PDA

View Full Version : Rebuilding Iraq



Bolverk
10th December 03, 02:25 PM
What are the opinions out there on excluding France, Russia, and Germany from contracts to rebuild Iraq? Do you think Germany belongs on this list, in veiw of their commitment they made in Afghanistan?

phoebe
10th December 03, 02:43 PM
I don't think anyone should be on this list

Bolverk
10th December 03, 02:53 PM
So you think it is okay to be against the liberation of a people and still reap the rewards of rebuilding the nation? Or is that you believe we should never have gone to Iraq, and by proxy countries who opposed us should be allowed to help with the rebuilding?

gooking
10th December 03, 02:54 PM
If we need to build Iraq, we should have accepted other countries help.

elipson
10th December 03, 02:59 PM
Should have never gone, but that point is moot.

Excluding them has just made states look like an international asshole, and thats the biggest reason they should've been included. This is politics, you gotta try and make ppl happy.
Bush is just tear-assing around the world like he owns it, and thats just stupid. Everyone needs friends. All these countries that he fucked over are gonna be very reluctant to be very supportive of anything he does from now on, like sending more troops to Iraq.

Bolverk
10th December 03, 03:05 PM
Hmmm. Interesting opinions. I would think that the countries who helped and supported us in Iraq, including the upcoming potential European Union Members, deserve to make money from rebuilding efforts. It goes a long way to show our grattitude to them. Perhaps it will also encourage other countries to consider the benefits of helping the U.S. in future actions aimed at removing ruthless dictators who kill in mass numbers.

elipson
10th December 03, 03:26 PM
It's nice to know that the US acts for such enlightened reasons.

And what about when the time comes that YOU need the help of those countries you've spurned? Trade negotiations anyone? How about security council vote? You're not the only country with a veto you know.

Bolverk
10th December 03, 03:31 PM
First off, what kind of trade does France have to offer, we have better wine and cheese then they do. In fact, everyone of their vines exist because of American root stalk used to bring their wine industry back from death caused by diesease. And everyone knows quality cheese comes from happy cows, and no cow is happier then a California Cow. LOL.

As far as the U.N. Security council, they are about as usful as tits on a bull. They become more and more irrelevant as time passes. Maybe they should pay us all of our back rent and move to the European Union.

PizDoff
10th December 03, 03:38 PM
Restrict bids on rebuilding Iraq?


http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1071056729940&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154

elipson
10th December 03, 03:39 PM
Uh excuse me! How much money does the US OWE the UN? Quite a bit if I remember correctly! And I think most members would be quite happy to pack up and leave new york for somewhere in Europe.
And you dont REALLY think the US is some omnipotent trading god that can fuck over whomever they wish? The US is just as dependant on the rest of the worlds economy as the world is on the states'.

Bolverk
10th December 03, 03:46 PM
Ah, but the rest of the world has pitched in to help, for the most part. The list of opposition to our efforts in Iraq is far smaller then our list of supporters. There are plenty of countries who we would have as trading partners, and the gap left by France, Russia, and Germany would be easily filled. In fact, they are more dependent on us then we are on them. America is the ultimate consumer, and to ignore that fact would be to the detriment of the country that ignored it.

As far as the U.N. goes, no one in America would miss a failed organization that has not lived up to its stated goals. It is a left over from WWII, and it has out lived its usefullness.

elipson
10th December 03, 03:52 PM
Bolverk, which countries have helped in Iraq? From what I know, they are for the most part small backwater countries with very little economic or political clout whatsoever (excluding Britain, although I wouldn't even say Britian supported it, Blair supported it!)

gooking
10th December 03, 04:40 PM
My country is not backwards.

Justme
10th December 03, 04:50 PM
"As far as the U.N. goes, no one in America would miss a failed organization that has not lived up to its stated goals. It is a left over from WWII, and it has out lived its usefullness."

God, is that true... send it to France. I wish we would pull out of the UN.

Kein Haar
10th December 03, 04:56 PM
I second Justme's UN proposal.

Dochter
10th December 03, 05:45 PM
Originally posted by elipson
Uh excuse me! How much money does the US OWE the UN? Quite a bit if I remember correctly!

Can you actually explain this one to me? I'm typically supportive of the UN but have never heard a coherent answer as to why we actually owe them some shit load of money.

I mean seriously would the UN have any real power if we weren't active members? Till 10 years ago?

The Wastrel
10th December 03, 06:21 PM
I think this is a serious question. To me there are two factors:

1. The US should not appear to be using Iraq as a source of pork.
2. France and Germany are mad because they can't get the pork.

Seriously. I believe that the motives of France and Germany in this controversy have gone largely unanalyzed by liberal Americans. It's weird, like America wants the contracts because it's bad, but France and Germany want them because they care so much.

Complicated. I have no answer. The best thing is to exclude them and avoid looking like a war profiteer.

Dochter
10th December 03, 06:26 PM
Didn't the french in particular have financial ties in Iraq despite the embargo as well? Hardly impartial.

Let those who assissted get the rebuilding contracts and accept none for american companies?

I can see that going over well.

phoebe
10th December 03, 08:45 PM
So you think it is okay to be against the liberation of a people and still reap the rewards of rebuilding the nation? Or is that you believe we should never have gone to Iraq, and by proxy countries who opposed us should be allowed to help with the rebuilding?
My support for the war hinges entirely on its affect on the Iraqi people... I don't believe the 'it was for oil' argument, the WMD claim might have been correct, but isn't a strong enough case... the 'evilness' of Saddam (yeah he did suck and I won't miss him) isn't worth punishing the people he is being awful to in the first place. There's really no other question to me than 'will this make their lives better?' so I don't really even care what GWB's motives were or Chirac's motives were... I care about the effect on those involved. (ie Iraqi people, and 'coalition' soldiers) I'm a very pragmatic person

So applying that to the idea of contract awarding... I say award the contract to whomever can do a better job for less money. The cheaper things can be done, the more can be done faster, and the faster the Iraqis can recover. If the best job will be done by the American companies, give it to them. If it's the French, let them do it

Southpaw
10th December 03, 11:14 PM
Originally posted by Dochter Can you actually explain this one to me? I'm typically supportive of the UN but have never heard a coherent answer as to why we actually owe them some shit load of money.


