bottom Line

          by oldefar ·

          In reply to Terrible analogy

          The money is money from US taxpayers, the effect intended by the policy should have been accomplished less offensively, the response from those impacted by the policy should have been less defensive and less offensive, all the governments are putting petty prestige issues ahead of a common goal to rebuild Iraq after the agreed legitimate result of removing Saddam from power (disagreement on method not withstanding).

          Also, those who firmly believe the Bush acted strictly for personal gain will continue to believe regardless of facts, as well those who believe he acted on principal.

        • #2672221

          Fair bid creates a better Iraq

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Bottom Line

          “no one appointed you fireman”, and then opposed anyone else helping you with that second fire.”

          This I’d like to see proven. This is a complete assumption based on the feelings of citizens shown in the news, I’ve seen them too. This is not the political reasoning behind the lack of further support.
          “Not helping because of a lack of resources was not the stated reason for opposing the coalition,”

          THis is also a complete and inaccurate assumtion. A major problem when the army was called in to help with BC’s forest fires was the limited number of available troops beecause they had a large commitment in Afghanistan. THey then took these SAME trrops and firefighters and shipped them straight to California, others (firemen, forestry specialists to handle specific logistical problems in California) VOLUNTEERED to help after fighting fires for months in BC.

          We do support the US in MOST cases, we always have, it just isn’t recognized or appreciated. We then see Americans complaining they do all the work for nothing, just out of the kindness of thier hearts and pockets.
          “the response from those impacted by the policy should have been less defensive and less offensive, all the governments are putting petty prestige issues ahead of a common goal to rebuild Iraq”

          Less defensive and less offensive? So you are suggesting we all just sit quietly by and be passive. Isn’t that everyone’s complaint to begin with?

          “all the governments are putting petty prestige issues ahead of a common goal to rebuild Iraq”
          This is the exact opposite of what I see by opening up national bids. By LIMITING bids to select firms, favoritism will further limit those accepted, these companies will be massive corporations (many of which I’m sure have also been behind sanction breeches) that can dictate cost.

          Opening up fair bids opens competition and a FAIR and efficient resolution for the Itraqi’s. The country will be rebuilt faster and at a lower cost, EVEN if those contracts end up all being American due to fair opportunity.

          Your suggesting that the US gets the right to control contracts just shows a fear of losing business to a better suited company. Any truly ABLE corporation would have no problem on fair bid unless it was losing the ability to gouge a government contract.

        • #2672211

          Not even close

          by oldefar ·

          In reply to Fair bid creates a better Iraq

          Had you considered the post in context with other statements I have made in this particular discussion, you probably would have gotten the point. My mistake.

        • #2672203

          You may be right sir

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Fair bid creates a better Iraq

          Upon rereading your posts I have actually agreed with your points almost all along. I still think your first analogy here reflects my thoughts but all in all, yes I think I took the rest of it out of context.
          When you said:

          “all the governments are putting petty prestige issues ahead of a common goal to rebuild Iraq ”

          This I read as meaning Canada, Germany and others are beingn petty by wanting prime contract bidding whereas the US should just go ahead and accomplish their goal. From our other posts here I see you probably meant the entire thing is being handled in a petty way by all parties instead of just putting Iraqs need in the forefront.

          If so, I couldn’t agree more. Let them find the most effective and resouceful way of doing this and get it done.

          As I mentioned earlier BAD eyestrain today and not taking time to fully comprehend posts today, my bad.

    • #2672159

      Iraqi Minister Scolds U.N. for Inaction

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to Excluding countries that opposed the war in Iraq from reconstruction

      Story By WARREN HOGE

      Published: December 16, 2003

      UNITED NATIONS, Dec. 16 ? Iraq’s foreign minister, Hoshyar Zebari, accused the United Nations Security Council today of having failed to help rescue his country from Saddam Hussein, and he chided member states for bickering over his beleaguered country’s future.

      “Settling scores with the United States-led coalition should not be at the cost of helping to bring stability to the Iraqi people,” Mr. Zebari said in language unusually scolding for an occupant of the guest seat at the end of the curving Security Council table.

