Subject:
|
Re: Bush defends exclusion order on contracts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 12 Dec 2003 05:34:14 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
245 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford wrote:
> http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=13332930
>
> "It is very simple. Our people risk their lives. Friendly coalition folks
> risk their lives. And, therefore, the contracting is going to reflect that.
> And that is what the US taxpayers expect,"
>
> Surprise, surprise, the invasion was more about control than terrorism.
Mmmmmm. I understand that these conditions (who may supply under these
contracts) are in respect of the aid money being provided by the US. It would
not be unheard of for donors to impose these sorts of conditions when giving
money. I guess its something between giving unfettered cash, and providing
services or goods directly. Here, they're giving the money, but with some
conditions as to who can supply the goods/services on which the money will be
spent. It is their money, after all. No doubt the French and Germans could
provide some money of their own, and mandate that its spent on French or German
businesses.
> And then:
>
> http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2003/s1008494.htm
>
> "...after barring major European countries from bidding for the most
> lucrative reconstruction contracts in Iraq, President Bush is now asking
> those same countries for help in forgiving Iraq's debt."
>
> Is that incredible optimism, incredibly bad timing, incredible arrogance, or
> incredible stupidity?
I have a suspicion that this is actually fairly smart. The chief argument among
the countries wailing about missing out on a share of the American
reconstruction money is that they all want to help, and consider it their
international duty etc etc etc. Its not like they're simply on the prowl for
more work for their national industries or anything. So if their enthusiasm for
helping out is true, well, of course, they could always forgive Iraq some debt.
Watch this not happen. And in not actually helping, despite there being clear
avenues open to do so, they make clear their true intent. Hard to complain too
hard about altruistic motives in the press under these conditions.
Richard
Still baldly going...
(and not one to generally find himself defending GWB, but the mindlessness of
some of the reporting around this is getting exceedingly bleak, that even this
little bald duck feels the need to opt in with a fact and a thought)
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Bush defends exclusion order on contracts
|
| (URL) is very simple. Our people risk their lives. Friendly coalition folks risk their lives. And, therefore, the contracting is going to reflect that. And that is what the US taxpayers expect," Surprise, surprise, the invasion was more about (...) (21 years ago, 12-Dec-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
12 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