Dues. Every member nation has to pay them. We take our dues about as seriously as O.D.B. takes child support.



I mean seriously would the UN have any real power if we weren't active members? Till 10 years ago?

Do they have any real power today.

We sure as hell don't pay much attention to the U.N.





the liberation of a people


I don't think it's fair to use this term in association with the war in Iraq. If we are a liberator of people, there are a shit-load of other nations that we should be preparing to occupy.

Iraq tends to remind me of early America...various colonial powers fighting over resources that will make them money while the native population doesn't get shit.

Unless Iraqi people figure out a way to make the money, and not the US, France, or Russia, they are gonna remain a third world country raped for it's natural resources.

Bolverk
11th December 03, 02:10 PM
Originally posted by phoebe
My support for the war hinges entirely on its affect on the Iraqi people... I don't believe the 'it was for oil' argument, the WMD claim might have been correct, but isn't a strong enough case... the 'evilness' of Saddam (yeah he did suck and I won't miss him) isn't worth punishing the people he is being awful to in the first place. There's really no other question to me than 'will this make their lives better?' so I don't really even care what GWB's motives were or Chirac's motives were... I care about the effect on those involved. (ie Iraqi people, and 'coalition' soldiers) I'm a very pragmatic person

So applying that to the idea of contract awarding... I say award the contract to whomever can do a better job for less money. The cheaper things can be done, the more can be done faster, and the faster the Iraqis can recover. If the best job will be done by the American companies, give it to them. If it's the French, let them do it

Phoebe, I like your logic. And for the most part I would tend to agree with it. However, I also think that the countries who helped should get first crack at all the contracts. And if the countries who were owed money by Iraq prior to the war were to forgive part or all of that debt, I would allow them into the bidding process also. As for the rest, they should just be excluded, in my belief.

The Wastrel
11th December 03, 02:14 PM
But hang on...I was just thinking. Aren't those countries contributing aid? If so, the question is:

If they contribute aid for reconstruction, is their money only going to be going to American companies?

Bolverk
11th December 03, 02:14 PM
Originally posted by elipson
Bolverk, which countries have helped in Iraq? From what I know, they are for the most part small backwater countries with very little economic or political clout whatsoever (excluding Britain, although I wouldn't even say Britian supported it, Blair supported it!)

The Thirty Named Countries
Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom and Uzbekistan. The State Department listed Japan as available for "post-conflict" support.

elipson
11th December 03, 02:28 PM
From what I know, they are for the most part small backwater countries with very little economic or political clout whatsoever
Thank you for proving my point Bolverk. I sure am glad they have the support of Eritrea, Ethiopia and Latvia.

elipson
11th December 03, 02:38 PM
This thread makes me wonder about something. It seems like the States is say, "Help us out and we'll help you out", right?
Well, what about all the countries that jumped to help after 9/11 and during Afghanistan? It seems like you took all the help you needed, and then just ignored everyone elses problems.
Case in point:
I'm Canadian, I supported the War in Afghanistan, I'm a very pro-military person. We sent troops, not under the UN banner, but along side the US. You bombed the fuck outta them! and killed several in a friendly fire accident! I do not blame the States for this, shit happens. I dont regret sending troops with you, even though you killed several of them. I still support the efforts in Afghanistan. How did the US thank us? uh, well they didn't. They did however maintain the tarriffs on soft-wood lumber which is crippling the BC forrestry industry, along with that of several other provinces. Ya, it sure is nice to be apprecaited by those we die beside.

And, now that we disagree with them on something, do they say "hey no problem, you helped us in the past, you can sit out of this one"? No fucking way! they get defensive as if we've betrayed them or some shit, and try to make us feel giulty for not doing more ( US embassador guy to Canada Paul Celluci?).

Bolverk dont try to agrue that the US will remember those who helped them in their time of need, because it's pretty obvious Bush has a VERY short memory, and doesn't give a fuck who's helped him get where he is.

Bolverk
11th December 03, 02:40 PM
Australia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Spain, Turkey and the United Kingdom hardly qualify as small backwater countries.

I hardly think your point is proved by having smaller countries, that desire a larger role in the world, take an active part in Iraq. In fact, I think it only helps to disprove your point by having countries who have so much more to lose because they have so little to begin with.

phoebe
11th December 03, 02:51 PM
If they contribute aid for reconstruction, is their money only going to be going to American companies?
Yes


This thread makes me wonder about something. It seems like the States is say, "Help us out and we'll help you out", right?
Well, what about all the countries that jumped to help after 9/11 and during Afghanistan? It seems like you took all the help you needed, and then just ignored everyone elses problems.
Case in point:
I'm Canadian, I supported the War in Afghanistan, I'm a very pro-military person. We sent troops, not under the UN banner, but along side the US. You bombed the fuck outta them! and killed several in a friendly fire accident! I do not blame the States for this, shit happens. I dont regret sending troops with you, even though you killed several of them. I still support the efforts in Afghanistan. How did the US thank us? uh, well they didn't. They did however maintain the tarriffs on soft-wood lumber which is crippling the BC forrestry industry, along with that of several other provinces. Ya, it sure is nice to be apprecaited by those we die beside.

And, now that we disagree with them on something, do they say "hey no problem, you helped us in the past, you can sit out of this one"? No fucking way! they get defensive as if we've betrayed them or some shit, and try to make us feel giulty for not doing more ( US embassador guy to Canada Paul Celluci?).

