Subject:
|
Re: Bush defends exclusion order on contracts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 15 Dec 2003 10:59:47 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
393 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli wrote:
| |
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.
|
I’m not really surprised are you.
| |
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.”
|
Wait why would Iraq have a debt? Saddam’s regime had a debt but what does that
have to do with Iraq?
|
Who else should pay it. When a company gets a new CEO, does its debt usually get
wiped?
| |
Of course that is the only reason certain countries
opposed military action in the first place.
|
That may be a reason for some *individuals* to appose the invasion. However, it
does not explain the millions across the world who opposed the war; many of whom
also opposed the support given to SH back in the 80s by the west! (I wonder if
SH will get the opportunity to tell us about that support at his trial?)
| |
| |
Is that incredible optimism, incredibly bad timing, incredible arrogance, or
incredible stupidity?
|
I would have to say incredible stupidity. The Iraqi people owe nothing to
those who lent money to Saddam anyway. Just as the US taxpayers should expect
no return on helping the Iraqi people get rid of his rule.
|
I thought “US taxpayers” may be interested in this titbit:
The same old racket
in Iraq
“The state facilities that were so carefully targeted with bombs and shells have
now to be reconstructed, but this time under the aegis of private firms,
preferably American, though Blair and Berlusconi, and perhaps plucky Poland too,
will not be forgotten at handouts time. Meanwhile, Dick Cheney’s old firm,
Halliburton, awarded a contract (without any competition) to rebuild Iraq’s oil
industry, is happily boosting profits by charging the US government $2.64 a
gallon for the fuel it trucks into Iraq from Kuwait. The normal price per
gallon in the region is 71 cents, but since the US taxpayer is footing the bill,
nobody cares.”
Scott A
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Bush defends exclusion order on contracts
|
| (...) Depends if the old CEO is responsible for bringing the company to its knees. Often when companies go into receivership the creditors receive a miniscule portion of what is owed. But generally those creditors are not barred from helping to (...) (21 years ago, 15-Dec-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Bush defends exclusion order on contracts
|
| (...) I'm not really surprised are you. (...) Wait why would Iraq have a debt? Saddam's regime had a debt but what does that have to do with Iraq? Of course that is the only reason certain countries opposed military action in the first place. (...) (...) (21 years ago, 15-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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
