Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
United States

Journal pudge's Journal: Contracts 70

Journal by pudge

I don't understand why U.S citizens care that certain foreign companies are not getting access to bids on contracts. Heck, I don't want them to go tyo ANY foreign countries. I want American taxpayer dollars to go to American companies which will do the most to help the American economy by providing American tax revenue and paying American workers.

But let's assume for a moment that there is a good reason to allow other nations to bid. How does it make the least bit of sense for France, Germany, and Russia to say that allowing their companies to bid on contracts would be what is "best for Iraq" when those same countries have refused to do other things that are "best for Iraq," like provide troops and money, and forgive debt? When Gerhard Schroeder stands next to Koffi Annan and says he wants what is best for Iraq, months after refusing to participate in helping Iraq, who in their right mind can believe him?

These countries don't want what is best for Iraq, clearly, or else they would have been helping Iraq all along: again, forgiving debt, providing troops and money. But they've not done these things. So why else would they want the contracts if not for Iraq's sake? Perhaps ... for their own self-interest? Because they believe that these contracts would help their countries? They want to help France, Germany, and Russia, not Iraq.

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Contracts More

Contracts

Comments Filter:
  • The American Mindset is that what was best for Iraq was military action. Not everyone (including many Americans) believe that was what was best for Iraq. Many more now believe that it wasn't what was best for Iraq. However noone will deny that rebuilding the country and cleaning up the mess that the military action has caused is best for Iraq. Why should we deny someone the opportunity to help Iraq because of an earlier disagreement? Isn't the point of this whole thing to rebuild Iraq so that they can take
    • What is not just best for Iraq, but more importantly, best for the US was to remove Saddam from power in Iraq, and to shut down his ability to back terrorist groups through hiding them and training them in his country, and taking away his ability to back them financially. Records show (and Saddam openly admitted) that Saddam helped to financially reward families of suicide bombers in Israel. Is it too much of a leap in logic to think that he isn't nor would not be interested in doing the same with terrori
    • However noone will deny that rebuilding the country and cleaning up the mess that the military action has caused is best for Iraq. Why should we deny someone the opportunity to help Iraq because of an earlier disagreement?

      Apparently you didn't read what I wrote, or didn't understand it. When given the opportunity to help Iraq by GIVING -- giving money, giving troops, forgiving debt -- these countries refused. The only wish to "help Iraq" when by TAKING -- taking American money for their companies.

      Why

      • The only wish to "help Iraq" when by TAKING -- taking American money for their companies.

        So next time a Wal-Mart asks a city to re-zone so it can move in and start charging money in exchange for its goods and services, I assume you will decry this as "TAKING" from the community?

        I didn't realize that supporting GWB required conservatives to brainwash themselves to such a degree. Now you're claiming exchange of goods and services at an agreed-upon price is necessarily exploitation of the buyer by the corp

        • So next time a Wal-Mart asks a city to re-zone so it can move in and start charging money in exchange for its goods and services, I assume you will decry this as "TAKING" from the community?

          You apparently misunderstand. I am not criticizing it because it is taking. I am criticizing the refusal of giving in light of the desire of taking under the guise of wanting to do what is best for Iraq. If the local government said the point of letting in the Wal-Mart was to do what was best for consumers, but then
          • As to the money: oh great, $136 million. That gets us less than 0.16 percent of the $87 billion we need, and still doesn't supply toward our greatest need, which is troops. Yes, I know that this is probably more than the Marshall Islands have done, but at risk of sound Marxist: to each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities. :-)

            you can't hear me, but I am clapping very loudly right now
  • Being the typical liberal and assuming that the liberal viewpoint is always correct, I assumed that the objection was that Iraqi funded endeavors would not be allowed to go to Germany or France. This would lend credence to the allegation that we Americans only got into the war because we wanted oil and oil money.

    You're saying that this whole flap is over American funded projects? If that's the case I have no idea why this is even a minor news item. This is totally standard American porkbarrel politics. It'
  • When this exercise started, the left warned that the goal was securing oil funds for ourselves and our buddies, at the cost of human lives: "blood for oil." The right said we were wrong, wrong, wrong, and as soon as expedient began trumpeting that our dying soldiers were dying for a good cause: saving Iraqis from despair and death. Look how much good we're doing, we were told (and don't look for WMDs). Why, are you leftists so callous that you don't care about the Iraqi people?

    Meanwhile, the nations of Eu

    • Sorry Jamie, I missed the part where you showed that these countries actually have shown that they do care about what was best for Iraq, such that anyone should listen to them now when they say they do, when it might actually benefit them.
      • I missed the part where you showed that these countries actually have shown that they do care about what was best for Iraq, such that anyone should listen to them now when they say they do, when it might actually benefit them.

        All the evidence indicates what they actually cared about was continuing to line their pockets as they had been before, illegally supplying shiny new Roland missiles and other novel forms of "food" under oil-for-food. He also forgot to supply any evidence that it was Iraqi oil money

        • You misunderstood me; the mass graves are quite real. The lies I was referring to were the right's series of excuses, one of which was Saddam Hussein's brutal treatment of his people. (There is, sadly, no shortage of other dictators in the world who kill their own people just as dead, yet we cozy up to some of them. And we didn't care much about S.H.'s mass murdering when we were helping him gas Iran during the Iran-Iraq war.)

          The countries on the verboten list are helping Iraq, as I noted in another threa

          • And I'm sorry, you're just wrong; we are taking their oil money, it's under our control now.

            You've said this twice, and not provided a shred of evidence that says anyone has taken any oil or money from oil from the Iraqis. Also, if you do provide this, note that simply taking oil or money doesn't in any way support the "blood for oil" screed, because it was admitted all along by proponents of the war that it would be appropriate, if feasible, to use oil and oil money for the rebuilding effort.

            It's only

        • [Jamie] "also forgot to supply any evidence that it was Iraqi oil money Congress was supplying, or how they're doing that when the Iraqi oil money is going into a non-US-controlled escrow account."

          Remember the Oil For Food program, administered by the U.N.? The one that "assumed temporary custody of Iraq's oil exports and applied the revenue to a humanitarian program"?

          It was cancelled [cpa-iraq.org] last month. The U.S. wanted control of it, and the U.N. was happy to get its people the hell out of Iraq because they ke

          • It is control of SOME money for SOME oil, only oil that went to specific existing approved and funded contracts under the OFF program previously. And while there is no "oversight" in the form of approval, there is an accounting of where the money goes that many people are actively looking at, including journalists.

            And do you even know how much money that is? I've no idea. Let's hit a very high figure and say $1b. Let's say this money goes to Halliburton to pay for its contract to rebuild stuff. How ex
            • I'm not going to get deep into this (it's a workday again... how'd that weekend go so fast??)

              But I've noted you saying this before, so I'll just comment on this:

              the problem you can't escape, the flaw in your logic, is that the oil money can never come close to paying for the cost of the war.

              You're still laboring under the illusion that the government of the U.S. has interests identical to its taxpayers, and that the large corporations that buy and sell oil have interests identical to yours and mine.

              • You're still laboring under the illusion that the government of the U.S. has interests identical to its taxpayers, and that the large corporations that buy and sell oil have interests identical to yours and mine.

                No; you are laboring under the illusion that it would sacrifice what will end up being hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money just to get a few billion for corporations. It's one thing to favor corporations over people, even if that is what Bush does. For the sake of argument here, I'

                • "No; you are laboring under the illusion that it would sacrifice what will end up being hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money just to get a few billion for corporations."

                  Not just for that purpose. There are several reasons we went into Iraq.

                  (I just wish the administration would be honest about them and let the American people have a full understanding of this endeavor, so we can decide for ourselves. That's been my only major complaint from the beginning.)

                  • There are several reasons we went into Iraq.

                    (I just wish the administration would be honest about them and let the American people have a full understanding of this endeavor, so we can decide for ourselves. That's been my only major complaint from the beginning.)

                    Mine too! THEN WHY ARE WE FIGHTING??!?!? :-)

                    But seriously folks, I can't buy that this was a reason for war. There is not only no evidence of it, but there's no sense to it, even from the perspective you would attribute to Bush. There are far

                    • There are far better ways to get billions to his corporate friends than this.

                      And they are not mutually exclusive.

                      Now, if you're saying that once they decided to go to war, they used that opportunity to help his corporate friends ... that, I think a lot of people can, and do, believe. But not that it was part of the purpose of the war, no.

                      Few decisions are made in the "waterfall" development mode, nor is there one single purpose for the invasion. Bush is ultimately responsible, but everyone around him

                    • Few decisions are made in the "waterfall" development mode, nor is there one single purpose for the invasion. Bush is ultimately responsible, but everyone around him has their own agenda and their own reasons for influencing his decisions.

                      Yes, and this is always the case. And I see no evidence his close advisors had this as a purpose for war, either.
            • Remember the Oil For Food program, administered by the U.N.? The one that "assumed temporary custody of Iraq's oil exports and applied the revenue to a humanitarian program"?

            You mean, the program that was just a thinly veiled graft and corruption machine that rewarded UN bureaucrats, the French and failed to get needed monies to the people of Iraq [puk.org]? That program?

            • As far as I can tell, while we promise to spend the oil money on humanitarian programs, there is no oversight...

            There was no oversight when th

      • I guess you don't want to talk about the hypocrisy of the U.S. government, because it's pretty clear that our actions of late are indefensible and expose the shallowness of our support for the Iraqi people.

        Since you seem to be conceding that point, sure, let's talk about Germany. You wrote:

        When Gerhard Schroeder stands next to Koffi Annan and says he wants what is best for Iraq, months after refusing to participate in helping Iraq, who in their right mind can believe him?

        You're wrong. Silly you for b

        • I guess you don't want to talk about the hypocrisy of the U.S. government

          Not in aways not directly related to contracts, not in this journal discussion, no, I do not. And no, I am not conceding the point, I am limiting the scope of the discussion.
      • It's not just that Iraqi oil money is now being spent to line the pockets of those the President deems worthy (after the taxpayers picked up the tab for the war).

      Oh yeah, them nefarious republicans hit upon a brilliant strategy there, spend potentially hundreds of billions of dollars for the Military and direct aid in order to get the right to compete against other coalition partners for a few billion dollars in reconstruction projects.

      • It's not just that the facade of "the Iraqi people" has become yet an
  • It's the governments of France and so on that weren't/aren't helping; this policy is indirectly punishing the governments by punishing the private cizitens of those countries. And, assuming that the companies are submitting bids, letting any company from any country submit bids would actually Iraq, since some of those companies would submit lowers bids, so the rebuilding fund could be streched further.
    • It's the governments of France and so on that weren't/aren't helping; this policy is indirectly punishing the governments by punishing the private cizitens of those countries.

      First, a government is its people, in a democracy, which -- presumably -- all of these countries have. Second, the governments want these contracts only because it helps the country at large (that is, what the government represents), not because it merely benefits the companies/private citizens. That's the whole point.
  • Please explain to me why Canada is not eligible for contracts.

    The Bush administration isn't offering any answers; maybe you can do better:

    Q Scott, one of the reasons for the decision is to ostensibly protect U.S. security. Could you explain what security threat Canada poses, and why would countries like Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and Colombia be allowed to bid on contracts?

    MR. McCLELLAN: I think you should look at the entire context of the memo. I mean, specific language that you are referencing, I wa

    • Please explain to me why Canada is not eligible for contracts.

      Last I heard, Bush told Chretien they were (not in so many words). Maybe Bush meant they would be eligible for subcontracts (as all these nations are)? I dunno. I don't really care; again, I would be pleased if all contracts went to only American companies, though the members of the coalition from the beginning should be eligible, I suppose, for political reasons. You were with us, so you get the opportunity to bid. Canada wasn't, so they
      • I expect to see German troops on the ground.

        Germany doesn't have that many to spare, actually. You see, they are tied up in Afghanistan and off the Horn of Africa, trying to be of help to Uncle Sugar by freeing up American troops to go to...Iraq.

        Oh, and the German government is in the middle of a severe budget crisis and can't spare the cash right now...so for them $100 million is a shitload of money.

        And the Bundeswehr is so broke that they couldn't even afford to fly their own troops to Afghanistan -

        • Germany doesn't have that many to spare, actually.

          Yep. They have some to spare, though it isn't many.

          Oh, and the German government is in the middle of a severe budget crisis

          So is just about every country, including the U.S.

          Once again, given that Germany is majorly strapped for cash, it would be highly odd if they gave up their (legitimate) claim to their share of Iraq's sovereign debt.

          Money they won't see any time soon anyway?

          What you're saying is that Germany is more interested in what is best
          • So is just about every country, including the U.S.

            Beg pardon? Germany is under different rules (cf. the Euro) and can't just tax-cut-and-spend its way to happiness. Not to mention that the German budget and tax revenue is a small fraction of that of the US...so once again the $100 million is, for German proportions and given the circumstances, quite a pile of cash.

            US total gov't receipts, 2002: $2.2 trillion.
            US budgetary outlays, 2002: $2.0 trillion. (Source: OMB)
            German total gov't receipts, 2002: ~EU

            • Beg pardon?

              No, I'm sorry. The U.S. has a budget deficit in the hundreds of billions.

              Oh, really?

              According to you, yes, really. You said they don't have many to spare. That implies they have some to spare. So yes, really.

              Ah, but Germany's just of no help at all. Yo, makes loads of sense.

              Yes, I agree, it makes no sens that Germany refuses to help in Iraq.

              Not to mention the idea of sending German troops (draftees, mostly) into what for all intents and purposes is a war zone would not go over too
              • The U.S. has a budget deficit in the hundreds of billions.

                As of 2003, yes. I quoted 2002 figures, straight from the horses' (actually, Office of Management and Budget) mouth. Even so, BFD. $100 mil for the US is chump change. For Germany it isn't -- remember its entire budget is a tenth of America's...and its economy has been in recession for years, and will likely continue to be so for a long time to come. Indeed, Germany could use a touch of help from its old pals in Washington...gee, kinda like a cont

                • They are trying to be of help, as best as they can under the circumstances.

                  It sounds nice, except for the fact that they ARE NOT HELPING.

                  So what the hell is wrong with Germany acting in its own interest?

                  I know English is not your native language, but I've said it quite clearly, several times, including in my initial journal entry, and in the most recent reply. The problem is not that they are acting in their own interest, but that they say that what they want is what is best for Iraq.

                  Nevermind that
                  • It sounds nice, except for the fact that they ARE NOT HELPING

                    Listen, I just showed you a number of ways that Germany is helping, doing precisely what the Bush Administration asked them to do, even though they have very limited means at the moment. Rice and even Rumsfeld have gone out of their way lately to make it clear that they are happy with the German contribution in military help and support -- by relieving badly needed American troops elsewhere. So why do you persist in claiming that Germany "isn't

                    • Listen, I just showed you a number of ways that Germany is helping, doing precisely what the Bush Administration asked them to do,

                      And I told you that the $100m is little enough to be barely worthy of mention; and the help for the troops, while nice, is in my mind offset by the opposition Germany has presented. If Germany were not providing troops in Afghanistan, AND had NOT opposed the U.S. so vociferously in Iraq, how many more troops from other countries might be available? I don't think it is reasona
                    • And I told you that the $100m is little enough to be barely worthy of mention;

                      And I told you that Germany was and is in no position to do much else beyond the help they have provided -- though their help was, in fact, quite substantial, as many in the US Administration have said publicly. So why punish them by not allowing German companies to bid?

                      and the help for the troops, while nice, is in my mind offset by the opposition Germany has presented.

                      Oh, so freeing up substantial American combat troops w

                    • You're not making any sense. Germany did not oppose a war in Iraq; they wanted to wait a while and get more evidence and support, while getting UN approval at the same time. Their "opposition" was to a war without explicit UN approval, not to a war against Iraq per se.

                      That's ludicrous. What about Fischer saying things like, "The regime of Baghdad must be disarmed by peaceful means and there is no need for new resolutions or an ultimatum" [peopledaily.com.cn] back in March? What about Struck last January saying, before Powel
                    • That's ludicrous. What about Fischer saying things like, "The regime of Baghdad must be disarmed by peaceful means and there is no need for new resolutions or an ultimatum" back in March? What about Struck last January saying, before Powell even made his case, that approval of action "is basically not imaginable anymore"? What about Schroeder saying, over and over, unwaveringly, that Germany opposed force and would not support the use of force, and running his campaign on a "no war in Iraq" ticket? This is
                    • You want me to believe that the scores of quotes I heard from German officials -- esp. Fischer and Schroeder -- over 6 months, categorically refusing to allow for the possibility of the use of force, were all misquotes?

                      I do not believe you. Your assertion lacks credibility.

                      Probably because you haven't answered them.

                      I certainly did. Think on.

                      with the implication

                      What you assumed incorrectly was the implication, you mean.

                      Then you changed it again to mean that Germany did provide help

                      There was no

                    • You want me to believe that the scores of quotes I heard from German officials -- esp. Fischer and Schroeder -- over 6 months, categorically refusing to allow for the possibility of the use of force, were all misquotes? I do not believe you. Your assertion lacks credibility.

                      Believe what you want. Though even the English-language links I provided ought to shed some light on that for you -- the German Embassy certainly had some interesting things to say.

                      But as I already mentioned, Germany did have a prop [www.ftd.de]

                    • First: then why should they be denied access to the bidding process, which was the whole point of the discussion from the beginning?

                      No, it wasn't. The whole point of the discussion, expressed in the initial journal entry, was that Schroeder's stated reason for being allowed to participate -- to do what is best for Iraq -- was bullshit.

                      I find it humorous that you change the subject when you're on the short end of the stick.

                      Hey, you've changed the subject a dozen times from the point of the discussion,
                    • Hey, you've changed the subject a dozen times from the point of the discussion, so much that you even forgot what the point of the discussion was. *shrug*

                      Where have I changed the subject?

                      I have been hammering away for all this time making it clear to you that, contrary to what you originally wrote here:

                      These countries don't want what is best for Iraq, clearly, or else they would have been helping Iraq all along: again, forgiving debt, providing troops and money. But they've not done these things.

                      th

                    • If you choose to continue to believe otherwise, whatever

                      Right. Because the scores of quotes I have found online, the dozens of statements I've heard with my own ears, you say they were all taken out of context or misquoted. That is your argument. That's ridiculous.

                      And besides, I've been proven right: Germany has decided to cough up additional help so it can get access to contracts. I was surprised to hear France has too, but whatever.

                      I'm taking my hat and leaving.

                      Oh, darn. So I won't get you rep
                    • Right. Because the scores of quotes I have found online, the dozens of statements I've heard with my own ears, you say they were all taken out of context or misquoted. That is your argument. That's ridiculous.

                      And I suppose I invented the ones I posted?

                      Ah yes. I forged pages from the German Embassy, faked websites from German and British magazines, hacked into their respective websites and posted them, all to win an argument.

                      And besides, I've been proven right

                      What, because Germany decided to continu

                • And one more thing, just to be clear: I don't really consider Germany of the same ilk as France and Russia. I know it has significant problems economically; I know it had its own separate reasons for opposing the war. And I would be far more amenable to opening up contracts to Germany than to the other two. But the bottom line is that there is no reason to help Germany out, as Germany's given us no reason to.

                  When I said "we don't need friends like that" I want to be clear: I wasn't saying I don't want u
        • Germany doesn't have that many to spare, actually. You see, they are tied up in Afghanistan and off the Horn of Africa, trying to be of help to Uncle Sugar by freeing up American troops to go to...Iraq.

          You are mistaken. The German army numbers 340,000 (approximately triple the size of the British army) and the German policy (according to defence minister Rudolf Scharping) is to have 150,000 available for deployment abroad (which is more than the entire British army).
          • You are mistaken. The German army numbers 340,000 (approximately triple the size of the British army) and the German policy (according to defence minister Rudolf Scharping) is to have 150,000 available for deployment abroad (which is more than the entire British army).

            I fear you are far more mistaken. First and most obviously, Scharping hasn't been Defense Minister for quite a long time (since early 2002 IIRC). The Defense Minister is, in fact, Peter Struck [bundestag.de]. Second, the 150,000 number was a target that ha

      • Bush gave Chretien a verbal assurance, according to Chretian who's retiring. But check the list [usembassy.gov], that's officially how things stand and Canada isn't on it.

        Sigh, sure, Canada wasn't "with us," however you define that du jour. Canadian troops are still taking fire [canada.com] in Afghanistan, and Canada has given generously to rebuild Iraq; Bush and you are just pissy because they didn't sign the official (and meaningless) "Coalition" paperwork. Oh well, this thread has beaten that point to death already, so I'll stop.

        • Bush gave Chretien a verbal assurance, according to Chretian who's retiring.

          So, Canada is being allowed to bid. Check.

          Bush and you are just pissy because they didn't sign the official (and meaningless) "Coalition" paperwork

          I never once mentioned anything about that, and it's got nothing to do with what I'm talking about. Apparently you didn't read half of what I wrote, if that much, in this discussion, including the initial journal entry.

          I do find it interesting that you are unabashedly in favor o
      • Hmmmm, maybe by "wasn't with us" you are referring to the Canadian army's infuriating habit of getting in the way of U.S. laser-guided bombs? [www.cbc.ca]

        That was pretty awful of those soldiers, making that F-16 waste perfectly good munitions. I can see why you're so mad at Canada and want it punished.

  • Bid A: French company, $12 billion, 3 months
    Bid B: American company, $15 billion, 4 months

    So, we should spend an extra $3 billion of MY tax money and an extra month, just because we don't like the politics of the country?

    What's the proverb? Cutting off one's nose to spite the face?
    • So, we should spend an extra $3 billion of MY tax money and an extra month, just because we don't like the politics of the country?

      Because the money is going to Americans, providing jobs, which reduces the unemployment, the need for welfare, increases manufacturing, and strengthens the stock market.

      Sure, we might see some returns if we save a million dollars by spending it in another country, but not as much.

      -Brent
      • Because the money is going to Americans

        Couldn't we just do $3 billion in revenue-neutral tax cuts, instead?

        providing jobs

        To Iraqis, mostly, who'll be doing the majority of the work...
        • Couldn't we just do $3 billion in revenue-neutral tax cuts, instead?

          I thought the left, (that includes you, right?) was trying to rescind Bush's tax cuts. Why would you support $3 Billion more?

          To Iraqis, mostly, who'll be doing the majority of the work...

          Yeah, we get to support the US ecomomy and stimulate the Iraqi economy at the same time. Sounds like a win-win situation to me.

          -Brent
          • I support responsible tax cuts. I'd like us to pay off the defecit first, then cut taxes. Hell, the amount of money we'd save in interest would probably pay for the cuts. Thus, saving $3 billion would allow for tax cuts sooner, were it used responsibly.
      • It's not merely the X billion dollars that are spent. The crucial element is the multiplier effect [cnmi-guide.com]. By spending the money in the US, the gain is far more than $15 billion (or $3 billion in tax cuts) alone.
      • "So, we should spend an extra $3 billion of MY tax money and an extra month, just because we don't like the politics of the country?"

        Because the money is going to Americans, providing jobs...

        I love how conservatives are in favor of public-works programs, as long as the welfare money gets funneled through big corporations.

        Rebuild Iraq? Sure, let's spend billions. Fix the potholes in U.S. streets? Hell no, let private charities handle that.

        • I love how conservatives are in favor of public-works programs, as long as the welfare money gets funneled through big corporations.

          Who else could do it?

          Rebuild Iraq? Sure, let's spend billions. Fix the potholes in U.S. streets? Hell no, let private charities handle that.

          Surely you can't be referring to me.

          BTW, I looked at the Dec. 11 briefing [whitehouse.gov] (you were quoting Dec. 10), and McClellan there did completely back off of what Bush apparently told Chretien. Again, I don't really care, but I do want to no

          • Surely you can't be referring to me.

            I wasn't. That's why I replied to bmetzler. Let me explain how Slash comments work, see, there's a cid and a pid, and the pid of my cid didn't have your uid. :)

            I get exceedingly frustrated trying to decipher what the hell McClellan is trying to not say

            That's a good way of putting it. And you're not the only one! The Toronto Star's editorial headline is Baffling week for Bush watchers [thestar.com] -- and that whole article is worth reading, by the way. It's stamped Dec. 14 and i

            • Anyway, the way I read the exchange is that Bush slipped and said something he shouldn't have, or didn't mean to, or wasn't authorized to, whereupon his handlers stepped forward for some damage control.

              I can think of two things Bush might have meant, other than the obvious: 1. "you're resigning, it is not your problem, don't worry about it" and 2. "you can still get subcontracts anyway, this is just for show, don't worry about it."

              As to the article some of the things in it I have little problem with, lik
    • Yes, in your completely unrealistic and manufactured scenario, that even if true would not tell the whole story, that would be a bit irksome. :-) But there's no reason to think this would happen.

      And it has nothing to do with politics; you missed the point. It has to do with not volunteering to help people who won't help us. That's not politics, it's common sense. Since they have refused to help us or Iraq (oh yeah, except for the tiny bit of cash France and Germany have provided, boo hoo), we have no r
      • Yes, in your completely unrealistic and manufactured scenario, that even if true would not tell the whole story, that would be a bit irksome. :-) But there's no reason to think this would happen.

        Why not? You think it's absolutely impossible for a French/German/etc company to submit a better bid than an American company?

        And it has nothing to do with politics; you missed the point.

        This situation has nothing to do with politics? I suppose the 2004 election won't be political, either?

        we have no reaso
        • You think it's absolutely impossible for a French/German/etc company to submit a better bid than an American company?

          I am not talking about a generically better bid, I am talking about $3b better on a $15b bid. And I never said it was impossible, it is just extremely unlikely.

          I object to "punishing" them in a way that might punish us, too. :-/

          I hear you, but I have no reason to think we will be "punished" as you describe. More likely, another country's company would outbid the U.S. company by, say,
  • Does anyone think it is a bit insideous that Bush is pushing for American companies to get these contracts? Isn't that a slippery slope? Gee whiz, the economy is down. How do we fix it?

    - Lets start a war. The people love it when we kick some ass. We'll spend billions on equipment, giving the economy a little boost. We'll promptly blow up said equipment in aforementioned war.

    - Lets rebuild the country we just blew up. More money into OUR economy! The people love getting money! Well, the corpor
    • Does anyone think it is a bit insideous that Bush is pushing for American companies to get these contracts? Isn't that a slippery slope? Gee whiz, the economy is down. How do we fix it?

      It would be insidious if it were reasonable. The threat of war delayed the economic recovery. The actaul war ballooned the deficit and will signifcantly increase the debt. In no way did the war help the economy. The point is that now that we are in it, we should try to get as much benefit to our economy out of it as we
      • You know what? I had written a big, long argument in response to yours and then I realized: why bother?

        Pudge, your mind is set in concrete and rebar. No one, not even fellow editors, can possibly change it. You claim a lot of stuff and yet it is quite obvious to anyone who reads your journal that you are a dyed-in-the-wool Republican, a blind follower of Bush and all of Bush's policies. You attack his perceived enemies and never or very, very rarely conceed that you are wrong or even that you might be
        • Pudge, your mind is set in concrete ...

          The war in Iraq is wrong. ... All the typical weasel talk ... in the world won't save you from these basic facts.

          Hm. So my mind is set in concrete, implying I am closed-minded, yet you are asserting necessarily unverifiable opinions as "basic facts." Can you not see how stupid that is? Well, no, you can't, but you should look into it anyway.

          it is quite obvious to anyone who reads your journal that you are a dyed-in-the-wool Republican, a blind follower of Bush
        • The war in Iraq is wrong. It *might* have been right if the UN or some multi-national group of countries had signed up, but that is not what happened.

          Ahh. So whether or not an action is moral is something to be lobbied for, voted on, and tallied up?

          We'd vote for Satan if he was running on the Dem ticket

          Of course you should vote for Satan. You've already preaching his platform!

Slashdot Top Deals

"The voters have spoken, the bastards..." -- unknown

Close