This Certainly Could Look REALLY Bad. :(

[DemoCoder]

Maybe they are just following the Germany and Japan model after WW2: for-profit reconstruction using private companies, iraqi exiles, MBAs, etc rather than UN relief agencies and charities. Capitalist rebuilding vs Socialist model.

The traditional leftwingers will piss and moan about people "making a profit off the suffering of the Iraqis", and they expect top talent people to be incentivized to fly into Iraq and help them rebuild for reasons of charity, but the reality is, if you want to rapidly rebuild the country, employ the iraqis, and channel in foreign investment, you will need to allow people to profit from it.

I simply do not trust the UN welfare-style approaches where you trickle in money and aid to what the UN thinks Iraq needs money for. Let capital flow into the country and let what gets built be driven by demand and by profit.

 

[RM. Andersson]

http://money.cnn.com/2003/03/25/news/companies/war_contracts/index.htm

Most of the middle east, hell, the world at large, thinks this war is a grab for oil.

We don't think so. we _know_ that it is so!

Bush more or less confirmed it in the meeting with Blair that the US is not willing to allow the UN to govern or control the Iraq after the war. The US will do this to be able to control/expoit the oil.

After the war things need to be done fast. There is no time for endless discussions in the UN. There will be lots of problems that must be solved.
The democratic process must start. There must be order and stability. The people must get food, medicin and other essential supplys.
Actually. In most places UN have made conflicts permanent rather than solving them. And there is a big chanse that there will be conflicts between the different groups of people in Iraq.

 

[Natoma]

Looks like it *did* look really bad. Halliburton is now officially out of the running due to political pressure regarding Cheney's ties to the company, and the awarding of oil contracts.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/892259.asp?0cv=CB10

 

[pax]

Maybe they are just following the Germany and Japan model after WW2: for-profit reconstruction using private companies, iraqi exiles, MBAs, etc rather than UN relief agencies and charities. Capitalist rebuilding vs Socialist model.

The traditional leftwingers will piss and moan about people "making a profit off the suffering of the Iraqis", and they expect top talent people to be incentivized to fly into Iraq and help them rebuild for reasons of charity, but the reality is, if you want to rapidly rebuild the country, employ the iraqis, and channel in foreign investment, you will need to allow people to profit from it.

I simply do not trust the UN welfare-style approaches where you trickle in money and aid to what the UN thinks Iraq needs money for. Let capital flow into the country and let what gets built be driven by demand and by profit.

Personally, as a social-democrat (somewhat as politically im inclined to change) I have no probs with private investement in Iraq if that is the choice of Iraqis. I think the fears some liberals express on the issue is that they dont want carpet baggers to rape the country as has so often happened before and happened recently and continue to happen with the world bank scams... Legitimate concerns about Iraqis getting fucked over by westerners relying on desperate situations to grab assets dime on the dollar...

 

[DemoCoder]

Looks like it *did* look really bad. Halliburton is now officially out of the running due to political pressure regarding Cheney's ties to the company, and the awarding of oil contracts.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/892259.asp?0cv=CB10

That's too bad, since Halliburton (their sub division) had experience putting out 700 Kuwaiti oilwell fires. I just hope whoever wins the contract has the wisdom to hire away from advisers from HalliBurton who were in Kuwait last time.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Yeah, looks like another case of "politics" getting in the way of what is actually the best thing to do...sad, really.

 

[RussSchultz]

Looks like it *did* look really bad. Halliburton is now officially out of the running due to political pressure regarding Cheney's ties to the company, and the awarding of oil contracts.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/892259.asp?0cv=CB10

That's too bad, since Halliburton (their sub division) had experience putting out 700 Kuwaiti oilwell fires. I just hope whoever wins the contract has the wisdom to hire away from advisers from HalliBurton who were in Kuwait last time.

Boots and Coots is already there, doing the same job they did in Kuwait the last time.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/special/iraq/1833169

 

[Natoma]

Yeah, looks like another case of "politics" getting in the way of what is actually the best thing to do...sad, really.

So you completely disagree with the concept of "conflict of interest" then? I mean, that's basically what caused this. It's what caused the resignation of Richard Perle. It's what caused Henry Kissinger to resign from the 9/11 investigationary board, etc etc etc.

I don't see this as politics as all. I see it as a good resolution of a big time conflict of interest that would only further the arguments of those that stress that we're only in Iraq to have long term control over their oil, and in the big picture, the entire region.

 

[Nagorak]

I think more aptly we went to war because of this administration's link to the oil companies. The truth is, there are no weapons of mass destruction.

There's two factors: GW dislikes Saddam because he tried to have his daddy assassinated and is dumb enough to be easily influenced by those close to him.

Cheney just sees the oil being available to US companies to exploit.

As for the rest, maybe Rumsfeld and co really are stupid enough to think the Iraqis would welcome us with open arms. I mean, apparently they actually thought dropping bombs on buildings causes "shock and awe", when anyone who has watched the Israeli-Palestinian conflict knows that blowing up buildings just causes people to become ENRAGED. And I suppose civilian casualties are just "collateral damage" to the military, but to the Iraqi public I suppose it's seen in an entirely different light.

Even if we win the war we're basically screwed. We will not be welcomed with open arms, we'll be welcomed by suicide bombers.

Well, as you pointed out, it is Cheney's -former- company. So he did get rid of any direct conflict of interest. Lots of politicians are former businessmen, so there are inevitably some connections.

I think you're in denial as to how this country works. Only those with money can run and those who do get it from big corporations. Inevitably there are connections because the companies own the politicians.

I mean, really, "conflict of interest" is pretty much a joke. Companies are the interests, the public doesn't matter.

In other words: The problem isn't that Haliburton was in the running to get the contract, the problem is Cheney is Vice President. The answer isn't to bar people from running for office, it is to produce some real campaign reforms that prevent people from just buying office. Until that time the U.S. government is more or less a corporate proxy, and I'm not under any illusions that will change.

But, hey, anyone can grow up to be President. As long as he is born into the rich political aristocracy. If George W. had been anyone besides Bush, he'd never have even been considered to run for office.