The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Light wrote:
> Skarra, I'd agree with you if it were just an issue of troops.
> However, as Canada, Franca, and Germany have all contributed a lot of
> cash toward the initial rebuilding of Iraq, how can you say they're
> not entitled to bid for the contracts for the main bulk of
> rebuilding?
>
> Also, does no-one else think that this is further evidence that the
> war was about nothing much more then Bush's buddies lining their
> pockets? Or am I just especially paranoid today?
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.
Anyway, as i said, Canada, and others who have made huge contributions to the War on Terror shouldn't be kept out.
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'.
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?
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?
> Skarra, I'd agree with you if it were just an issue of troops.
> However, as Canada, Franca, and Germany have all contributed a lot of
> cash toward the initial rebuilding of Iraq, how can you say they're
> not entitled to bid for the contracts for the main bulk of
> rebuilding?
>
> Also, does no-one else think that this is further evidence that the
> war was about nothing much more then Bush's buddies lining their
> pockets? Or am I just especially paranoid today?
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.
Anyway, as i said, Canada, and others who have made huge contributions to the War on Terror shouldn't be kept out.
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'.
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?
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?
Skarra, I'd agree with you if it were just an issue of troops. However, as Canada, Franca, and Germany have all contributed a lot of cash toward the initial rebuilding of Iraq, how can you say they're not entitled to bid for the contracts for the main bulk of rebuilding?
Also, does no-one else think that this is further evidence that the war was about nothing much more then Bush's buddies lining their pockets? Or am I just especially paranoid today?
Also, does no-one else think that this is further evidence that the war was about nothing much more then Bush's buddies lining their pockets? Or am I just especially paranoid today?
I think the intention was always that the US would contribute the overwhelming majority of military presence to invade Iraq, whether France agreed to the war or not, they weren't going to send troops.
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.
In Iraq, its quite simple. Countries like France were saying, No, we must not go into Iraq, No, we must not go into Iraq.
Then, we go into Iraq. All of a sudden, they say, hey, George, how about throwning some of those contracts our way??
Sure, countries like Canada shouldn't be kept out, but can't you understand why the Americans are doing this. After all, keeping the money in the Coalition is a marked improvement on just US companies getting the contracts.
In Iraq, its quite simple. Countries like France were saying, No, we must not go into Iraq, No, we must not go into Iraq.
Then, we go into Iraq. All of a sudden, they say, hey, George, how about throwning some of those contracts our way??
Sure, countries like Canada shouldn't be kept out, but can't you understand why the Americans are doing this. After all, keeping the money in the Coalition is a marked improvement on just US companies getting the contracts.
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: