To the Victor Go the Spoils... - Page 4 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 12-11-2003, 11:10 PM   #46
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 07:45 AM
I heard the best quote for this war today
"It was supposed to be about WMD's now it's all about money.


Funny that was what my sign said before the war. Same as NO BLOOD FOR OIL, same freakin money and defense industrial complex making the money
__________________

__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 12-11-2003, 11:59 PM   #47
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 12:45 PM
I like it when our soldiers and weapons designers make money. They help keep this world a safer and more secure place. But, their not the chief issue in this current debate. Some countries are crying because their not getting US Taxpayer dollar for development and reconstruction contracts in Iraq.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 12-12-2003, 12:13 AM   #48
Refugee
 
bonoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Edmonton, Canada- Charlestown, Ireland
Posts: 1,398
Local Time: 05:45 AM
You know what, after reading this whole thread i've come to a conclusion.

I dont give a fuck anymore. If the US wants to pick and choose who helps Iraq, let them. In a few years time they will still be part of this mess and Canada wont, thank God.

They choose to go to Iraq and they can have the 18.6 billion in contracts, they will be remembered for the war in iraq by Iragi's, good or bad.

I'd galdly give a few billion to be disassociated with this. It's just to bad we gave 300 million to the US to be told to go fuck ourselves!
__________________
bonoman is offline  
Old 12-12-2003, 12:40 AM   #49
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 12:45 PM
Its up to Canada, if they want to help out with the security situation in the Persian Gulf where the majority of the worlds energy supply comes from, they can. If they want to help a nation of 24 million people form a new country after living under the brutal oppression of a dictator that Canada did not want to overthrow, they can. If they would prefer to bitch and scream from the sidelines while other people do the work in this situation, they can.

No matter what Canada decides to do, they stand to benefit from the actions taken by the USA and other coaltion members.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 12-12-2003, 03:20 AM   #50
Refugee
 
bonoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Edmonton, Canada- Charlestown, Ireland
Posts: 1,398
Local Time: 05:45 AM
Fuck that. YOU ARE WRONG.

If what you mean by Canada benefiting from this with oil then you are wrong. Canada sells most of its oil to the US with Iraq being overthrown and with their oil coming onto the free market it will hurt Canada.

Go find me a qoute that says that Canada supported Saddam. GO!

You wont find it.

Help in the persion gulf, what about the 2000 troops we have in afganistan so you americans can take their troops out of there and send them to iraq?

Work, some work.

You piss me off like no other!
__________________
bonoman is offline  
Old 12-12-2003, 04:40 AM   #51
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Rono's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: the Netherlands
Posts: 6,163
Local Time: 01:45 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
I like it when our soldiers and weapons designers make money. They help keep this world a safer and more secure place. But, their not the chief issue in this current debate. Some countries are crying because their not getting US Taxpayer dollar for development and reconstruction contracts in Iraq.
Ask the turks about the safer world,...
__________________
Rono is offline  
Old 12-12-2003, 09:13 AM   #52
War Child
 
iacrobat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Toronto
Posts: 585
Local Time: 01:45 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
iacrobat,

Lets get some things straight here. The UNITED STATES is spending over 60 Billion dollars in Iraq for reconstruction and security for the people of Iraq. THERE ARE NO STRINGS ATTACHED! Iraq will get the money and as long as Bush has his way with congress, and will never have to repay a dime of it!

When I said it was not a question of the well being of the Iraqi people, I was reffering to which companies could bid for the contracts. The money to rebuild Iraq from the Iraqi people has already been awarded by the US government to Iraq. The only question is which companies get to do the rebuilding. It would be stupid to allow countries that did everything they could diplomatically to prevent the overthrow of Saddam and have not spent any money or sent any troops to aid in development, to be able to all of a sudden make a large profit with US taxpayers money. It would set a terrible precident for the future if countries that do nothing to help and actually try to obstruct the enforcement of UN resolutions are now allowed to profit!
Give the money freely to Iraq let them choose the who they want to rebuild their country after it was destroyed. Let them choose the lowest bidder or the best quality. If America decides, it is a conflict of interest.

America and friends produce and sell millions upon millions of dollars worth of weapons.

America and friends destroy Iraq with those weapons(twice).

America and friends rebuild Iraq and make billions of dollars.

War is big business.

I just don't see it all through rose coloured glasses like you Sting2.

Quote:
I like it when our soldiers and weapons designers make money. They help keep this world a safer and more secure place.
A statement like this represents just about everything that is wrong with this world. Utterly mind boggling.
__________________
iacrobat is offline  
Old 12-12-2003, 11:22 AM   #53
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Elvis Presley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: eachnotesecure.com
Posts: 5,058
Local Time: 08:45 AM
I think it was the right decision basically, but poorly handled. We should have accepted bids from everyone, and awarded contracts based on merit, but accompanied by a set of criteria based on their nationality. France would end up with zero or one, and the US and Britain and our other allies would get a vast majority. It seems fair that return should be based on investment, and I think it would deal with some of the political issues.
__________________
Elvis Presley is offline  
Old 12-12-2003, 03:35 PM   #54
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,294
Local Time: 07:45 AM
There was an interesting editorial letter in the paper today about how Canada should impose a $2 tax on every barrel of oil it sells, and use the money to fund the rebuilding Iraq.

Since the US buys the vast majority of our oil (what, like 80%?), then they can have their precious resource and fund their war too. Works out well, doesn't it?
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 12-12-2003, 05:21 PM   #55
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 07:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by iacrobat


Give the money freely to Iraq let them choose the who they want to rebuild their country after it was destroyed. Let them choose the lowest bidder or the best quality. If America decides, it is a conflict of interest.

America and friends produce and sell millions upon millions of dollars worth of weapons.

America and friends destroy Iraq with those weapons(twice).

America and friends rebuild Iraq and make billions of dollars.

War is big business.

I just don't see it all through rose coloured glasses like you Sting2.



A statement like this represents just about everything that is wrong with this world. Utterly mind boggling.
China, Russia, Soviet Union arm Iraq

Germany helps build Nuke and Bio Facilities in Iraq

Iraq Invades Iran, Iraq Invade Kuwait, Iraq Invade Saudi Arbia

United Nations and the World Take Action

Iraq signs a Treaty

Iraq Violates Treat for 12 years

China, Russia, Germany, France profit from Food for Oil

Russia Violates Flight Regulations into Bagdhad

Saddam Given Control over Food for Oil

Russia, Germany, France use the Veto to keep their OIL contracts.

US and Allies, under UN resolution 1441 and Resolution 683 Chapter 7 Rules Legally Remove Saddam from Power.


UN Passes 2 Unanimous resolutions recognizing the US occupation as Legit....and as the controlling legal authority.



But hey....if you want to reinterpret history go for it.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 12-13-2003, 03:33 PM   #56
War Child
 
iacrobat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Toronto
Posts: 585
Local Time: 01:45 PM
I didn't mean the weapons were sold to Iraq.

I also wasn't attempting to "re-interpret" history (as if there is only one way of looking at thing anyways). I was simply pointing out that war is indeed big business. Therefore the motives for the invasion must be questioned. I don't see them as entirely wholesome.

And really, what would the UN have done after the US invaded Iraq? It wouldn't have mattered to Bush one way or the other.
__________________
iacrobat is offline  
Old 12-14-2003, 05:25 AM   #57
War Child
 
iacrobat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Toronto
Posts: 585
Local Time: 01:45 PM
From the Toronto Star:

Dec. 14, 2003. 01:00AM

Quote:
Takeover by new PM could set stage for vigorous lobbying movement to push for closer ties with the United States

LINDA MCQUAIG

All those poor nations that were strong-armed into joining Washington's "coalition of the willing" finally got their reward last week their companies will be permitted to bid on $18 billion worth of Pentagon contracts for reconstructing Iraq.

No doubt champagne glasses were clinking and CEOs doing high-fives in corporate boardrooms throughout Rwanda, Eritrea, Albania, Mongolia, Tonga, Uganda, etc. (Although it seems unlikely that Third World companies will squeeze out Halliburton, Bechtel, etc.)

Meanwhile, countries in the coalition of the unwilling including Canada are barred from the Pentagon contracts, illustrating again that the Bush administration seems to regard Iraq as a treasure chest of spoils, to be doled out only to those who have helped in the heist.

All this came at an awkward time for Paul Martin, who last week was in the final throes of taking over the reins of power in Ottawa, and who has vowed to improve U.S.-Canada relations.

Martin quickly leapt into the fray, proclaiming the Pentagon blacklist "difficult to fathom" although it's hard to imagine anything much more straightforward.

It's nice to see our new Prime Minister questioning the Pentagon, but his protests over the Iraq contracts are misplaced. This is one sandbox we should be happy to stay out of.

To begin with, let's remember what we're dealing with here reconstruction contracts awarded by an army of occupation. The whole premise is wrong. The only people who should be rebuilding Iraq are Iraqis.

Iraq has a highly educated workforce that effectively managed the country's electrical, water, education, health care and oil-pumping systems even under the deprivation of years of harsh sanctions until Washington invaded last spring.

In fact, Iraqis could probably rebuild their country for a lot less than what the Pentagon is paying. (Halliburton, which has already been awarded contracts over there worth $5 billion, has been charging the Pentagon twice the going rate for delivering fuel from Kuwait to Iraq, the New York Times reported last week.)

If the U.S. wants to turn Iraq into a functioning country not to mention a democracy it should start by doing something about unemployment levels there that are above 50 per cent. So Iraqis rebuilding Iraq I know it sounds radical would be a good place to start.

But Canadians should also be happy to pass up these Pentagon contracts because of the strings attached. The Bush administration could hardly be clearer: It's a package deal. As deputy U.S. Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz put it: "Limiting competition for prime contracts will encourage the expansion of international co-operation in Iraq and in future efforts." Fight American wars, get Pentagon contracts. No blood, no booty.

This is a horrific package deal, particularly with a White House that has declared itself ready to fight preemptive wars.

Of course, Washington plans to make all the decisions about where and when to wage war, but it would clearly like to have some willing helpers well-armed, co-operative, cheerful nations to help out in war zones.

Canada, with its ample resources and reputation for deferential behaviour, would seem like the perfect fit except that it's been strangely unco-operative lately, refusing to fight in Iraq, spending money on health care that it could be putting towards beefing up its military.

All that may be about to change, however, now that the cranky former prime minister has been ousted in a bloodless coup and replaced with a new leader who promises friendlier U.S.-Canada ties. (As a CNN headline put it on Friday: "Pro-American takes over as Canadian PM.")

I suspect most Canadians would like to continue to stay out of U.S. wars and would prefer to rebuild our public health-care system before worrying about our military.

But there are powerful elements in our corporate elite many of whom contributed heavily to Martin's recent leadership campaign with different priorities. The Canadian Council of Chief Executives (CCCE), headed by Tom d'Aquino, has been pushing for what it calls deeper integration with the U.S., which includes closer economic and military co-operation.

This would better position Canadian firms to win contracts from the Pentagon, which has an astonishing $400 billion a year to dispense.

But don't bother applying unless your government is onside. One effect of deeper integration, then, according to defence analyst Steven Staples at Ottawa's Polaris Institute, would be to activate a powerful Canadian corporate lobby, which would pressure Ottawa to keep our foreign policy in line with Washington's.

All this threatens to put Canada on a reckless, dangerous and immoral course, as a sidekick in Washington's wars and a northern branch of its military-industrial complex.

Linda McQuaig is a Toronto-based author and political commentator.
__________________

__________________
iacrobat is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:45 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com