      “Squabbling over political differences takes a back seat to the daily struggle for security, jobs, basic freedoms and all the rights the U.N. is chartered to uphold,” he said.

      Taking a harsh view of the inability of quarreling members of the Security Council to endorse military action in Iraq, Mr. Zebari said, “One year ago, the Security Council was divided between those who wanted to appease Saddam Hussein and those who wanted to hold him accountable.

      “The United Nations as an organization failed to help rescue the Iraqi people from a murderous tyranny that lasted over 35 years, and today we are unearthing thousands of victims in horrifying testament to that failure.”

      He declared, “The U.N. must not fail the Iraqi people again.”



      and all the rights the U.N. is chartered to uphold

      and all the rights the U.N. is chartered to uphold

      and all the rights the U.N. is chartered to uphold

      and all the rights the U.N. is chartered to uphold

      and all the rights the U.N. is chartered to uphold

      and all the rights the U.N. is chartered to uphold

      and all the rights the U.N. is chartered to uphold

      and all the rights the U.N. is chartered to uphold

      and all the rights the U.N. is chartered to uphold

      THE UN is the most inept organization

    • #2672111

      Let’s be real here

      by dwdino ·

      In reply to Excluding countries that opposed the war in Iraq from reconstruction

      France, Germany, etc. all did everything possible to derail the conflict in Iraq for fear of loosing their investments. Period.

      Now that the fighting is slowed down and the reconstruction swings into gear, their eyes lit up with dollar signs (or chosen currency) to reap a profit off rebuilding contracts.

      The anger of these nations is purely monetary. They have only ever had interest in Iraq for “personal” monetary gain. Now that the victor has declared that non-participants will not be able to access the main contracts they are pissed.

      Greed, greed, greed. Pure and simple.

      • #2672066


        by oz_media ·

        In reply to Let’s be real here

        Then when the US refuses to provide the lowest cost materials and workmanship and literally SOAKS the government out of the money allocated to this project, this is not considered greed at all but it is a way of helping Iraq rebuild at the lowest cost and in the most efficent manner?

        Why would it then make any sense to not allow cost reduction by fair opportunity, YOU’RE the world’s saviours, YOU’RE the only country that is ALWAYS correct. Personally I agree, if YOU want to invade YOU can clean it up, does that mean you’re back to clean up Afghanistan next? I don’t think so, let Canada and Germany do that for you. I wouldn’t be upset at all to see Canada and Germany pull ALL troops out of the middle east and let you guys have at it, we’ll see how long it is before you are the center of the next terrorism again.

        You may feel justified in the way America handles things, it would be in your beneft to make sure others see it the same way, some countries may not appreciate you ‘helping yourself to them’ and will attacking the US again. This is inevitable though, if you think you’ve had it bad so far, I’d hate to even consider what they are planning for you now.

        If we don’t see it your way in Canada, Germany, France, Russia, Australia, NewZealand, Spain, Portugal etc. You may have a hard time convincing middle Eastern countries to see it yuor way. Personally I’d be scared shitless to be in the states now.

        • #2671928

          Canada Looking for New Helicopters

          by oldefar ·

          In reply to Accepted

          Looking to replace their aging Sea Kings, the Canadians have finally opened for bid a project to buy 28 new maritime choppers.

          Ottawa ruled out bids from a consortium between Lockheed Martin Corp. and N.H. Industries, which includes Italy’s Finmeccanica unit Agusta as well as a unit of European aerospace company EADS. Jane Billings of the Public Works Department told a news briefing the consortium’s NH-90 helicopter had failed a series of pre-bidding trials “in a number of areas”. She gave no details.

          The NH-90 helicopter has previously been selected by nine countries with an excess of 400 on order, but it is deemed to not even qualified to compete in the Canadian program.

          Could it be that Canada is playing politics with this purchase, choosing to prevent a consortium with at least two coalition nation firms from even participating?

          Personally, I don’t find this to be an improper action by Canada. However, based on your perspective of the US policy on Iraq, I am curious as to how you perceive this.

