The Iraq Thread 2

[ralphwiggum 6]

With regards to barring some nations for contracts, good job. Now reconstruction of IRaq is going to be tougher with limited supply of workers and goods.

I don't think they're going to have a problem getting goods or workers. There are plenty of candidate firms and numerous qualifying countries.

it's basically problematic that there can be better choices, but Iraqis won't be getting them, nor the interim gov't will. say for example, reconstruction of power grids. if German firms can do the same job for less money, then it saves interim gov't money and gets the job done. but by barring some possible better solutions, the total benefit will not be better than an open competition.

[theavonlady 2]

Do you think that excluding rest of the world is going to create a better deal for the aid money?

I never said that less competition means a more competitive price.

I was simply pointing out that it's not just the US and UK. Nothing more.

[theavonlady 2]

With regards to barring some nations for contracts, good job. Now reconstruction of IRaq is going to be tougher with limited supply of workers and goods.

I don't think they're going to have a problem getting goods or workers. There are plenty of candidate firms and numerous qualifying countries.

it's basically problematic that there can be better choices, but Iraqis won't be getting them, nor the interim gov't will. say for example, reconstruction of power grids. if German firms can do the same job for less money, then it saves interim gov't money and gets the job done. but by barring some possible better solutions, the total benefit will not be better than an open competition.

You implied that there might be difficulties getting supplies or workers. I'm only pointing out that there's enough countries on the list to meet supply and labor requirements.

I'm not at all arguing that there is reduced competition. This is obvious.

[Acro 0]

I hope that WTO decides that every countries are allowed to help rebuilding the Iraq.

Besides, It's so unfair that at first US attacks to some country, and then starts making money of country's natural resources and rebuilding program.  

[ralphwiggum 6]

You implied that there might be difficulties getting supplies or workers. I'm only pointing out that there's enough countries on the list to meet supply and labor requirements.

with less suppliers, it can be that reconstruction will have hard time. just recently, 60 Korean contract workers decided to pull out. bn880 had the link a few pages back.

On different perspective, if it was that easy, then Iraq should be up and running by now, not needing contractors.

[joltan 0]

The offered contracts cover also who will be eligible to supply the arms for the future iraqy army... anyone smells something there? With Russia, France & Germany out of the race, who do you think will sell them the weapons? Right, the US defence industry.

[Major Fubar 0]

The US disctating who can and can't bid on rebuilding projects is totally outrageous - it's basically just TBA thumbing their nose at those who opposed the illegal war, in a childish display that not only shows contempt for the excluded nations, but also contempt for Iraq in not giving it a say in who will be allowed to bid.

Remind me again: did the USA free Iraq, or annex it as a new state?

[Baron von Beer 0]

In a perfect world, they would be using any remnants of Iraqi business first, then contract out. Use Iraqi labor in every possible case (manual labor, if no one skilled in specific task) using outside firms to supervise/lead efforts. This pumps money in to Iraqs economy (Read, helps their economy come back to life), and provides jobs to the MANY who are currently without work, and thus income. Provide materials to accomplish this at a minimal cost, to change it from a profit for some business, to a profit to the people of the country in question. Is a shame this isn't being done already by the US. If it was, there would be less criticism of their handling of the situation (As it would be doing much more good, for the same price.) and there would be much less bickering, as suddenly the other nations would be less interested, as profit is suddenly a non issue. (Or at least minimal). Doubt nations would be lining up to have their governments pay for their own firms to go over there and start building. I do feel it woudl be responsible of the nations already there to do this, as much as possible. (Not unlike Europe post WW2. Be more concerned about getting the job done, than who is gonna get make money while others are suffering)

[Grizzlie 0]

Isn't is a little like "US war is bad, but US dollars r good"?

Correct me if i'm wrong but those contracts r payed by US, not Iraq.

And in Madrid those yelling countries were a bit more silent...

[EiZei 0]

Isn't is a little like "US war is bad, but US dollars r good"?

Correct me if i'm wrong but those contracts r payed by US, not Iraq.

And in Madrid those yelling countries were a bit more silent...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3212439.stm

Most of the money is from the US but then again, you broke it.

Of course not other countries are going to donate if the US construction companies are going to get the juiciest contracts.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Hi Albert Schweizer

Right back at you

Quote[/b] ]Human beings initially set their priorities according to their existential needs such as food, clothes and sleep. If the existential needs are not met survival is threatened and life itself is in danger.

