Figures the rats would gather around a corpse first

I'm trying very hard but I don't see how anything that you've said makes sense. How is Cheney lining his pockets?

Can you name another company qualified for this work?

 

IRAQ for sale!!

United Nations? Not needed. Non-governmental organizations? Who cares. We're putting Iraq up for nation-building by the lowest bidders corporate America can muster. What a dandy plan. The Agency for International Development has already invited four groups to bid on a $900 million engineering contract.

You notice they did not put the contract up for open bidding.

Competitive bidding requirements were side-stepped under special rules applying to "emergency needs."

According to a spokeswoman, the department preferred to work with firms "with a proven track record." That would be your basic Bechtel, Kellogg Brown & Root --a subsidiary of Halliburton--and Parsons Corp., along with the Louis Berger Group and Fluor Corp. bidding as a team.

According to the Journal, these companies made political contributions of a combined $2.8 million between 1999 and 2002, more than two-thirds of it going to Republicans. Bechtel was the largest contributor, with $1.3 million in contributions, the Journal reported.

Naturally, this news was el stinko abroad.

Salon.com reports: "The news that some well-connected American firms will be first in line for these billion-dollar deals did not help the administration's case for war internationally. Headlines all over the world questioned the White House's true motives for war."

 

www.becausedaveksaysso.com says that too friggen bad for the French. They want to stand on the sideline and reap the rewards for doing nothing, they can go help rebuild Germany and Russia. F' them and the cat they rode in on.

 

Re: IRAQ for sale!!

You love taking things out of context. Check the story again. The companies bidding all had to have security clearences.

See Ya,

Darrin Talbott

 

Re: IRAQ for sale!!

Here's an idea for you. Draw up a list of US corporations that have never had any federal, state or local government employees as employees, members of the BOD or other association of their own at any time. Find those companies that have never employed a US President, member of a White House staff or administration, cabinet member, senator, congressman, governor, etc.

That's now your list of companies that the federal government can do business with to avoid potential conflicts of interest and accusations of kickbacks.

How big is your list?

 

But for "liberators, not conquerors or occupiers" there are no spoils.

And, seeing as how most of the arab world seems to think Iraq is about to become a US colony, shutting out other countries from the rebuilding process is not going to help that perception.

6 months postwar occupation is only going to be a start. Converting a third world clan-based society into a properly functioning democracy that won't have a coup d'etat in 2-3 years is not going to be a cake walk.

I'd be pushing hard to get France and Russia to help foot the bill on that.

 

If I remember the story correctly, the main contractors will be American companies, but the sub-contracting is open to everyone.

The U.S. should get the contracts; we'll end up paying for most of it anyway.

See Ya,

Darrin Talbott

 

Robert, and there in lies the problem. The bill is being footed by the US, Britain, Australia, and the other nations involved in the fighting now. Once the war is over there isn't really an additional bill to foot. The humanitarian aid going in now is paid for mostly by the governments involved in the fighting. This isn't free donations from a long list of countries just pitching in to help a cause. The Iraqi's will not be getting the infrastructure rebuilt for free. They will be paying for the work. The French want to get their companies in line for these contracts (construction, Oil, etc...). They want the contracts without doing their military due diligence.
Spoils was a bad choice of words for me to have used, but the meaning came through. But the term Jackals is a fitting one.

 

I've heard reports where the Mad Arab is the top prospect to head up the temporary government of Iraq.

 

The sad thing is...

...the Russians, Germans, and worst of all French will be let in under the guise of good politics and friendship building.

I say hell with them...I wouldn't let 1 cent go their way.

And I've asked the question before and I'll ask it again of all the "war for profit" crowd....

Why would the US spend $75-150 billion in hard currency to recoup less than that, if the war was truly about profit?

 

The $100 Billion can be considered "good faith" money. The money spent today WILL be earned back 10 fold through trade, taxes on the income from the companies doing the work in Iraq, general stability in the region and a stable source of oil. $100 billion may seem like a lot of money (and it is) but in the grand scheme of the world it's a pittance.

 

Pro-Israel former US Lt. Gen. (Ret.) Jay Garner is already in Kuwait and will take over administration of Iraq once the war is finished.

 

Yes, he's a civilian that has been appointed to head the ORHA. Guess my wording was poor, Abizaid will reportedly head up the military side.

Should be interesting with Garner's position on the Palestinian violence. The Kurds like him after the Gulf War, we'll see how the Muslims warm up to him.

 

Not true...

There has not been 1 estimate that shows a profit to the US from this war. Not 1. In fact, the most lucrative estimates show a maximum of $50 Billion in profits form post-war Iraq...not even 1/2 of what will be spent on the war alone.

Costs:

Direct costs of the military operation. CBO estimates imply that a 3 month war and 5 year occupation would cost as much as ~$300 billion. Unlike the previous Gulf war, where the US received underwriting from allies, the US taxpayer will likely pay all these costs (in 1991 the US taxpayer only paid 12% of the cost of the war).
Direct costs of the peacekeeping operation. I haven't see a full accounting of the costs anticipated in rebuilding Iraq. A "from the ground up" estimate of the costs of rebuilding the oil industry alone (if destroyed) is estimated to be $10 billion. It could easily cost $30 b or more to rebuild after the war and repair infrastructure that has deteriorated during the years of sanctions.
Lost economic opportunity. By far, the greatest potential cost is indirect economic impact. The economic overhang caused by the impending war has been terrible. These costs are incurred via a variety of sources. Higher oil prices in the short term due to fears of potential or actual disruption in supplies. A depressed stock market. Lower economic growth as businesses halt investment and consumers put off purchases. Economic dislocation as companies, that would be healthy otherwise, go bankrupt as the result of global turmoil (the airlines, etc.). Even if we restrict this to the impact of higher oil prices (on average $5 higher per barrel last year than would be otherwise expected) and lower economic growth (1-3% less growth last year on a $10 T economy) we have already spent as much as $335 b so far on this war. It is likely we will see a similar impact on economic opportunity over the next year or two.
The Benefits:

Sale of Iraqi Oil. Iraq is producing 2 m barrels a day currently. It is expected that it could, if the technology was improved, produce as much as 8 m barrels a day in ten years. Assuming that there is only moderate destruction of the oil fields, Iraq may be able to produce, on average 4m barrels a day over the next 5 years. At $25 a barrel, that is ~$175 b or so of revenue for Iraq (much less if production costs are deducted). My guess that these production costs would reduce the potential revenue to ~$100 b or so.
Lower Oil prices. Given that Iraq will be unable to produce much more incremental oil in the near term, it is unlikely that we will see any major impact on global oil prices. Over the longer term, Iraq's incresed potential to produce oil will lessen potential oil shocks and may lower prices (however, given the calls on Iraqi's revenues, don't expect radically lower prices).

It is pretty clear that total costs of this war are much more that the potential economic benefits to the US -- perhaps 2 orders of magnitude less.

 

Re: Not true...

The REAL economic benifit of the war?

What would be the cost of an American city nuked or slimed?

 

Tank Boy-

Yeah, I agree, I was destroying the "War for profit" myth.

 

...so it OK.... for our politicians to line there pockets??

if it was bubba.... you would all be pissing and moaning.

once again....sounds like a war about oil...

 

Only to you, and you seem to hear only what you want to hear.

See Ya,

Darrin Talbott

 

Gad damn it Atomic, that statement of "war for oil" is old, tired, and just f@cking stupid. Read something about the predicament of the Iraqi people under Saddam before you post that same old catch line. Cheese and rice, can't the left come up with something new, I've heard that same stupid sh@t since 1990.

 

get a freaking clue....its not about any of that....

the only reason we're there is because Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz want us there.... they have been planning this since 1992, briefed Bush before he was president. Used 9/11 as an excuse to go to war.

http://www.sundayherald.com/27735

try to tell me that any of this isn't true....