The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
After widespread apathy for Bush setting up his old oil companies with lucrative Iraqi contracts, the US are extending their economic dodgyness.
Link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/ [space] world/americas/3310935.stm
Then again, if it's only American money (for now - I'm not taking much on trust with Bush ;^) )being put into the restricted bidding process, that's their right, right?
I'm not sure.
I want to put the issue of international law to one side for a moment, since it's only the rules put in place and accepted by the states it binds. It doesn't really embrace any intrinsicly moral position.
It is American money, but after levelling much of Iraq, I don't think anyone can deny that the coalition, America included, have a responsibility to make large contributions to rebuilding the country.
So it's American money, but they have a moral responsibility to use it to rebuild Iraq.
The US's attitude, show by the restricted bidding process, is one of compromise between what's best for Iraq (allowing bidding for contracts this time) and for the coalition (keeping the money within the coalition).
So how does the=is compromise satisfy the US's moral responsibility to rebuild Iraq?
I'm not sure, I'm afraid. Maybe one of you hippies can pursuade me.
My gut says that the money is 'owed' to Iraq, and any restriction that minimises the benefit it can bring to the country is bad.
But then, I'm a lefy Bush-hater :^S
Link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/ [space] world/americas/3310935.stm
Then again, if it's only American money (for now - I'm not taking much on trust with Bush ;^) )being put into the restricted bidding process, that's their right, right?
I'm not sure.
I want to put the issue of international law to one side for a moment, since it's only the rules put in place and accepted by the states it binds. It doesn't really embrace any intrinsicly moral position.
It is American money, but after levelling much of Iraq, I don't think anyone can deny that the coalition, America included, have a responsibility to make large contributions to rebuilding the country.
So it's American money, but they have a moral responsibility to use it to rebuild Iraq.
The US's attitude, show by the restricted bidding process, is one of compromise between what's best for Iraq (allowing bidding for contracts this time) and for the coalition (keeping the money within the coalition).
So how does the=is compromise satisfy the US's moral responsibility to rebuild Iraq?
I'm not sure, I'm afraid. Maybe one of you hippies can pursuade me.
My gut says that the money is 'owed' to Iraq, and any restriction that minimises the benefit it can bring to the country is bad.
But then, I'm a lefy Bush-hater :^S
Page:
Yeah, I admit it was a slightly tangential point, it was just a thought I had when writing it.
Biggles, i could not agree with you more.
But to be fair, not disagreeing, but to be fair. We shouldn't have expected France to jump on board in thanks for the help we gave them. I'm not saying i disagree with you, but i'm trying to be a bit pragmatic.
But to be fair, not disagreeing, but to be fair. We shouldn't have expected France to jump on board in thanks for the help we gave them. I'm not saying i disagree with you, but i'm trying to be a bit pragmatic.
My view is that seeing as the Coalition risked far more when invading Iraq, then as long as they do the best possible job in rebuilding Iraq, then I think they should have the right to restrict who can get rebuilding contracts.
The Germans never risked anything. Why should they gain anything?
The French never risked anything. YI would have thought that considering the events of the past 100 years or so and how France only exists because of Britain and America that they might have given the Coalition a bit of support. But no. So why should they gain anything?
The war also cost a lot - to the Coalition countries who fought it. The rebuilding contracts would give their economies a boost. If a company gets a £1 billion contract, they keep their employees in pay, they make more profit and a little of that returns to the treasuries of the Coalition countries. Why should France or Germany etc be able to get that economic boost, small as it is, when they never risked anything?
The only worry I have in the restriction of contracts is the possibility that an inferior job is done in some areas. However I have yet to think of an example where a French or German company is notably technologically better at something than an American or British company.
The Germans never risked anything. Why should they gain anything?
The French never risked anything. YI would have thought that considering the events of the past 100 years or so and how France only exists because of Britain and America that they might have given the Coalition a bit of support. But no. So why should they gain anything?
The war also cost a lot - to the Coalition countries who fought it. The rebuilding contracts would give their economies a boost. If a company gets a £1 billion contract, they keep their employees in pay, they make more profit and a little of that returns to the treasuries of the Coalition countries. Why should France or Germany etc be able to get that economic boost, small as it is, when they never risked anything?
The only worry I have in the restriction of contracts is the possibility that an inferior job is done in some areas. However I have yet to think of an example where a French or German company is notably technologically better at something than an American or British company.
Light wrote:
> Huh?!? Whatthefu....
>
> What are you supposed to have done now?!
Ah, so Belldandy got that job in the end... ;^D
> Huh?!? Whatthefu....
>
> What are you supposed to have done now?!
Ah, so Belldandy got that job in the end... ;^D
Skarra wrote:
> Well this is like the story of the girl and the bread. She asked
> everybody if they would help her to make some bread. Only a few said
> yes. Then, when it was made, everybody who said no to helping asked
> for some. And of course, she told them where to go.
I see your point, but I'm not sure it's fair to look at commercial opportunities in Iraq as the 'bread' the coalition have been making.
Like I said in the original post, I think the coalition have a moral responsibility to finance the rebuilding of Iraq. I still figure trying to turn an economic advantage for themselves from that money, at the expense of Iraqi's could well breach that responsibility.
