Non boaty, unless u r sailing to Persian Gulf

[Twister_Ken]

I've argued consistently that the war is not about terrorism, nor weapons of mass destruction, nor even the human rights of the Iraqi people. It is about the USA'a self interest in general and oil in particular.

So imagine my total and utter surprise to find the following on the Lloyds List website this morning:

>US firm to win Umm Qasr port reconstruction deal.
NON-AMERICAN companies are being locked out of US-backed Iraq reconstruction tenders worth an estimated $1bn, it was confirmed yesterday. <

<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.lloydslist.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=LLPortal/LloydsList>http://www.lloydslist.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=LLPortal/LloydsList</A> for more details

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[tcm]

Re: But but

Surely any war is about self-interest? How could even a holy war or crusdae not have the same tag? Concern about terrorism against US, concern about lack of supply of oil to US, concern about poss supply of WOMD to splinter groups who then use them against US, all in one way or another adversely affecting US/UK way of life, or lives. These may not be highminded enough aims or ideal for many, but it's what "governments" are there to protect and promote, perhaps using armies if they can afford to pay for and attract armies to enforce their will.

[humour]
In contrast with TK, I would like to say that I have constantly and consistently changed my mind about this war from one minute to the next. Today, it seems that the US involvement in israel and afgahnistan etc surely shows that they aren't solely interested in oil, are they? No. In fact, I have decided that this latest news shows that really, as far as the middle east is concerned, the western powers are all chasing one thing: sand. [/humour]


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[milltech]

Well Ken your views on this subject are known and understandable, personally although marginally in favour of the war I could be moved either way.

However, in a wider sense, we used to be the World Policeman and I'm sure we did it with self interest as well as stability in mind. I think on balance that a strong world policeman seeking to create democracy in its own image and a MacDonalds on every High Street remains the current best option for the world.

Our World institutions are still at a simple level and wishing it were different won't make it so. Until we can resolve matters around a table someone has to make a decision. As we all know in every sphere of life, dealing with a problem by making any decision is usually better than making none.

I think I heard on the news that Bush was asking for a $700 billion war chest, it doesn't seem too unreasonable to try and get some of it back into the US economy.

<hr width=100% size=1>John
<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.allgadgets.co.uk>http://www.allgadgets.co.uk</A>

 

[summerwind]

Sorry that I can't agree about the necessity of war. Saddam is like any other bully - he will keep on until you stand up to him. Sending inspectors and allowing him to play ducks and drakes for twelve years was a mistake that now has to be paid for. I'm afraid that the longer we waited, the worse the situation became. People like him see humanity as weakness.

Allowing Saddam to continue has been encouragement for other tyrants to chance their arm, causing immense suffering to millions of people. For example, do you think the current Zimbabwe situation would have developed if Mugabe thought he was going to get a hammering? Is it pure coincidence that N.Korea has started to flex its muscles when it sees the doves arguing that war against Saddam is illegal etc?

The old saying stands true - A smack in the head in time saves nine

BTW, whilst I disagree with your view, I am mighty glad you are able to express it without worrying about a knock on the door in the early hours from the secret police. Could an Iraqui boatie do that?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[sailbadthesinner]

my grasp of internaitional politics is minimal. I thought it would not happen that the pressure would build and then they would give saddaqm a 3 month deadline after which whole EU and UN joins behind the effort. I thought this becuase it is what i would have done.

One of main reasons given was 'well the troops are there and ready.' Sounds familiar to 1stWW. unable to stop the troop trains??

My cousin however is out there with 3 Commando so i have an interest on this situation.

I think to be talking of done deals is a bit premature.The war aint over and noone knows what will need doing. I think that companies need to think before wading in there. A contract to rebuild Iraq may not end up being the most profitable in the short or long run. Wait and see.

Lets get those boys home safely first and worry about the manouevering then.

<hr width=100% size=1><font color=red>I can't walk on water, but I do run on Guinness</font color=red>

 

[tcm]

huh. I think it's an excellent idea to nip over and fix things up. Then, fix them up again when they get blown up by dissenting iraqis. And for the third time when accidentally blwon up by smart bombs.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[sailbadthesinner]

Agreed if it is profitable
however there is no guarantee that in the inevitable rush to get started on patching iraq together it won't leave some companies landed with some serioulsy dodgy contracts.

<hr width=100% size=1><font color=red>I can't walk on water, but I do run on Guinness</font color=red>

 

[davidhand]

I used to work for Bechtel they rarely take a job that's not cost plus. They did a lot of work in the middle east years ago (built Jubail etc) they also have a London office which handled a lot of Jubail work. Also I am sure the sub contracts will go international I remember them buying French fire engines once.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[sailbadthesinner]

yeh but alot of cost plus has gone
as vickers? boeing? (cannot remember was it?) recently found to their cost. they ended up splitting overrun on budget 50%, still a right result i suppoose.

i new someone who had worked for vickers and said the idea of cost plus still pervaded the company years after actual cost plus contracts had ceased to exist.

I understand if iraq is built cost plus then hooray happy days , i may even go over meself.

<hr width=100% size=1><font color=red>I can't walk on water, but I do run on Guinness</font color=red>

 

[Peppermint]

Makes you wonder.

If the criteria is "The US don't get enough trade/contracts" who's next.

Easier to judge than civil rights or weapons programmes.

Q.Whats in it for the US?
A. Nothing

OK lets zap em!

Do you remember when a govenment started a few civic projects to kick start the lagging economy. It's just like that but you do it in someone elses country.

Keynes would have been proud.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[david_e]

I sincerely hope things work out OK for your cousin, The Royal Marines are really showing their metal and true colours.

You are quite right to mention how early it is in this conflict. The spin started almost from day one when the much talked about quick in and out job became a much more difficult task.

There is no doubt that Saddam and the Baat need removing, whether this turns out to be the best way remains to be seen.

I had an hour to spare this morning so strolled around Westminster, despite the police presence this, amongst many others, would be an easy target for retribution IMHO.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Ohdrat]

Apparently the reason France is so vociferously anti Gulf War II that the US have appointed themselves as the main contractors for the rebuilding with the UN as paymaster.. It stinks whichever side of the fence you're on.. what I don't get is why we're in it.. we aint going to get any rebuid contracts .. I think wer're just muppets.. or at least TB is..

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[johnsomerhausen]

We all know here in the States why Bush is doing this: "God has spoken to me and I know I'm right..." but Tony Blair ? He's bright enough to knopw that British Rail is a clearer and more present danger to you people than Saddam ....
john

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[johnsomerhausen]

Re: But but

If the Yanks are chasing sand, they certainly found it ! (that sandstorm of the last two days...). But Afghanistan is also about oil (they had been negociating with the Taliban in 1999-2000 to get permission to build a pipeline from the Kazakh oil fields to the sea, so as not to have to pass through Iran...)
john

<hr width=100% size=1>