Bolverk dont try to agrue that the US will remember those who helped them in their time of need, because it's pretty obvious Bush has a VERY short memory, and doesn't give a fuck who's helped him get where he is.
Soooo true

Bolverk
11th December 03, 03:21 PM
Originally posted by elipson
This thread makes me wonder about something. It seems like the States is say, "Help us out and we'll help you out", right?
Well, what about all the countries that jumped to help after 9/11 and during Afghanistan? It seems like you took all the help you needed, and then just ignored everyone elses problems.
Case in point:
I'm Canadian, I supported the War in Afghanistan, I'm a very pro-military person. We sent troops, not under the UN banner, but along side the US. You bombed the fuck outta them! and killed several in a friendly fire accident! I do not blame the States for this, shit happens. I dont regret sending troops with you, even though you killed several of them. I still support the efforts in Afghanistan. How did the US thank us? uh, well they didn't. They did however maintain the tarriffs on soft-wood lumber which is crippling the BC forrestry industry, along with that of several other provinces. Ya, it sure is nice to be apprecaited by those we die beside.

And, now that we disagree with them on something, do they say "hey no problem, you helped us in the past, you can sit out of this one"? No fucking way! they get defensive as if we've betrayed them or some shit, and try to make us feel giulty for not doing more ( US embassador guy to Canada Paul Celluci?).

Bolverk dont try to agrue that the US will remember those who helped them in their time of need, because it's pretty obvious Bush has a VERY short memory, and doesn't give a fuck who's helped him get where he is.

I am glad that you supported the war in Afghanistan. And though I am saddened by all friendly fire incidents, I believe that the United States of America has at least learned from past incidents, in previous wars. We did not try to cover this incident up, and that is a big step from the way that these things used to be handled. Friendly fire incidents are an unfortunate thing, but they have happened in every war, and we have been victims as well as the cause. No side is immune from such tragic accidents.

Personnally, since Canada has helped in the past, and if they were to forgive a portion or all of any debts owed to them by Iraq, then I would not be opposed to their contractors making money on the rebuilding of Iraq. However, I still believe those who were active supporters should get the first chance at the contracts. It was their economies, their people and their resources that were used to carry out the action, they deserve to replenish their economies before the Countries opposed are allowed to benefit, especially since they invested nothing. You lose nothing by such a proposition, where the supporters can replenish themselves from the efforts of rebuilding.

And as far as Bush not caring about those who helped, get real. He has showed his appreciation to those that matter most already, the troops. As for the other nations that helped, we are already supporting them in many ways, and will continue to have good relations with them for some time to come. I think your acusations of Bush being callous against his own supporters holds no water.

The Wastrel
11th December 03, 03:27 PM
B,
I am wondering what you think should be done if these countries have also pledged financial contributions to the reconstruction effort?

If that is so, isn't that a bit troublesome?

I used to think it would be nice if we could have it both ways. As reflected in my first post, but I had forgotten about the aid conference. Asking nations to contribute to reconstruction efforts and then confining bidding to American companies is...weird.

Dochter
11th December 03, 03:29 PM
Originally posted by Bolverk
And as far as Bush not caring about those who helped, get real. He has showed his appreciation to those that matter most already, the troops.

How?

On the topic of the thread, if you are providing support or aid you should have an equal shot.

Bolverk
11th December 03, 03:33 PM
Originally posted by Dochter
How?

On the topic of the thread, if you are providing support or aid you should have an equal shot.

He flew to Iraq on Thanksgiving Day.

Justme
11th December 03, 03:34 PM
Bush is my hero. He is like Lincoln!!! History will be his judge. There is so much going on I can't begin to say I can follow it. Who's getting contracts and why.... Take Halliburton (sp). In conversation with people I know in the industry, they told me it was not because of Cheney. It was because Halliburton were the only ones with the expertise. Is this true? I don' t have a clue. I trust these guys though. I know them, and they are straight up. Can I research all thats going on. NO. I am trusting the Adminstration to do whats right. If they don't, I will vote accordingly. How will I know if they don't. I will try to read and follow what I can. Is this a headache. Yes. 2004 all American's get to say.... Vote.

Bolverk
11th December 03, 03:37 PM
How about some Advil? LOL

Justme
11th December 03, 03:40 PM
Should the French, Germans, and Russians get contracts. Why. They didn't help. I believe there were a number of cases of equipment used against us that was of French and Russian manufacture. Where there others yes. But they stuck out for me. To get some perspective, that is why I like to look for letters and e-mails from the guys their. On the ground. To get their perspective. I have indirect contact with a few (really don't want to say how... actually I can't) and most of them see a purpose in there action. A legitimate purpose. Find these sources yourself and ask them. I'd be interested.

Bolverk
11th December 03, 03:51 PM
Wastrel, if they are giving aid? Hmmm, good question. Perhaps that should move them up the list some, but contracts should go to any in the Coalition first. Then next in line should be those who forgive all debt from Pre-War Iraq, then those who forgive a portion of debt, followed by those who restructure debt, followed by those who give aid. Some type of system needs to be created to add weight to the bidding according to these guidelines, I would think. That way those who have given the most in manpower, logistics, equipment, funding, etc., would stand to make a return on their investment. Kind of a crappy way to look at a war, but necessary none the less.

The Wastrel
11th December 03, 03:51 PM
I've asked mine. Consensus is, there's a mission that's worthwhile, but they don't like the way it's being carried out.

I found this:

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20031022-092310-1079r.htm


Germany also had bad news, saying its budget crisis precluded any contribution beyond the $224 million it has already pledged. Development Minister Heidemarie Weiczorek-Zeul also said Germany was unwilling to forgive an estimated $4.6 billion in Iraqi debt.


The World Bank has promised to lend Iraq between $3 billion and $5 billion in the next five years; Japan has promised $1.5 billion; Britain has pledged $439 million through 2005; Spain has promised $300 million; South Korea has offered $200 million; Canada has pledged $150 million; and Denmark has promised $50 million and 500 troops.

I'm still trying to find more complete sources on aid.

The Wastrel
11th December 03, 03:53 PM
From the same article:


"We don't foresee any additional aid at this stage, either in terms of financial aid or in cooperation in the military domain," Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said yesterday in Paris. "To us, the starting point is truly the full and complete recognition of Iraqi sovereignty."
France has, however, promised to help through the European Union, which has pledged $233 million.
The U.S. administrator in Iraq, L. Paul Bremer, extended an olive branch in an interview yesterday with the French newspaper Le Figaro.
"It's time for the French government to put aside all the disputes we may have had in February and March," he said of the prewar diplomatic standoff. "It's time the French government realized we are going to rebuild Iraq and that there is a role for France, as there is for all large countries."

Weird. They want the money, clearly.

Justme
11th December 03, 03:54 PM
On the world bank... When default occurs who pick up the cost? How much of that is funded by the U.S. vs other countries. Does anyone have a website that discusses that?

elipson
11th December 03, 05:58 PM
I think your acusations of Bush being callous against his own supporters holds no water.
Callous wasn't what I intended to mean, just that he really doesn't show his appreciation to the countries that help him (not talking about the troops). And if he wants to show the troops how much he cares, he can give them a raise.
My point?
We helped the States, willingly without reservation or complaint, even when shit went wrong, in Afghanistan and have little or nothing to show for it. Just more of the same.

fragbot
11th December 03, 06:34 PM
I've stayed out of this because I don't really have an opinion on the action that should be taken.

That being said, if they really wanted to screw the French, Germans, and Russians, they would've allowed them to bid on contracts and (considering we are quite influential) just ignored the bids. Since preparing an RFP response is expensive (both in real and opportunity costs), it would've been a nice eye gouge. And if their RFP comes in ridiculously low, accept it and watch them screw themselves* into the ground for free.

On another forum, it was indicated that it was counter-productive to release this information prior to asking for Iraqi loan forgiveness. While I think this point has merit, the timing and publicity of this may just be the opening salvo in negotiations for the loan discussion.

*I watched the CEO of my two-jobs-ago company do this and we ended up going $2M over-budget on a $500k project. After the project was completed, he fired the project manager for being over-budget. Never mind that she'd told him he was crazy for bidding that amount any and the account exec who'd been working with the company initially quit in disgust. Eventually, the joke was on him when our $5M bid for follow-on work was immediately rejected and they did it in-house.

The Wastrel
11th December 03, 07:28 PM
On another forum, it was indicated that it was counter-productive to release this information prior to asking for Iraqi loan forgiveness. While I think this point has merit, the timing and publicity of this may just be the opening salvo in negotiations for the loan discussion.

I'd been considering this, and I think that would be smart and square.

J-kid
11th December 03, 07:37 PM
Originally posted by elipson
Should have never gone, but that point is moot.

Excluding them has just made states look like an international asshole, and thats the biggest reason they should've been included. This is politics, you gotta try and make ppl happy.
Bush is just tear-assing around the world like he owns it, and thats just stupid. Everyone needs friends. All these countries that he fucked over are gonna be very reluctant to be very supportive of anything he does from now on, like sending more troops to Iraq.

Just a quick question, since you seem anti Iragy war, what would you do instead? He is a growing threat to the world and won't listen to any reason.

FingerorMoon?
11th December 03, 07:42 PM
The main image problem internationally seems to be this:
Why is everyone talking about who should be ALLOWED to rebuild Iraq.
The US government talking about who should be allowed to rebuild, gives an image that America now OWNS Iraq. Was it liberated or conquered ?

I'm not saying this is right or wrong because my personal opinion is the people that blew up Iraq can go rebuild it. The US has lost a lot of lives and spent a lot of money blowing things up, so personally I think they should be able to reap the benefits and rebuild now.

Freddy
11th December 03, 07:49 PM
"Weird. They want the money, clearly."

I think alot of it was about money right from the beginning. Most wars have a economic basis.

elipson
11th December 03, 11:39 PM
Ok J, your whole reason for going to war was because he was a threat?
But was he? Where the fuck are the weapons! I'm tired of being patient, people died because of this bullshit and we deserve some fucking proof!
And I know Vargas says they have them (but he can't be specific, or even really acknowledge he said this) and as much as I respect him, talk is cheap, we need proof.
And a threat to whom? To the west? He never WAS a threat to us! Just his neighbors.

Won't listen to reason? You mean like bringing back the weapons inspectors? Wait a minute, didn't he do that?

The Wastrel
11th December 03, 11:40 PM
I think alot of it was about money right from the beginning. Most wars have a economic basis.

Oh really? In what way? At what level?

Bolverk
12th December 03, 12:51 PM
Originally posted by elipson
Callous wasn't what I intended to mean, just that he really doesn't show his appreciation to the countries that help him (not talking about the troops). And if he wants to show the troops how much he cares, he can give them a raise.
My point?
We helped the States, willingly without reservation or complaint, even when shit went wrong, in Afghanistan and have little or nothing to show for it. Just more of the same.

Is this this the type of appreciation you are talking about. (http://www.canada.com/news/national/story.html?id=660F2E89-8BD7-4077-B879-B5392E5ADEB5)

I heard on the news this morning that retiring Prime Minister Jean Chretien was given assurances from George W. Bush that they would not be excluded from rebuilding Iraq. The reasons given were because of their help in Afghanistan, and the money they have contributed to rebuild Iraq.

As is the norm, Bush is attacked without people knowing all the facts. Or they won't allow the facts to alter their already pre-concived notions. In any case, you were incorrect.

The Wastrel
12th December 03, 01:08 PM
That's good to hear. Did anyone see the Frontline report on Iraq by the way?

elipson
12th December 03, 03:33 PM
Well I stand corrected on that issue.

Bolverk
12th December 03, 04:05 PM
Originally posted by elipson
Well I stand corrected on that issue.

I consider your ability to post this response an admirable quality. Thank you.

phoebe
13th December 03, 02:01 PM
The main image problem internationally seems to be this:
Why is everyone talking about who should be ALLOWED to rebuild Iraq.
The US government talking about who should be allowed to rebuild, gives an image that America now OWNS Iraq. Was it liberated or conquered ?
This is a good point. I still think we're looking at it the wrong way when deciding who should benefit from the reconstruction of Iraq. IRAQ should benefit from the reconstruction of Iraq. How about we put the money into their economy where possible? I'm sure Iraq has construction companies, even if the country is in shambles

Bolverk: I'm glad that Bush has finally decided to thank us for that. Took him long enough

elipson
13th December 03, 02:09 PM
I still think Bush is a moron.
:D

Southpaw
13th December 03, 02:14 PM
How about we say screw Iraq and start rebuilding the United States?

elipson
13th December 03, 02:15 PM
Something else I thought up the other day.
Don't Bush's actions sorta go against the free trade doctrine they've been histling for some time? I'm not totally informed on these issues, so anyone who is feel free to correct me, but isn't a main part of free trade agreements the idea that foreign companies should be given equal oppurtunites to bid on public contracts? This sounds a lot like bid rigging, which is illegal under many trade negotiations, right? Can't countries be sued for anti-competition policies?
Discuss.


phoebe is Canadian, yaaaaaaaaaaay!!!!

Bolverk
15th December 03, 02:03 PM
Originally posted by phoebe
This is a good point. I still think we're looking at it the wrong way when deciding who should benefit from the reconstruction of Iraq. IRAQ should benefit from the reconstruction of Iraq. How about we put the money into their economy where possible? I'm sure Iraq has construction companies, even if the country is in shambles

Bolverk: I'm glad that Bush has finally decided to thank us for that. Took him long enough

LOL... ah it is easy to be armchair presidents and prime ministers. What you really mean is that you are now happy the Bush has publically thanked Canada.

As far as the rebuilding of Iraq goes, Iraq will benefit greatly. The companies that bring the equipment and skill to reconstruct their country will provide jobs to the people of Iraq. I doubt they have even a small portion of the equipment and companies required, which is why a bidding process needs to be put into place. Their economy will grow tremendously with this reconstruction. That is the reality of the situation.

Bolverk
15th December 03, 02:06 PM
Originally posted by elipson
I still think Bush is a moron.
:D

Well, I never asked you to like Bush. In fact, I couldn't care less about what you think of him. But, since you have never sat down and had a conversation with the man, I doubt your analysis of his intelligence could be considered anywhere in the realm of accurate.

elipson
15th December 03, 06:42 PM
I still think he's a moron. His actions are enough to justify my feelings, IMHO of course.

And you didnt comment on my free-trade thought.

elipson
15th December 03, 06:44 PM
On a side note, I found myself close to defending him last night against some friends. They were saying how it was too bad the Hussien was caught and how Bush was worse than he was. I don't like him at all, but ppl need to keep things in perspective! Fuck its wierd, on this forum I'm a leftish kinda guy, in real life, I'm more pro-military than most of my friends!

Freddy
15th December 03, 08:07 PM
The Wastrel not to draw this into a debate. Let me give you a example WW1 and WW2.
During the first WW. Germany needed France's coal and iron mines. A pretext was need to justifile the war. Various nations spent millions with the latest toys of war and they were are dying to test them. Millions of dollars worth of government contracts were given by various private arms manufacturers. Among other things the war in most part was to gain economic resources from neighbouring states. As for WW2 it was just a continuation of WW1. Even before the attack on Pearl Harbour American Big Bussiness had cut off oil supplies to Japan. The Japanese had long disputes with Russia over lost territories stemming from an earlier Russian-Japanese war. Japan needed to invade China to prevent China's industrial revolution to take place. Economically China had more resources than Japan and that's what Japan's Big Business feared. Economically they could not compete with China. China's Boxer rebellion was in response to International Big Business plunder of China's economic resources and to seek out new economic markets (which is limited). Foreign nations wanted to do what they have done to Africa, to North American aboriginals etc etc. Even with the disputes between France and America is a long standing one. Even before the present Iraqi war there has been various industrial spying from the C.I.A. (more like Echelon) over a major French aircraft manufacturer and the like etc etc etc. (Got to get off the computer.)

phoebe
15th December 03, 09:55 PM
LOL... ah it is easy to be armchair presidents and prime ministers. What you really mean is that you are now happy the Bush has publically thanked Canada.
Ummmm... I SAID that, so yeah. Again, yes, I am happy that Bush has publically thanked Canada, at last


As far as the rebuilding of Iraq goes, Iraq will benefit greatly. The companies that bring the equipment and skill to reconstruct their country will provide jobs to the people of Iraq. I doubt they have even a small portion of the equipment and companies required, which is why a bidding process needs to be put into place. Their economy will grow tremendously with this reconstruction. That is the reality of the situation.
I said 'where possible'. I know that they won't have the resources for it, but they will have some. So where possible, get Iraqis to be involved. For example, as you suggested, hiring them as construction workers. That is the sort of thing I had in mind

I don't see why you're arguing with me when we are saying the same things more or less...?

Freddy
16th December 03, 02:56 PM
Just to let others know. I havnt posted any serious about politics for months now. I think its almost pointless. Everyone has thier 2 cent worth opinion (including myself).
Just drink some beer and be happy.

Bolverk
16th December 03, 03:13 PM
Originally posted by phoebe
Ummmm... I SAID that, so yeah. Again, yes, I am happy that Bush has publically thanked Canada, at last


I said 'where possible'. I know that they won't have the resources for it, but they will have some. So where possible, get Iraqis to be involved. For example, as you suggested, hiring them as construction workers. That is the sort of thing I had in mind

I don't see why you're arguing with me when we are saying the same things more or less...?

My dear Phoebe, I would never argue with a lady that bears such a cute avatar. I was only conversing, and seeking clarification of what you meant. That is the trouble with forums, it is difficult to include tone of voice and inflections with the post.:D

Owen
17th December 03, 08:27 AM
Originally posted by Freddy
The Wastrel not to draw this into a debate. Let me give you a example WW1 and WW2.
During the first WW. Germany needed France's coal and iron mines. A pretext was need to justifile the war. Various nations spent millions with the latest toys of war and they were are dying to test them. Millions of dollars worth of government contracts were given by various private arms manufacturers. Among other things the war in most part was to gain economic resources from neighbouring states. As for WW2 it was just a continuation of WW1. Even before the attack on Pearl Harbour American Big Bussiness had cut off oil supplies to Japan. The Japanese had long disputes with Russia over lost territories stemming from an earlier Russian-Japanese war. Japan needed to invade China to prevent China's industrial revolution to take place. Economically China had more resources than Japan and that's what Japan's Big Business feared. Economically they could not compete with China. China's Boxer rebellion was in response to International Big Business plunder of China's economic resources and to seek out new economic markets (which is limited). Foreign nations wanted to do what they have done to Africa, to North American aboriginals etc etc. Even with the disputes between France and America is a long standing one. Even before the present Iraqi war there has been various industrial spying from the C.I.A. (more like Echelon) over a major French aircraft manufacturer and the like etc etc etc. (Got to get off the computer.)

Holy Crap, you're going to have to explain that-WW2 was a continuation of WW1? *Asked because that seems very simplistic and overlooking quite a few things*

America's oil and iron embargo was put on Japan for a reason, it wasn't an idle thing. *Asked because it seems like you were saying it was done before the war*

China did have more resources, but it wasn't Japanese big business that wanted it, it was the imperial army looking for resources to keep the stove of their army fueled and running.*I believe I've already specified some specifics and made this point clear enough*

Twasn't any dispute when the allies liberated them in WW2. Who did they want support from after they caught the Dien Bien Phlu? Who's wrestled with Vichy on a plane similar, but not quite, to the scale that the Japanese have done with the Rape of Nanking? *A misread point on my part, as I didn't realize you were speaking solely on an economic plane.*

*Edited to make my initial comments less scathing and challenging, present my queries a little bit clearer, and also in hopes of facilitating discussion.

Owen
17th December 03, 08:40 AM
Originally posted by FingerorMoon?
The main image problem internationally seems to be this:
Why is everyone talking about who should be ALLOWED to rebuild Iraq.
The US government talking about who should be allowed to rebuild, gives an image that America now OWNS Iraq. Was it liberated or conquered ?

I don't think it matters at this point whether it was liberated or conquered-time will tell. One thing is for sure; the US is the occupying power and as such it should have a majority say, though I won't venture to say exactly "how much" of a majority.

Freddy
17th December 03, 01:48 PM
"Holy Crap, you're going to have to explain that. WW2 was a continuation of WW1?"
Like Holy Crap you dont know? There were disputed territories and unresloved tensions since WW1. Yes there was. Go do your historic research. Germany was forced to pay reparations and had restrictions placed on them by the Versaile Treaty. It also created an economic crisis in thier country.
Infact Paul Kennedy's "RISE AND FALL OF THE GREAT POWERS" is a good primer.
The same players in WW1 are the same as WW2. What do you think the 1919 Versaile's Treaty was about? Why do you think the Germans in WW2 forced the French (after being over run by German forces) to sit on the same train the Germans sat in to sign the Versaile's Treaty. Likewise after WW2 the Germans once again was forced by the French to sit on that very same train to sign their declairation of of surrender.
America's oil and iron embargo was put on Japan for a reason, it wasn't an idle thing.'
Please elaborate. Why then an oil embargo was place.
"China did have more resources, but it wasn't Japanese big business that wanted it, it was the imperial army looking for resources to keep the stove of their army fueled and running."
The Japanese army was in China way way before the out break of WW2. What were the Japanese Imperial Army in China to begin with then? (I dont think they were on vacation.) Japans imperial army was not in China for nothing. Nor do they send their arm forces out for nothing. (It cost money to run and send out arm forces). Its a fact that Japan's coal, iron ore and oil are limited. Both coal and iron ore are needed for thier industrial revolution.

"Your analogies could use some work as well as "disputes between France and America;" there wasn't any dispute when the allies liberated them in WW2." France was always a economic competitor of America (among other countries). For your information France's main concern was Germany's expansion at that period (its obvious). Answer this has there been industrial spying between France and America? Is French Big Business competitors and rivals of American Big Business (among other nationss of course)?

What is the A.B.C.'s of the market economy?


Non of the major industrialize powers were/are angels. America took part in the Boxer Rebellion as much as Japan, Germany and other nations.

The Wastrel
17th December 03, 02:28 PM
Economy doesn't explain war, Freddy. There are almost innumerable factors contributing to the outbreak of war. On some level, economics always plays a role, because initiators can't really initiate unless they have a viable war machine.

But to wave your hand and say war is about economics is too simple. It's better than neorealist power arguments and that sort of thing.

I refer you to the academic work of Randolph Siverson, Scott Gartner, Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, and Allan Stam...just to start.

Freddy
17th December 03, 02:48 PM
Not going to get into a debate about it (as I promised myself that I wouldnt).

The Wastrel Thanks for the academic work resources. I'm always hunting for good books.
Take care.

The Wastrel
17th December 03, 02:58 PM
Not debating. Just pointing out, there are many explanatory factors contributing to the outbreak and the execution of war...It's one of my fields.

Freddy
17th December 03, 03:55 PM
I give you a nice cold beer for you! I also have a fat juicy stake for you for dinner!

Take good care.

The Wastrel
17th December 03, 04:07 PM
Weird. I just checked the fridge...Nothing but fruit, chicken and artichokes...Damn.

Freddy
17th December 03, 04:30 PM
Must be those darn Christmas Elfs!!! I knew it! Santa Claus is a thief 364 days a year. Its only on Christmas day that he gives out some of his stolen goodies!

phoebe
17th December 03, 09:48 PM
So many people out there like to try to explain everything in terms of one thing. Like 'war is always about economics' or 'war is always about religion' (yes, I've met people who believed that) or '_______ is all about class/race/sex oppression'
It's like they can't wrap their minds around the idea of things being complicated

The Wastrel
17th December 03, 10:58 PM
Anything that purports to explain the outbreak of war likewise must account for periods of peace. Bit of a stumble for most theories...

FingerorMoon?
17th December 03, 11:00 PM
War is always about whether strking or grappling is better.

The Wastrel
17th December 03, 11:03 PM
And peace persists when everyone agrees that it is, in fact, grappling which is superior.

FingerorMoon?
17th December 03, 11:06 PM
Correct.
Its lucky Matt Furey was around to make his 'Bush vs Sadam' grappling tape, otherwise we'd be in a VERY different world right now.

Owen
18th December 03, 03:11 AM
Originally posted by Freddy
Like Holy Crap you dont know? There were disputed territories and unresloved tensions since WW1. Yes there was. Go do your historic research.

There are and have been disputed territories throughout the world before, during, and after wars. Using that line of thinking as the reasoning behind WW1 and WW2 being continuous is tenuous at the very best.


Germany was forced to pay reparations and had restrictions placed on them by the Versaile Treaty. It also created an economic crisis in thier country.
Infact Paul Kennedy's "RISE AND FALL OF THE GREAT POWERS" is a good primer.

People are generally made to pay reparations after a war. The economic crisis in the country didn't prevent Germany from shelling out their pocket battleships, though.


The same players in WW1 are the same as WW2.

Again, a very tenuous argument. It's easy to say "the players were the same," when it's a "world" war. There was decidedly different mentalities in the players of the war, whether you're speaking of the Japanese treatment of POWs, the use of chemical weapons, methods and/or tactics, Russia's revolution, the Washington and London Naval treaties, the Japanese turning from ally to the axis, etc. It seems like you're trying to simplify things more than would be justifiable, especially when speaking on something as complex as the reasoning behind world wars.


What do you think the 1919 Versaile's Treaty was about? Why do you think the Germans in WW2 forced the French (after being over run by German forces) to sit on the same train the Germans sat in to sign the Versaile's Treaty. Likewise after WW2 the Germans once again was forced by the French to sit on that very same train to sign their declairation of of surrender.

This is a very singular aspect of the war. Using the same logic, I could try to say the War of 1812 was merely a continuation of the American Revolution. Were the Germans sore after their previous loss? Sure, I'll bet they were. But they saw it as a loss, and not an interim period that would lapse so that they could continue fighting.


Please elaborate. Why then an oil embargo was place.

Just to humor what I'm assuming is a rhetorical question, it was in place because the US with its isolationist policies was trying to limit or stop Japanese agression through non-military, escalating means. FDR imposed the sanctions written by Acheson in response to their increasing aggression/lack of signs pointing to a de-escalation of aggressive actions-the sanctions were to include scrap metal and steel, but also written in such a way as to prevent the Japanese from purchasing oil (FDR's foreknowledge of Acheson's inclusion of a no-oil "clause" has been debated in the recent past).


The Japanese army was in China way way before the out break of WW2.

Opposite the Eurocentric view of WW2, Japan and China's involvement in the war began around '31, though it came to a stall a little before the European outbreak, which brought it right back on track. The Rape of Nanking happened in '37-'38 and is considered a piercing example of Japanese atrocity in WWII. Though the date is decidedly debatable, Japan's invasion of China may well be considered the beginning of the war.


What were the Japanese Imperial Army in China to begin with then? (I dont think they were on vacation.)

I believe the official Japanese version runs something along the lines of freeing the (East) Asian people from western colonialization (Though they would only replace it with their own and exploit it more than westerners did). I imagine it can be found in the "announced" philosophy of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, though it didn't actually become "announced" until mid-late 1940. There were lots of contributing factors; including the idea of Japanese cultural superiority to other Asian races, Japan's thinking they had just as much right to colonialization as western powers (Can't blame them there), the need for raw materials (Which would be further demonstrated by their seizing of the Dutch East Indies for oil and Indochina for rubber) for their military and the industry that helped build it. I'm sure there're more, but it helps demonstrate that saying, "Japan needed to invade China to prevent China's industrial revolution to take place" is a rather simplistic view.


Japans imperial army was not in China for nothing. Nor do they send their arm forces out for nothing. (It cost money to run and send out arm forces). Its a fact that Japan's coal, iron ore and oil are limited. Both coal and iron ore are needed for thier industrial revolution.

Japan's industrial revolution took place during the decades of the Meiji Resoration-from about 1868 to around 1910 (I forget the exact ending date). They were already a player on global economic scale. I wasn't implying that they sent their army out for nothing or that they had abundant resources of their own. I'm questioning this/ese statement(s):


Japan needed to invade China to prevent China's industrial revolution to take place. Economically China had more resources than Japan and that's what Japan's Big Business feared.