The electricity supply and other esential services are the target of the terrorists as well. You cant cook food cause no electricity or fuel so "existential needs" You misread Maslow there. Food in your fridge goes off real quick. Hospitals dont work and dont think Iraqis are from the stone age they are one of the most advanced cultures in the Middle East so; they dont live some hand to mouth agrarian existance where millions can live off the land. That is the Phol Pot year one falicy.

They are a modern state if you take away their electricity and infrastucture people die. They are affected by loss of power as much as any NY citizen who lives in a rich apartment overlooking central park.

If your quoting Maslow you must at least done some higher eduction.

Baghdad is like London. It is the capitol of a modern state with very few differences. Fast Food, computers, red tape traffic jams etc.

The tactics of terrorism are to disrupt society. The methods that can beat it are those that improve social activity and prevent the disruption.

As to Coalition soldiers in body bags, get used to it you can not fight wars on the cheap and that obviously includes lives.

Pulling out would mean that a blood bath.

I have made my thoughts on the going to war clear but they do not alter the need for a force to stay there to correct the error. Would I prefer it was under the UN? Yes but they aint going in under TBA's rules

I made it clear the country needs rebuilding and that the soldiers need to speek Arabic and understand the culture to act as a police force.

Are TBA dragging their feet on rebuilding Iraq? Yes.

Do I think there is a lot of pocket linning going on at the expence of the Iraqis? Yes.

The snipers point was in reply to something said by crazysheep read back in the thread the dates are there.

Kind Regards Walker

Now I am confused. Do we agree that electricity and gas ARE INDEED existential needs for iraqis? I do believe so! That exactly was my point.

Furthermore my point was: Rebuilding right now is more important than fighting Baathist resistance. This is where the money should go!

[Grizzlie 0]

I meant that there r 2 parts of money for rebuilding Iraq. One - only US founds, second - various founds which can be spended by Iraq gov.

Quote[/b] ]Most of the funds being raised in Madrid are to go into a trust managed by the World Bank, the UN and a committee of Iraqis

And I think this contracts r made from US founds only?

So they can spend them the way they like?

[Acecombat 0]

Linking Iraq’s Occupation With the ‘War on Terrorism’

Norman Solomon, Creators Syndicate

Reuters is one of the more independent wire services. So, a recent news story from Reuters — flatly describing American military activities in Iraq as part of “the broader US war on terrorism†— is a barometer of how powerfully the pressure systems of rhetoric from top US officials have swayed mainstream news coverage.

Such reporting, with the matter-of-fact message that the Pentagon is fighting a “war on terrorism†in Iraq, amounts to a big journalistic gift for the Bush administration, which is determined to spin its way past the obvious downsides of the occupation.

Here are the concluding words from Bush’s point man in Iraq, Paul Bremer, during a Nov. 17 interview on NPR’s “Morning Edition†program: “The president was absolutely firm both in private and in public that he is not going to let any other issues distract us from achieving our goals here in Iraq, that we will stay here until the job is done and that the force levels will be determined by the conditions on the ground and the war on terrorism.â€

Within hours, many of Bremer’s supervisors were singing from the same political song sheet:

• On a visit to Europe, Colin Powell told a French newspaper that “Afghanistan and Iraq are two theaters in the global war on terrorism.â€

• In Washington, President Bush said: “We fully recognize that Iraq has become a new front on the war on terror.â€

• Speaking to campaign contributors in Buffalo, the vice president pushed the envelope of deception. “Iraq is now the central front in the war on terror,†Dick Cheney declared.

Whether you’re selling food from McDonald’s or cars from General Motors or a war from the US government, repetition is crucial for making propaganda stick. Bush’s promoters will never tire of depicting the war on Iraq as a war on terrorism. And they certainly appreciate the ongoing assists from news media.

For the US public, the mythological link between the occupation of Iraq and the “war on terrorism†is in play. This fall, repeated polling has found a consistent breakout of opinion. In mid-November, according to a CBS News poll, 46 percent of respondents said that the war in Iraq is a major part of the “war on terrorism,†while 14 percent called it a minor part and 35 percent saw them as two separate matters.

A shift in such perceptions, one way or another, could be crucial for Bush’s election hopes. In large measure — particularly at psychological levels — Bush sold the invasion of Iraq as a move against “terrorism.†If he succeeds at framing the occupation as such, he’ll get a big boost toward a second term.

Despite the Bush administration’s countless efforts to imply or directly assert otherwise, no credible evidence has ever emerged to link Sept. 11 or Al-Qaeda with the regime of Saddam Hussein.

Now, if “terrorism†is going to be used as an umbrella term so large that it covers attacks on military troops occupying a country, then the word becomes nothing more than an instrument of propaganda.

Often the coverage in US news media sanitizes the human consequences — and yes, the terror - of routine actions by the occupiers. On Nov. 19, the US military announced that it had dropped a pair of 2,000-pound bombs 30 miles northeast of Baghdad. Meanwhile, to the north, near the city of Kirkuk, the US Air Force used 1,000-pound bombs - against “terrorist targets,†an American officer told reporters.

Clearly, the vast majority of the people dying in these attacks are Iraqis who are no more “terrorists†than many Americans would be if foreign troops were occupying the United States. But US news outlets sometimes go into raptures of praise as they describe the high-tech arsenal of the occupiers.

On Nov. 17, at the top of the front page of the New York Times, a color photo showed a gunner aiming his formidable weapon downward from a Black Hawk helicopter, airborne over Baghdad. Underneath the picture was an article lamenting the recent setbacks in Iraq for such US military aircraft. “In two weeks,†the article said, “the Black Hawks and Chinooks and Apaches that once zoomed overhead with such grace and panache have suddenly become vulnerable.â€

“Grace†and “panache.†Attributed to no one, the words appeared in a prominent mash note about machinery of death from the New York Times, a newspaper that’s supposed to epitomize the highest journalistic standards. But don’t hold your breath for a correction to appear in the nation’s paper of record.

— Norman Solomon writes a syndicated column on media and politics. He is co-author (with Reese Erlich) of “Target Iraq: What the News Media Didn’t Tell You,†published this year by Context Books.

[theavonlady 2]

Linking Iraq’s Occupation With the ‘War on Terrorism’

Norman Solomon, Creators Syndicate  

There is a lot of deception and inaccuracy in this article:

Quote[/b] ]

Reuters is one of the more independent wire services. So, a recent news story from Reuters — flatly describing American military activities in Iraq as part of “the broader US war on terrorism†— is a barometer of how powerfully the pressure systems of rhetoric from top US officials have swayed mainstream news coverage.

Such reporting, with the matter-of-fact message that the Pentagon is fighting a “war on terrorism†in Iraq, amounts to a big journalistic gift for the Bush administration, which is determined to spin its way past the obvious downsides of the occupation.

Are we talking about the old US claims of links to 9/11 or the new reports, like this week's claiming that Al Qaida is shifting operations from Afghanistan to Iraq?

Quote[/b] ]Here are the concluding words from Bush’s point man in Iraq, Paul Bremer, during a Nov. 17 interview on NPR’s “Morning Edition†program: “The president was absolutely firm both in private and in public that he is not going to let any other issues distract us from achieving our goals here in Iraq, that we will stay here until the job is done and that the force levels will be determined by the conditions on the ground and the war on terrorism.â€

Within hours, many of Bremer’s supervisors were singing from the same political song sheet:

• On a visit to Europe, Colin Powell told a French newspaper that “Afghanistan and Iraq are two theaters in the global war on terrorism.â€

Are the Baathist/Moslem/Afghani/Syrian attackers in Iraq terrorists or not? The US is entitled to their opinion. So are Iraqis, whom it would seem do not overly appreciate the ongoing bombings and killings these people are instigating.

Quote[/b] ]• In Washington, President Bush said: “We fully recognize that Iraq has become a new front on the war on terror.â€

If the article about Al-Qaida's shift in priorities is true, then this is accurate.

Quote[/b] ]• Speaking to campaign contributors in Buffalo, the vice president pushed the envelope of deception. “Iraq is now the central front in the war on terror,†Dick Cheney declared.

Once again, this is not far-fetched and not a deception under current circumstances.

Quote[/b] ]Whether you’re selling food from McDonald’s or cars from General Motors or a war from the US government, repetition is crucial for making propaganda stick.

This is true world over. Goes for anti-US propaganda as well.

Quote[/b] ]Bush’s promoters will never tire of depicting the war on Iraq as a war on terrorism. And they certainly appreciate the ongoing assists from news media.

I have yet to see (here) a US reference to 9/11. I see here references to Iraq's current "post-war" situation.

Quote[/b] ]For the US public, the mythological link between the occupation of Iraq and the “war on terrorism†is in play. This fall, repeated polling has found a consistent breakout of opinion. In mid-November, according to a CBS News poll, 46 percent of respondents said that the war in Iraq is a major part of the “war on terrorism,†while 14 percent called it a minor part and 35 percent saw them as two separate matters.

So?

Quote[/b] ]Now, if “terrorism†is going to be used as an umbrella term so large that it covers attacks on military troops occupying a country, then the word becomes nothing more than an instrument of propaganda.

What about the attacks on the UN, the Red Cross, civilian project workers and Iraqis themselves? All "for the cause"?

Quote[/b] ]“Grace†and “panache.†Attributed to no one, the words appeared in a prominent mash note about machinery of death from the New York Times, a newspaper that’s supposed to epitomize the highest journalistic standards. But don’t hold your breath for a correction to appear in the nation’s paper of record.

I understood the NYT to be using the terms cynically.

Quote[/b] ]— Norman Solomon writes a syndicated column on media and politics. He is co-author (with Reese Erlich) of “Target Iraq: What the News Media Didn’t Tell You,†published this year by Context Books.

Well, look who's impartial!

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Of course George Bush and friends are right to "fully recognize that Iraq has become a new front on the war on terror".

There is no doubt that terrorism as understood by most people in the west is occurring in Iraq and that much of it is directed at US forces/interests. The problem lies in people percieving that as a casus belli. The reason terrorism as conducted by small cells of malcontents is occuring against US forces and interests in Iraq is precisely because George Bush ordered them to invade that country. The idea that this could concievably form a retro-active motive for invasion as part of the war on terror seems utterly illogical and counter to the idea of war as a means of acheiving peace ('we were right to invade, because now they are attacking us' he would seem to be saying).

Therefore it seems clear that the portrayal of Iraq now as part of the war on terror is being eagerly played up by TBA in the cynical hope that much of the US public and others will accept it unconsciously as part of, or consciously as proof of the earlier rather ill founded claims of international terrorist links in Iraq. Even though those fallacious assumptions of terrorism in Iraq have now been made good by the very military action TBA would seek to claim as part of the drive to eliminate it.

[theavonlady 2]

If the US packs up and leaves tomorrow, what will these attackers in Iraq do? Stow their weapons away or attack other Iraqis in an attempt to take over the country? If the latter, who are they and what do they want?

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

I dont think the US should pack up and leave now. In fact thats the last thing to be done (literally). But i think its rather cynical of TBA if they make any attempt to imply that the current attacks now give a cause for the recent invasion... before such attacks were taking place, before there was a strong international anti US terrorist network in place in Iraq. They must face the fact that the war, their war, created such a situation.

Saddams Iraq was not planning to conduct a wave of anti US 'terrorist actions' (however they may be defined) of the type we have seen over the past months.

The Coalition created war and post war environment are responsible for creating the conditions necessary for those attacks. George Bush must deal with that AND stick with Iraq.

[theavonlady 2]

I dont think the US should pack up and leave now.

Neither do I. It's their responsibility to fix things ups.

I asked theoretically. What if the US did leave in a huff?

So I ask again:

What will these attackers in Iraq do? Stow their weapons away or attack other Iraqis in an attempt to take over the country? If the latter, who are they and what do they want?

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

The offered contracts cover also who will be eligible to supply the arms for the future iraqy army... anyone smells something there? With Russia, France & Germany out of the race, who do you think will sell them the weapons? Right, the US defence industry.

I dont think they will be given too many deadly toys in the near future.

[bn880 5]

The offered contracts cover also who will be eligible to supply the arms for the future iraqy army... anyone smells something there? With Russia, France & Germany out of the race, who do you think will sell them the weapons? Right, the US defence industry.

I dont think they will be given too many deadly toys in the near future.

Well they will, with satellite controlled off switches. You know, use the weapons against our enemies, but try against us and... oops, malfunctions everywhere.

just a little humor

[Baron von Beer 0]

V chips.. if they are fired on US/Allied equipment, they pull a 180, and slam into the point of origin.

[ralphwiggum 6]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/12/11/sprj.irq.main/index.html

Quote[/b] ]BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- About 300 of 700 members of the new Iraqi army have resigned, citing unhappiness with terms, conditions and pay and with instructions of commanding officers, a representative of the U.S.-led coalition said Thursday.

"It's a new force, and ... we face some difficulties," the representative said.

In response to the resignations, the coalition will review the terms and conditions and compare them with other security services in Iraq -- the police and Civil Defense Corps, the representative said.

The first and only battalion of the new army serves under the U.S. Army's 4th Infantry Division.

[ralphwiggum 6]

http://money.cnn.com/2003....cnn=yes

Quote[/b] ]WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A Pentagon audit of Halliburton, the oil services company once run by Vice President Dick Cheney, has found it overcharged for fuel it brought into Iraq from Kuwait, military sources said Thursday.

The sources told Reuters that Kellogg Brown and Root, a Halliburton unit which got a no-bid U.S. government contract to rebuild Iraq's oil industry, had been notified by the Pentagon's Defense Contract Audit Agency. So far the company has clocked up $2 billion in business from the March contract.

Halliburton spokeswoman Wendy Hall said the company had not overcharged and that the company was confident its responses would satisfy the agency.

"KBR is confident its processes will continue to stand against the rigorous audits conducted by the Defense Contract Audit Agency," Hall said.

She added in an e-mail response, "It would not be appropriate to discuss the specifics of the questions until our conversations with DCAA are complete."

One military source said KBR was seeking "voluntary refunds" from the Kuwait National Petroleum Co. over the import of fuel into Iraq.

The company has been bringing fuel into Iraq either from Turkey or via Kuwait and has justified its pricing because of the high cost of security and a shortage of trucks which had driven up prices.

duh

[walker 0]

Hi Albert Schweizer

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">Here are some acronymns; to make things clear since Avon pointed out the ways they could be misinterpreted; later in this thread.

TBA = The Bush Administration, current US one

TBA2 = The Blair Administration, current UK one

GW2 or GWII = Gulf War Two

I thought I made my position clear in many posts

TBA and TBA2 are trying to do the GW2 on the cheap. Both in economics and in casulties they are willing to take. War is never cheap.

Should they rebuild Iraq as they have not found the WMD or even caught Sadam? Yes. They should anyway.

Should they be putting at least 4 times as many troops on the ground as now? Yes.

Should those troops be reserves and drafted from first responder units (police,fire and ambulance services)? Yes.

Should they be trained in arabic and Iraqi culture? Yes.

Should the draft also include a large number of mature proffesionals including archetects, engineers and business people? Yes.

Should the first port of call for the finances for the rebuilding Iraq be the personal fortunes of TBA and TBA2? Well where does the buck stop? So Yes.

Why the extra soldiers?

The country is not secure mainly in the Sunni triangle and little bit in the south.

You can not build power stations if they get blown up and the parts get stolen. Which is what happens now and not just to power stations to all aspects of civil society and its infrastructure. There just are not enough bods on the street to stop the crime.

Will it be better to use Iraqis? Yes but look at the problems they are having recruiting them even now. Plus there is a need to de bathify it first. It is going to take two years.

Why first responders and mature reservists?

Well young 18 to 25 year olds are great for violence and coming home in bodybags. Their reactions are fast and they are physicly fit and they are out of their heads on hormones so they are like good little attack dogs. I dont know about you but that described me at that age. I had my last fight when in 1984 which would make me 25 (born in 59).

As you get older your skills at avoiding fights improve heck nowadays I stop them. I do climb so that could be part of it but I dont know many people over 25 who get into bar room brawls. Even my biker friends calmed down after 25.

My point is the more mature soldiers will be less confrontational. First responders are already trained and experienced.

I have been listening to soldiers there now and who have returned they are all saying the same thing.

What is working is large numbers of foot patrols and light vehicle patrols. With lots of contact to break down the barriers. That takes lots more troops to conduct that type of security and peacekeeping mission. It does not suit hi tech armoured attack units of the type doing the job there in the sunni triangle.

The troops need to be involved in grass roots rebuilding projects. They have to stop being aliens in body armour and be the guy on the street corner who's family photos you have seen and who got you a job in the concrete making plant or the hospital or the new airport or got their kids a place in the reopened university. It is not body armour that protects those troops it is the whispered message and the shouted warning to look out.

The toops need to be able to understand the people who's nation they are occupying.

These are the tactics that are working in the north with US 101st Airborne and in the south with the UK forces. That is why despite being the most damaged areas of the country they are being rebuilt quicker. Is it harder in Sadams heartland hell yes but it still has to be done.

Will there be casulties? Yes. So suck it up and get on with the job.

Will the US UK tax payers be paying for it. Yes in the UK its going to cost us an extra 10 billion in taxes our chancellor just told us. Now we have the conservative press moaning about borrowing and future taxes. I hear the US made provisions of 80 billion loan to pay for the war; with an expected tax increase for every US tax payer of 70% for the next 20 years. That is almost double what there tax rate is now. The interest is also borrowed till after the US Presedential election. Hmm.

Is it gross that Iraq was destroyed for this when simple continuous coup plots would have got rid of Sadam for peanuts. Yes.

Is it gross that the US and UK tax payers have to pay for TBA and TBA2 failure at a time of war? Yes.

Is it gross that some people in TBA and Dick Cheyneys mates in Halliburton are making 6 to 8 billion off this and are then caught overcharging? Do I need to answere? Ok YES!

Kind Regards Walker

[aj_addons 0]

really really dumb question but who's TBA and TBA2 blair and bush?