Russia and France had a deal with Saddam...the plot thickens

[Sabastian]

Naw sebastian I got no problem with that (revelling, I personally said the same thing b4 the war, that franc/russia others only wanted to stop it for selfish reasons).

WRT the contributions if you look at an earlier post I stated it is perfectly legitimate and legal. I am not saying that it wasn't

I am saying it seems to be ignoring reality to say "Well sure the paid them big campaign contributions, but that has nothing to do with Haliburton getting these large contracts to do things which they normally don't even do"

Unfortunately the document that I downloaded seems to be in picture format, 2912 pages of text in picture format so search doesn't work, sorry but it is simply not worth it to me to find the info.

Like you said there is nothing illegal about the contribution.

edit:
I am sure they gave to the democrats as well, almost all companies do so, but if you honestly look at the issue you will see 2 things,
1) democrats always (recently anyway) enc up with less contributions overall
2) A corelary companies most of the time give more to republicans by a large degree than democrats so tobaco give 1mil to dems, and 5mil to reps, there are a few exceptions, well I can only think that hollywood is the exception.

So the implication is that Haliburton is the real reason for the push to oust saddam? I doubt it.

 

[Sxotty]

Nooooooo, please do not misinterpret me.

That makes absolutely no sense. (the war for haliburton)

Bush could have made a huge solar farm, and paid haliburton to set it up. The war was for other reasons.

I am saying only one thing IMO it is likely that the contract was handed out b/c of contributions a quid pro quo, that is all I am saying ok?

 

[Sabastian]

Nooooooo, please do not misinterpret me.

That makes absolutely no sense. (the war for haliburton)

Bush could have made a huge solar farm, and paid haliburton to set it up. The war was for other reasons.

I am saying only one thing IMO it is likely that the contract was handed out b/c of contributions a quid pro quo, that is all I am saying ok?

lol, I know what you are saying. I was pushing the logic a little harder that's all.

Really it is inconsequential even if Haliburton gave campaign contributions then. Since whoever contributed to the republican party (BTW I would discern the difference between a party contribution and GW, DC directly lining their pockets.) might have some favoritism in the matter AFAIK that is par for the course in the US.

 

[Sxotty]

Ok good, the reason I reacted strongly is some people actually say the war was simply to make money for companies like haliburton, and I cannot personally believe it.

Yes it is "par for the course" but that does not mean we have to like it or accept it .

anyway it seems we are done here, good discussion .

 

[RM. Andersson]

France and Russia wanted to stop the war for two reasons.

1: Money. They wanted to be able to continue to do bussiness with Saddam.

2: They want power and prestiege. They want to be super powers and are very much unwilling to accept that they are not. Thus they get annoyed every time the US wants to do something like the war in Iraq. They think that they should decide what to do and if they feel that the US ignores them they get angry. And when that happens they will try to stop US plans regardless if it makes sense or not.
Sometimes France talk like they want to build a big and expensive EU army almost as if they intended to start some sort of competition with the US.

 

[chavvdarrr]

Yes I do, jerk. Obviously you don't. I presume you would support any other sort of rationale as long as the US is demonized, that would not surprise me. Why do you think they did it then? Oil ? Not as of yet.

Demonizing US? For me, it looks like you demonize who-ever disagrees with US decisions and actions. Since when what "a man who helps and funds terrorism" (was he N:2 or 3?) says must be trusted?

as english is non-native for me I can't identify the meaning behind word 'jerk' - is it some kind of familiarity or an attempt to insult?

 

[Sazar]

edit: BTW I am downloading a document from the FEC to see if haliburtons actualy campaign contribution is listed in it or not. I will tell you what though the thing is slow as mollasses in january.

That would be interesting, although I don't believe campaign contributions are illegal. You might also check to see if they gave any contributions to the Democrats as well.

it was not the democrats who handed a no-bid massive contract to haliburton.. it was not the democrats who handed a no-bid massive contract to bechtel...

there is NO accountability in either of these cases (they are not isolated... there are many others)

haliburton is effectively GOUGING... there are local IRAQI firms that can get the oil into Iraq for their needs @ less than $1.00 a barrel v/s the $1.50 currently being charged...

haliburton's excuse has something to do with security et al... international oil experts (same guys having to deal with oil transport in the area for years therefore they know a little bit about this) say that the so called security fee's should not be more than a few pennies per barrel extra... not a half a dollar...

bechtel... they have been awarded over $1 billion contract to rebuild a power plant in baghdad that supplies 1/3rd of the total power to the city...

what action has been taken in the almost 6 months since the war ended ? they took some lovely photographs of the plant and baghdad's and iraq's overall power production remains BELOW what existed when saddam was deposed...

basically what I am saying sabastian is there is clear intent to gouge money from US taxpayers by companies that were handed no-bid contracts and just happen to have existing links to ranking officials in the administration...

I am not implicating bush in this but cheney sure as hell has solid ties...

 

[RussSchultz]

it was not the democrats who handed a no-bid massive contract to haliburton.. it was not the democrats who handed a no-bid massive contract to bechtel...

Blah blah blah. If the democrats were in power, they would have.

there is NO accountability in either of these cases (they are not isolated... there are many others)

Really? Got proof of that?

haliburton is effectively GOUGING... there are local IRAQI firms that can get the oil into Iraq for their needs @ less than $1.00 a barrel v/s the $1.50 currently being charged...

Umm, its gasoline, and gallons we're talking about, not oil and barrels.

haliburton's excuse has something to do with security et al... international oil experts (same guys having to deal with oil transport in the area for years therefore they know a little bit about this) say that the so called security fee's should not be more than a few pennies per barrel extra... not a half a dollar...

These "experts" haven't had to transport stuff in a guerrilla war zone.

bechtel... they have been awarded over $1 billion contract to rebuild a power plant in baghdad that supplies 1/3rd of the total power to the city...

what action has been taken in the almost 6 months since the war ended ? they took some lovely photographs of the plant and baghdad's and iraq's overall power production remains BELOW what existed when saddam was deposed...

You're behind the times. Power production for the country is higher than it was pre-war. BAGHDAD gets less, because pre-war, baghdad got first priority, and the rest of the country got none.

basically what I am saying sabastian is there is clear intent to gouge money from US taxpayers by companies that were handed no-bid contracts and just happen to have existing links to ranking officials in the administration...

I am not implicating bush in this but cheney sure as hell has solid ties...

Proof of "intent to gouge"? Oh, nothing but quotes from "experts" and op-eds? I thought so.

 

[Sazar]

Blah blah blah. If the democrats were in power, they would have.

no doubt... they are politicians too...

Really? Got proof of that?

hmm.. you are suggesting that there IS accountability ? I would love to see an example of that because currently I can't see any...

Umm, its gasoline, and gallons we're talking about, not oil and barrels.

oversight on my part... point stands however...

These "experts" haven't had to transport stuff in a guerrilla war zone.

these guerilla war zones ? the transportation just to the ports is an example of gouging... and the ports are hardly insecure..

You're behind the times. Power production for the country is higher than it was pre-war. BAGHDAD gets less, because pre-war, baghdad got first priority, and the rest of the country got none.

not quite... power production peaked at a level just above what saddam's regime was producing last month and then fell back down...

Proof of "intent to gouge"? Oh, nothing but quotes from "experts" and op-eds? I thought so.

think what you want... have a read through last weeks newsweek and various other publications net-wide... then come back and lets continue this discussion shall we russ ?

here are a few excerpts...

American contractors like the Bechtel company are hiring subcontractors who pay engineers $900 per day. Yet American companies hire Iraqi engineers for $1,000 per month.

Halliburton, formerly headed by Vice President Dick Cheney, has been accused of price gouging on fuel it imports. It is charging $1.59 per gallon when an Iraqi company says it can import the fuel for less than a dollar per gallon. Halliburton was one of the American companies that was awarded a no-bid contract for services - to the tune of more than $2 billion.

A group of American companies headed by J.P. Morgan is dominating the banking business - with no involvement from Iraq's banks.

Kickbacks are common. "I've never seen corruption like this from expatriate businessmen. It's like a feeding frenzy," the director of a British firm told the magazine.

Bechtel, said Newsweek, was proud of hiring 102 Iraqi subcontractors for its 140 contracts. But Bechtel set a short time frame and there was no oversight. As a result, projects were left unfinished and some were completed far short of what was called for in the original contracts.

One American contractor is charging $12 per ton to unload ships at Um Qasr. But ports in Kuwait and Dubai can do the same for $3 per ton.

Some accomplishments touted by the president are far different than what the Iraqis see. His administration says it has rehabilitated nearly 1,600 schools in the country. But a check by the magazine of a handful of schools shows they lack working toilets, don't have enough desks or textbooks or even blackboards.

these are general examples... newsweek has far more specific examples and even the examples provided have more specifics (ie the a/cs contracted turning out to be no more than cooling fans and the like)

 

[Clashman]

Lol, just using foxnews as source kills any thing you could tell you know

Fox news and Comical Ali, a winning combination!

 

[Legion]

Lol, just using foxnews as source kills any thing you could tell you know

Fox news and Comical Ali, a winning combination!

much like Palast and the rest of the indymedia.

 

[Clashman]

France and Russia wanted to stop the war for two reasons.

1: Money. They wanted to be able to continue to do bussiness with Saddam.

2: They want power and prestiege. They want to be super powers and are very much unwilling to accept that they are not. Thus they get annoyed every time the US wants to do something like the war in Iraq. They think that they should decide what to do and if they feel that the US ignores them they get angry. And when that happens they will try to stop US plans regardless if it makes sense or not.
Sometimes France talk like they want to build a big and expensive EU army almost as if they intended to start some sort of competition with the US.

You also forgot that at least in France supporting the war would have amounted to political suicide as well. It could have very easily have pushed Chirac's right-wing coalition out of power, because the people of France were overwhelmingly opposed to this war.

But hey, if you want to roast Chirac and Putin over the fire over this, then by all means you have my support. Chirac is a slimeball and is the French equivalent of Bush, and Putin should be brought up on charges of war crimes for his handling of Chechnya.

 

[Fred]

Chirac hasn't done anything in France, he's one of the most inneffectual presidents ever in terms of passing what he wants.

My parents voted for his dumbass too, the first time around (mainly to get back at the socialists, who systematically plundered and ruined France for over 15 years).

While im sure Frances oil deals effected his decision, I also believe that he truly felt that diplomacy was the more prudent decision. I disagree of course, but I believe he was genuine (as I believe Bush and America's position was genuine). All the alarmists always like to demonize politicians, that theyre just in it for money and political gain. I disagree, having met many of them. They are people, just like on this bulliten board, who have different opinions. And thats fine! I think it does a great disservice to public office to constantly dismiss the opponent as demons.

Personally, I think Chirac was also concerned with setting up France as a 'power' again with respect to international politics. Very much like De Gaul did. The only problem is they come off more like a joke than anything else.

 

[Sabastian]

Chirac hasn't done anything in France, he's one of the most inneffectual presidents ever in terms of passing what he wants.

My parents voted for his dumbass too, the first time around (mainly to get back at the socialists, who systematically plundered and ruined France for over 15 years).

While im sure Frances oil deals effected his decision, I also believe that he truly felt that diplomacy was the more prudent decision. I disagree of course, but I believe he was genuine (as I believe Bush and America's position was genuine). All the alarmists always like to demonize politicians, that theyre just in it for money and political gain. I disagree, having met many of them. They are people, just like on this bulliten board, who have different opinions. And thats fine! I think it does a great disservice to public office to constantly dismiss the opponent as demons.

Personally, I think Chirac was also concerned with setting up France as a 'power' again with respect to international politics. Very much like De Gaul did. The only problem is they come off more like a joke than anything else.

Hi Fred, I don't disagree with much that you say. It is ironic though it was always the US being characterized as being greedy and their sole motivation was to get oil. But as it turns out this was not the case rather it was Americas opposition to the war in Iraq whom was attempting to rationalize upholding Saddams bloody regime so that they might secure some sort of Iraqi oil deal.

 

[Humus]

When talking about France and greed, then we can bring up the EU's stupid agriculture policies, which is supported by France and pretty much noone else (for good reasons). It benefits France with their large agriculture, but forces african farmers off their local market by spending EU tax money on export support for EU farmers.

 

[Silent_One]

bechtel... they have been awarded over $1 billion contract to rebuild a power plant in baghdad that supplies 1/3rd of the total power to the city...

it was not the democrats who handed a no-bid massive contract to haliburton.. it was not the democrats who handed a no-bid massive contract to bechtel...

FYI-

Postwar Profits http://www.capitaleye.org/iraqchart.3.12.03.asp
Bechtel Group Inc.
$1,303,765 Total Political Contributions (1999-2002)
41 Percent to Democrats
59 Percent to Republicans
$6,250 Total to George W. Bush (1999-2000)
The Contract: USAID awarded the largest of its postwar Iraq contracts to Bechtel Group Inc. April 17. The capital construction contract gives Bechtel an initial award of $34.6 million, but provides for funding of up to $680 million over 18 months subject to Congress’ approval. Bechtel’s primary activities under the contract will include rebuilding power generation facilities, electrical grids, water and sewage systems and airport facilities in Iraq. The company has said it plans to subcontract a number of these projects.

Washington Group International Inc.
$756,231 Total Political Contributions (1999-2002)
42 Percent to Democrats
58 Percent to Republicans
$500 Total to George W. Bush (1999-2000)

Halliburton Co.
$708,770 Total Political Contributions (1999-2002)
5 Percent to Democrats
95 Percent to Republicans
$17,677 Total to George W. Bush (1999-2000)
The Contract: On March 25, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers awarded Halliburton Co. subsidiary Kellogg, Brown & Root the main contract to fight oil well fires and reconstruct oil fields in Iraq. The open-ended contract, which has no specified time or dollar limit, was given to the company without a bidding process. KBR has already announced it will subcontract the actual firefighting operations to Boots & Coots International Well Control Inc. and Wild Well Control Inc., both based in Houston.

Fluor Corp.
$489,378 Total Political Contributions (1999-2002)
43 Percent to Democrats
57 Percent to Republicans
$3,500 Total to George W. Bush (1999-2000)

Parsons Corp.
$252,401 Total Political Contributions (1999-2002)
39 Percent to Democrats
61 Percent to Republicans
$2,000 Total to George W. Bush (1999-2000)

Louis Berger Group Inc.
$89,000 Total Political Contributions (1999-2002)
56 Percent to Democrats
44 Percent to Republicans
$1,000 Total to George W. Bush (1999-2000)

TOTAL
$3,599,545 Total Political Contributions (1999-2002)
34 Percent to Democrats
66 Percent to Republicans
$30,927 Total to George W. Bush (1999-2000)

 

[Willmeister]

1: Money. They wanted to be able to continue to do bussiness with Saddam.

So was Halliburton. Your point?

 

[Legion]

1: Money. They wanted to be able to continue to do bussiness with Saddam.

So was Halliburton. Your point?

i didn't know they weren't allowed to do business with Iraq. Is this the same as trading for russian Ak-47s and russian tanks?

Simply because they were interested in promotting a dictator in order to make personal finacial gain.

You mentioned Halliburton though many have claimed they were insupport of the war in order to gather support of the oil. Rather contradictory don't you think?

of course if this were so it would have been easier and more cost effective to remove sanctions on Iraq then it would have to attack it.

 

[Clashman]

of course if this were so it would have been easier and more cost effective to remove sanctions on Iraq then it would have to attack it.

Why would it be? It's not like Halliburton actually payed for the war.

And if they would have lifted sanctions, the oil industry in Iraq was nationalized, so it is unlikely that they would have made any money off of it.

 

[MfA]

No, supposedly their motivations were peaceful rather then some sort of deal that they worked out with the slime ball that Saddam really was. So the motive is considerably less altruistic then it at first appeared rather it was more likely some kind of way of getting oil out of the scum ball for keeping him in power.

So France tried to prevent a war which if prevented among other things would have resulted in securing them some oil deals ... US faught a war which among other things secured all Iraqi oil for American companies.

Correlation does not imply causation.