        • #2671162

          Say it Aint So – Canadan doing something like that

          by jimhm ·

          In reply to Canada Looking for New Helicopters

          Come on According to the OZMENTALCASE that would never ever – never never be done by the Canadians … So you must have you facts wrong – I am sure OzNutcase will be around to correct it … with the normal Ozzie Spin…

          Hum – restrict bids for politcal reasons – interesting concept…

        • #2671084

          Good point oldefar

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Say it Aint So – Canadan doing something like that

          Good find, there may be political reasons there may be others as you’ve said they are undislosed, as of now anyway.

          The bottom line here is that this isn’t an issue of how Canada spends money, if it is true that they are closing doors on purchases from other countries, I’d be just as opposed to it s anyone.

          Like I said, I am happy to see fault in my own government, unlike many US citizens. I would ddefinitely NOT defend such actions as you all have in a very politically biased way for reasons other than helping Iraq to rebuild.

          This is also not even close to the same scope as what you are loking at, even 50 Helicopters would not even come close to the same. But you’re missing the point all together, the biid WAS opened to otehr countries, this MUST (just speculated) lower the bids from ALL sources and the Canadian governemtn will pay a lower price overall, no matter WHO they deal with.

          This is all I would eppect from the USA if I lived there. Don’t just spend the MOST money you possibly can, open the competition, and as I’ve said over and over again, the US is then welcome to do whatever they want with the bids. In the end, even if they choose to pay a possibly higher price to deal with a US firm (who incidentally wil outsource that work to other countries to lower thier OWN costs)at least that firm won’t be bidding uncontested and will offer a FAIR bid.

          It’s got nothing to do with WHO gets the contracts it is HOW the bids are controlled that matters. Why spend MORE when you don’t have to?

          Americans can HAVE the contracts for all I care, how much of that money is wasted due to a lack of competition should be YOUR concern though. Not WHO gets it.

        • #2671075


          by road-dog ·

          In reply to Good point oldefar

          Think of it this way.

          Company x – American company

          Weasel, Inc. – French Company

          When the contract goes to company X, the money assists that company’s earnings, stimulates job growth here in the US, and ultimately pays corporate taxes and income taxes back to the US treasury. Every Caterpillar bulldozer bought for the job puts Americans to work. The circle of life continues…

          If the contract goes to Weasel, Inc., the taxes go to the french government and their white flag stockpiles increase. No help to the American economy (or the American worker/taxpayer) results.

          Personally, if it comes down to a Michelin tire employee in France or a Goodyear employee here in the US being kept in a job using our tax dollars, let the American earn a living. The frenchman will probably go on strike anyway….

        • #2671049

          Well that’s a new view

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Why?

          Apparently if you don’t get these contracts, everone will be unemployed. Did these companies form for the sole purpose of rebuilding Iraq or were they actually providing products and servicees each day anyway?

          Your chromosome example is correct if the work is for rebuilding America.

          One of the largest bids so far has gone to an American company that Cheney used to work for and they have in turn started employing French services with the money. Not Americans.

          The idea when you run such a company is to provide the labour and materials at the lowest possible cost to create the greatest net profit for yourself, not Bob in shipping, he wouldn’t even see the difference.

          So lets have American companies that are owed favours by politicians actually receive the Prime Contracts without any competetive bids. They will then get the MOST money they possibly can out of YOUR pocket and hire a Western European or Middle Eastern labout force to implement the work and carry out the project using British, French, German or whatever materials they can obtain and deliver at the lowest possible cost. You don’t really think they will in turn subcontract to US companies unless absolutely neccessary do you?

          Companies don’t give two S&%$s about American companies, unless they are being undersold.

          WaMart is one of the largest buyers of general household products from TV’s to tights. How much of THAT is coming from American companies? Perhaps that is the reason WalMart is having such a hard time opening in Canada. They have been turned down on several requests forWalMart stores in Canada so far as they do not contribute to the Canadian economy and exploit foreign workers to keep, what they state is, the lowest price.

          Why are 24 hour convenience stores MORE expensive than Piggly Wiggly? NO competition at 2AM perhaps? They don’t have to offer a competetive price because they have no compatition.

          This is exactly what happens to your billions, they will be wasted due to no competitive bidding, whether or not you get ALL the prime contracts, if the bid is closed, it is absolutely impossible for you to gain benefit.

          Prime contracts or not though, your money is already being spent elsewhere by the US companies that HAVE won several Prime contracts. Closing bids hurts YOU, not me.

        • #2671546

          Halliburton, the can-do contractor

          by road-dog ·

          In reply to Why?

          The relationship between Halliburton and the US government is neither new nor improper.

          The anti Bush types love to use Halliburton as demonstrative of President Bush’s corporate cronyism. I suspect that most of these types even know what Halliburton is and what they do.

          Basically, Halliburton is a highly respected “anything-anywhere” provider of services to the government on retainer. They specialize in large scale efforts where a lot needs to come together right now. Think of them as a global reach think tank / jack of all trades.

          One thing that the angry left also like to hammer on is Halliburton’s “no bid” status in Iraq. They fail to mention that the Clinton Administration retained their services “no bid” as well. Bidding business requires revealing large amounts of data to numerous companies for them to create a valid bid. More companies equals less security. It is both smarter and more responsive to retain a highly experienced and adaptive company that can compartmentalize subcontracts to other companies in it’s list of contacts.

          The relationship between Halliburton and the US government is neither new nor improper.

        • #2670987

          Oz – Regarding Closed Bids

          by oldefar ·

          In reply to Good point oldefar

          A point of clarification. The policy simply limits prime contractor bids to coalition nation firms. There are 63 nations able to bid as prime contractor. Your comments seem to imply a belief that only US firms can bid as prime contractor.

          I made the initial comment to Maxwell’s discussion and stated I found the policy stupid. I surmized the intent was to reward coalition nations and penalize those who opposed the coalition. My feeeling was that this could have been accomplished without generating so much negative perception, and that those excluded nations could have reacted better as well.

          I may have missed another intent. Despite the negative perceptions and without the direct involvement of Powell, France and Germany have agreed to restructure Iraq’s debt. This has been a goal of the Bush administration for some time, but action did not occur until he put a clear stake in the ground with the policy regarding how US reconstruction funds would be spent.

          On other fronts, Iran has moved to meet the UN nuclear regulatory requirements and allow surprize inspections of their facilities, Syria has moved to provide better cooperation regarding terrorists. These actions occurred after coalition forces took down Saddam.

          I used to work for Ross Perot, and a favorite saying of his was “upfront, blunt, and candid”. He certainly alienated some of those he dealt with, the GM board of directors in particular, but people knew where he stood on issues. Regardless of how you felt about his perspective, you knew what it was and how he was going to act. He coupled this with his (paraphrasing) if you see a snake, you kill it, you don’t have a committee to discuss snakes.

          Bush has been applying this same approach, and has had some real success. In comparison to the years prior to his US leadership, the world has acted on some long standing concerns.

          Finally, regarding the relationship of contracts and companies, and their links to the current admimistration. The links are casual and statisticly insignificant. Instead of making the assumption based on a couple of contracts, the whole of government contracts in relation to personal links and financial contributions has to be made. It does not hold up under valid statistical analysis. Like toilet paper causing cancer, the relationship is simply casual and not cause and effect.

        • #2670911

          Well said

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Oz – Regarding Closed Bids

          I know that recent changes to the suggested policy have shown a different reality than first expected.

          I also agree that one or two companies is a poor example of corruption. USAID has been doing well at fairly issuing contracts up to now and probably will continue to do so in the furture.

          My defense is more against those such as Jim who feels that everyone should be cut out so America can feed itself and pay itself back.

          This theory just doesn’t make any sense whatsoever after spouting about America only having Iraq’s best interests in mind. Some also seem to feel it is a way to keep contracts in the USA, which it is not as Prime contracts are subcontracted out to mainly European and Middle Eastern countries.

          For some to say that You Guys don’t deserve the money, let us have it all is completely retareded, as I’ve said before this is a humanitarian not political effort. Close Bids to everyone but america so we can see the tax money and Bobby is employed? How so? The fact is that some feel monopoly will retain funds in America and benefit the people of America, MY stand is that monopoly helps the company WITH the monopoly, not the people in it’s community.

          People who work for large companies now will work for large companies tomorrow, this is not a way of reducing unemployment, as some suggested.

          The whole concept of how big businesses invest thier money and bid on contracts is way off here, these companies have ONE goal in mind, PRIFIT margin. Not community support, not helping keep money in America, not saving Billy and giving money back to the country. Invest in the LOWEST possibly resource costs and make the greatest profit, end of story.

          To see some speaking of righteousness AND big business at the same time is ridiculous. That is definitely an oxymoron.

    • #2672063

      It’ sgonna be a long time

      by oz_media ·

      In reply to Excluding countries that opposed the war in Iraq from reconstruction

      I can’t believe that we will still all be droning on and on about the Iraq situation for at least another two years. If this is cleaned up and troops are out of Iraq in less than two years I will be shocked, as many of BUSH’s cabinet me,bers will too. I think this terrorism will continue for a long time yet, people seem to be thinking it’s almost over and then build a few new houses and that’s that. I think it will ba a LOOOOOONG time before ANY preliminary contracts can be strated by outside organizations (other than military engineers who have recently worked hard to rebuild several buildings for them to occupy and it’s nice to hear that they fixed their showers, at least they won’t look like Saddam.

      What I see here is so many finalization statements that appear to be implying over the next few months to a year all will be done.

      From what I’ve seen and heard, I think it will be double that before we can even start contracting safely in Iraq. I don’t know who it was but a US Gov member was radio interviewed and he thinks that if they can rid the terrorism in Iraq over the next 18 months, they are well ahead of schedule.

    • #2671497

      Well here is something to think about from the man on the ground

      by hal 9000 ·

      In reply to Excluding countries that opposed the war in Iraq from reconstruction

      I got this in my e-mail tonight from a reputiable source and although it is SPAM I thought it might prove interesting here.

      Dear Sir/Madam:

      Greetings from Sunny Dubai:

      We are interested in having the right contact details of the person in charge of business development for Iraq.

      We are holding a conference to discuss business Opportunities in Iraq and we hope to invite a representative from your company.

      This event will be attended by top corporate executives, government officials, humanitarian leaders and foreign diplomats.

      ‘3rd ReBUILDING IRAQ’ will be held in Washington DC. This 2-days event is organized and hosted by New Fields Exhibitions.

      I appreciate your time and attention.

      For more information please visit


      Mohamed Ibrahim

      • #2671495

        And for just under $1,000 U.S. dollars. . .

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to Well here is something to think about from the man on the ground

        …You can attend this conference.

        I don’t know about the legitimacy of this particular event, but there will be, without question, business opportunities in Iraq for both the Iraqis and those from the outside who could help them make it happen.

        And once the rest of the middle-east sees what’s possible………

    • #2671285

      Where am I?

      by bonham23 ·

      In reply to Excluding countries that opposed the war in Iraq from reconstruction

      Did this suddenly turn in to the ‘politics today’ discussion board?

      • #2671256


        by oz_media ·

        In reply to Where am I?

        So are you right or left wing. Left wing sits alone, right wing can join Max and Jim on the other bench.

        In order to discuss technology it is important which bench you are sittig on, otherwise your comments may be completely ignored or reduced to biased slander.

        Don’t forget to wear your gold star in public.

      • #2672974

        Do-do-do-do. Do-do-do-do (music playing)

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to Where am I?

        You have just stepped into another dimension. A dimension not only of sight and sound, but of words. Words that are both meaningful and meaningless. Words that say something, yet mean nothing at all. Words which, by all accounts, are meant to take you to a place the squemish dare not tread. YOU HAVE JUST ENTERED………THE TWILIGHT ZONE

Viewing 13 reply threads