> Well this is like the story of the girl and the bread. She asked
> everybody if they would help her to make some bread. Only a few said
> yes. Then, when it was made, everybody who said no to helping asked
> for some. And of course, she told them where to go.
I see your point, but I'm not sure it's fair to look at commercial opportunities in Iraq as the 'bread' the coalition have been making.
Like I said in the original post, I think the coalition have a moral responsibility to finance the rebuilding of Iraq. I still figure trying to turn an economic advantage for themselves from that money, at the expense of Iraqi's could well breach that responsibility.
*shrugs*
Huh?!? Whatthefu....
What are you supposed to have done now?!
What are you supposed to have done now?!
Your guess is as good as mine.
Light wrote:
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/ 0,12271,1105730,00.html
I saw that headline on the website this morning and it made me smile, but I didn't read the story. It was a bit of a disappointment. I'd hoped that Dick Cheney had been caught in the Baghdad Hilton throwing fistfuls of dollars into the air and snorting cocaine from the nipples of a Playmate. But no such luck.
Incidentally, why has IB been banned again?
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/ 0,12271,1105730,00.html
I saw that headline on the website this morning and it made me smile, but I didn't read the story. It was a bit of a disappointment. I'd hoped that Dick Cheney had been caught in the Baghdad Hilton throwing fistfuls of dollars into the air and snorting cocaine from the nipples of a Playmate. But no such luck.
Incidentally, why has IB been banned again?
Skarra wrote:
>
> But countries like Russia, France and Germany are all owed a lot of
> money by Iraq. George Bush said, if you want to help, send peace
> keepers. Failing that, call of the debt. They said no.
Doesn't change the fact that they've contributed to rebuilding Iraq, does it? I agree with you about cancelling debt; don't you think though that all 3rd world debt should be cancelled? After all, most of it is owed to the US and UK. It's hypocritical of the US to use that excuse when they are one of the worst offenders themselves.
>
> Anyway, as i said, Canada, and others who have made huge
> contributions to the War on Terror shouldn't be kept out.
But the War on Terror is, thus far, a failure. More terrorists abound. More killings. More death. More war. Less safety. Less peace. Anyone contributing to it seems to be making things worse under that moronic chimp's leadership.
>
> But, as a White House spokes person said yesterday on Fox News, this
> isn't about punishing the anti-war lot, but more a case of rewarding
> the 'willing'.
The willing to do what? Every single nation said they'd back a UN mandated invasion of Iraq. The US and UK spread a lot of BS about France in order to justify not even waiting for the vote. War should be the last resort, not the first. It seems that Dubya simply wants to punish anyone who disagrees with him. Very statesmanlike...
>
> They risked an awful lot, why shouldn't they get some good from it.
> I'm not saying thats the only reason we went to war, so as to get
> rich from rebuilding. But, it cost a lot to go to war, its American
> money, why shouldn't we get something back?
It's the main reason though, isn't it? Check this;
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/ 0,12271,1105730,00.html
It cost a lot to go to war. Had they waited, a UN mandate would have spread the cost. The US are trying to punish other countries for Dubya's own stupidity.
>
> I think it's not so much a case of why France and others shouldn't
> get the contracts. But more a case of why shouldn't we?
But that's not the case; if it was, then France wouldn't be banned from getting the contracts. If it was "Why shouldn't we" then why ban anti-war nations?
>
> But countries like Russia, France and Germany are all owed a lot of
> money by Iraq. George Bush said, if you want to help, send peace
> keepers. Failing that, call of the debt. They said no.
Doesn't change the fact that they've contributed to rebuilding Iraq, does it? I agree with you about cancelling debt; don't you think though that all 3rd world debt should be cancelled? After all, most of it is owed to the US and UK. It's hypocritical of the US to use that excuse when they are one of the worst offenders themselves.
>
> Anyway, as i said, Canada, and others who have made huge
> contributions to the War on Terror shouldn't be kept out.
But the War on Terror is, thus far, a failure. More terrorists abound. More killings. More death. More war. Less safety. Less peace. Anyone contributing to it seems to be making things worse under that moronic chimp's leadership.
>
> But, as a White House spokes person said yesterday on Fox News, this
> isn't about punishing the anti-war lot, but more a case of rewarding
> the 'willing'.
The willing to do what? Every single nation said they'd back a UN mandated invasion of Iraq. The US and UK spread a lot of BS about France in order to justify not even waiting for the vote. War should be the last resort, not the first. It seems that Dubya simply wants to punish anyone who disagrees with him. Very statesmanlike...
>
> They risked an awful lot, why shouldn't they get some good from it.
> I'm not saying thats the only reason we went to war, so as to get
> rich from rebuilding. But, it cost a lot to go to war, its American
> money, why shouldn't we get something back?
It's the main reason though, isn't it? Check this;
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/ 0,12271,1105730,00.html
It cost a lot to go to war. Had they waited, a UN mandate would have spread the cost. The US are trying to punish other countries for Dubya's own stupidity.
>
> I think it's not so much a case of why France and others shouldn't
> get the contracts. But more a case of why shouldn't we?
But that's not the case; if it was, then France wouldn't be banned from getting the contracts. If it was "Why shouldn't we" then why ban anti-war nations?
Page: