Interesting decisions out of the US

[Vermillion]

Originally Posted by Intrepid00

I also talked to Canadians thanksgiving period that where down for a wedding. They said it was cause their goverment was acting like pussies. Yes, two older people, eating in a resturant that is going to cost them $400, said their goverment was acting like a pussie. I was shocked, I didn't even bring it up. My brother just mentioned he was in the Navy and they said their son was in the Air Force and Canda was being a pussie.

Good for you.

In the course of my work I come into contact with government, military and intelligence people from the US on a very regular basis. Numerous of them, at least a dozen, have called Bush Jr. a totalitarian Arsehole. They said that the reasons for the US going into Iraq were all based on lies and propaganda. I was shocked, I didn't even bring it up. I just mentioned that I worked for the Canadian Government and they said they were ashamed of the lies, stupidity and corruption of their government.

So who carries more weight, your two Canadian tourists or my Dozen high ranking government and military officials?


Or, just maybe, arguing by personal anecdote is utterly idiotic and proves Nothing whatsoever in a debate like this.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

im still wondering why they economica superpower, that serves as an exmple for the rest of the world is afraid of a little competition?

Yes, with only 63 countries allowed to compete for contracts I'm sure it'll hardly be competitive at all.

Besides, if the US government really cared about competition they would have left that money in the taxpayer's pockets (my--per capita--share of that $18B is about $100. As an actual taxpayer in a high bracket, it's substantially larger. ).

You can argue that the motive for this was spite, which is probably true; but to suggest it was to prevent competition is a bit silly.

edit: heh, i just read the WTO will check if this is legal at all.

Heh. By the time the WTO issues it's final ruling the money will all be spent.

[Vermillion]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

Yes, with only 63 countries allowed to compete for contracts I'm sure it'll hardly be competitive at all.

Yes I am sure the competition from Columbia, Ethiopia, El Salvador, Eritrea, Macedonia, Uzbekistan and Albania will be massive.

Besides, if the US government really cared about competition they would have left that money in the taxpayer's pockets (my--per capita--share of that $18B is about $100. As an actual taxpayer in a high bracket, it's substantially larger. ).

If you want to complain about the $18B taxpayers bill for reconstruction, should you not start with the 100 or so Billion$ which were used to assault Iraq, thus making reconstruction necessary?

[acropolis]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

Yes, with only 63 countries allowed to compete for contracts I'm sure it'll hardly be competitive at all.

Besides, if the US government really cared about competition they would have left that money in the taxpayer's pockets (my--per capita--share of that $18B is about $100. As an actual taxpayer in a high bracket, it's substantially larger. ).

You can argue that the motive for this was spite, which is probably true; but to suggest it was to prevent competition is a bit silly.

You know, when liberals make their rote claims that the white house is giving huge contracts to bechtel and halliburton because of their close ties with both companies (being on their payrolls etc.), conservatives have a genuinely good response.

Mom and Pop stores in Osh Kosh Wisconsin simply don't have the size and experience to run major international construction operations. There are only a few corporations on the planet that are capable of doing these things, and so there really wasn't much of an alternative to Halliburton and Bechtel (liberals still can contend that the white house started the war knowing there would be no choice but to give lucrative contracts to these companies, but that argument is disproven by not being a nice thing to say).

Anyway, fast forward. Not only does Osh Kosh not have many of these corporations, but neither does Albania. Nor does Lithuania, Poland, or Upper Volta. In the entire world, there are only a few; a couple in the US (with close ties to the white house), a few in Russia, some in France, some in Germany (I'm trying to think of some in the UK, but I can't yet).

Suddenly the competition argument rears it's ugly head again. And we are left to ponder our present administration's motives...spite or greed; spite or greed...

[Zar]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

Yes, with only 63 countries allowed to compete for contracts I'm sure it'll hardly be competitive at all.

Besides, if the US government really cared about competition they would have left that money in the taxpayer's pockets (my--per capita--share of that $18B is about $100. As an actual taxpayer in a high bracket, it's substantially larger. ).

You can argue that the motive for this was spite, which is probably true; but to suggest it was to prevent competition is a bit silly.

Heh. By the time the WTO issues it's final ruling the money will all be spent.

what about competition from india and china?

both countries - are probably more suited to the rebuilding of iraq - as the rebuilding of iraq does not require major technological feats.

These two countries haven't been included.

We can see quite easily, that the USA isn't concerned about iraqi welfare - if they really cared - they would do the best for the country, they would introduce worthwhile competition, especially from countries that are reputed to have dirt cheap labour and generally do a good job (india & china and others etc..)

lets not forget the whole GSM, CDMA debate - a certain yank politican wanted CDMA as the standard in Iraq, because it is US developed and US firms wold profit. He didn't want GSM even though it is used almost everywhere in the world, and by iraqs neighbours. Also GSM was developed in europe, and most GSM handset makers are in europe.

the usa only cares about getting its money back - and of course making a bit more.

yanks

Zar

[Bunga]

I still can't get over that IB posted. Oh well, it was fun while it lasted.

Oh and Go USA with their competitiveness!!

[Cmdr_Cyrax]

How long do you think any new buildings will last?
I'm putting ten quid on the Americans accidently bombing the first structures put up.

[wu_trax]

oh, well, it seems the us has the right on its side, at least the bbc says so.
but as i already said, i guess everyone acts that way. look at the way countries give development aid. most of that money is gflowing directly back to the country it came from.
but still, that 19 billion look more like subsideries to us-companies than like an attempt to actually help the people of iraq.

[Perle]

Originally Posted by Vermillion

Good for you.

In the course of my work I come into contact with government, military and intelligence people from the US on a very regular basis. Numerous of them, at least a dozen, have called Bush Jr. a totalitarian Arsehole. They said that the reasons for the US going into Iraq were all based on lies and propaganda. I was shocked, I didn't even bring it up. I just mentioned that I worked for the Canadian Government and they said they were ashamed of the lies, stupidity and corruption of their government.

So who carries more weight, your two Canadian tourists or my Dozen high ranking government and military officials?


Or, just maybe, arguing by personal anecdote is utterly idiotic and proves Nothing whatsoever in a debate like this.

:lol:

[Ste]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

oh, well, it seems the us has the right on its side, at least the bbc says so.
but as i already said, i guess everyone acts that way. look at the way countries give development aid. most of that money is gflowing directly back to the country it came from.
but still, that 19 billion look more like subsideries to us-companies than like an attempt to actually help the people of iraq.

I'm sure There was a thread a few months ago with links to show that the US gives the lowest amount of aid abroad than almost any other country. And that aid mainly goes to Israel or US companies abroad.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Ste

I'm sure There was a thread a few months ago with links to show that the US gives the lowest amount of aid abroad than almost any other country. And that aid mainly goes to Israel or US companies abroad.

yes, maybe, but its still there money so that they can choose on where to spend it. ofc, this doesnt show much of the spirit of free competition, but then, what would you expect from bush?
as it seems now he wants us to send troops to iraq and then allow us to bid for the contracts. heh, good luck with that.

[JonnyBGood]

Down with evil people.

[Bunga]

Well, the USA does give lots of foreign aid. But per capita its pretty low. ITs even lower if you don't count the billions on dollars going to Isreal so they can buy fighter jets.

Oh and guess who Isreal buys its fighter jets from.

[wu_trax]

i wonder if theyll be as efficent in rebuilding the infrastructure as in rebuilding the military of iraq. of 700 trained soldiers 300 already quit. they obviously really loved the us training and the good payment.