They invaded them for a multitude of reasons, though I wouldn't put prevention of an industrial revolution as a leading one. I'd tend to list the reasons more along the lines of the ones I've already listed-belief of cultural superiority, need of the raw resources, etc. I also wouldn't list Japan big business as fearing them as a major reason. I think you're listing possible or contributing reasons in lieu of more readily apparent ones.


France was always a economic competitor of America (among other countries).

I didn't realize you were speaking solely of economy (If you didn't guess by the mentioned instances in my response).


For your information France's main concern was Germany's expansion at that period (its obvious).

Germany's expansion was a "main concern" for any country near it.


Answer this has there been industrial spying between France and America?

I would assume so.


Is French Big Business competitors and rivals of American Big Business (among other nationss of course)?

I would assume so.


What is the A.B.C.'s of the market economy?

I honestly don't know. But when you present the economic perspective as a/the singular reason for war you run into a problem.


Non of the major industrialize powers were/are angels.

I don't think anyone would argue that.


America took part in the Boxer Rebellion as much as Japan, Germany and other nations. [/B]

I would cede that. I wasn't meaning to argue the Boxer Rebellion.

Freddy
18th December 03, 12:54 PM
I'm not going to turn this into a debate as I have already promised myself many many months ago I wouldnt. If someone really wanted to give a good reponse for the reasons of WW1/2 it would take volumes inwhich I'm noy prepare to do (yes I was trying to put everything in a nut shell instead of turning it into a long winded essay). Your comments in general tends to be personally opinionated and superficial at the least.

The Wastrel
18th December 03, 12:58 PM
WHAT?! Freddy, you're an alright guy, but if you don't have a substantive criticism to offer, you probably shouldn't post at all. That's one of the silliest examples of hand-waving dismissal I've ever seen on this board from someone who is otherwise quite serious.

Freddy
18th December 03, 03:07 PM
Its pointless to post about something that has been written thousands of times already. Theres plenty of books and articles written by professors and the like. Various intellectuals debate this all the time. Nothing new on the table with this thread. If you like you could pull up tons of articles from the internet. (Its funny how Owen's comments isnt that substantial either but you choose to dismiss that part.)
"Quite serious"? Why do you think I havnt posted anything political for months now. Check the old forums posts and let me know when was the last time (more like three months) I posted anything political. Infact I didnt have any criticism to offer at all. Just my two cent opinion. Seeing how people react is quite interesting. (BTW No where did I say ALL wars have an economic basis.) Thats just my two cents.

http://www.lgu.ac.uk/langstud/pwr/ww2.htm
The origins of the Second World War are generally viewed as being traced back to the First World War (1914-1918). In that war Germany under the ultra-nationalistic Kaiser Wilhelm II along with its allies, had been defeated by a combination of the United Kingdom, United States, France, Russia and others. The war was directly blamed by the victors on the militant nationalism of the Kaiser's Germany; it was Germany that effectively started the war with an attack on France through Belgium. France, which had suffered a previous defeat at the hands of Prussia (a state that merged one year later with others to form Germany) in the Franco-Prussian War in 1870, demanded revenge for its financial devastation during the First World War (and its humiliation in the earlier war) ensured that the various peace treaties, specifically the Treaty of Versailles imposed tough financial reparations and restrictions on Germany.


Adolf Hitler
German Führer

A new democratic German republic, known as the Weimar Republic, came into being. After some success it was hit by hyperinflation and other serious economic problems. Right wing nationalist elements under a variety of movements, but most notably the Nazi Party of Adolf Hitler, sought to blame Germany's "humiliating" status on the harshness of the post-war settlement, on the weakness of democratic government, and on the Jews, whom it claimed possessed a financial stranglehold on Germany. Hitler was appointed Reichskanzler (Chancellor) on January 30, 1933, by the aged President Paul von Hindenburg. Hitler's government exercised much of its power through the special emergency powers possessed by the President under the constitution. These powers enabled a government with the President's powers to effectively bypass the Reichstag (federal parliament). Under a further disastrous clause in the Weimar constitution when the President died, his office was temporarily assumed by the Chancellor. As a result, when Hindenburg died on August 2, 1934, the immense powers of the presidency fell into the hands of Adolf Hitler. Through the possession of those powers and an Enabling Act that allowed the nazi government to bypass and ignore the constitution, Hitler ensured his possession of the presidential powers became permanent and so gained dictatorial control over Germany.

For a detailed discussion of this period, refer to the article on Gleichschaltung.

The Italian economy also fell into a deep slump following World War I. Anarchists were endemic, Communist and other Socialist agitators abounded among the trade unions, and many were .....................................etc etc etc

The Wastrel
18th December 03, 03:12 PM
Freddy,
Please don't be offended, but you are referencing only the most basic facts of the war. This is high school stuff, yet you're treating it like it is revelatory material. Same damn thing you did on your article-spamming on the US and Torture thread. You are NOT the first person in the world to realize that conditions at the end of WWI lead to WWII.

But you could just as easily argue that WWII occurred because the Germans weren't beaten down enough.

Owen
18th December 03, 04:25 PM
Originally posted by Freddy
I'm not going to turn this into a debate as I have already promised myself many many months ago I wouldnt. If someone really wanted to give a good reponse for the reasons of WW1/2 it would take volumes inwhich I'm noy prepare to do (yes I was trying to put everything in a nut shell instead of turning it into a long winded essay). Your comments in general tends to be personally opinionated and superficial at the least.

I was hoping for more of a discussion than a debate, though I realize now my initial post in this thread could definately be seen as "challenging." As for comments being opinionated and superficial-I really don't even have a reply.

*I did go back to my initial post and try to clarify specific questions and also take out some less than flattering statements on my part.

Owen
18th December 03, 04:31 PM
Originally posted by Freddy
Its pointless to post about something that has been written thousands of times already. Theres plenty of books and articles written by professors and the like. Various intellectuals debate this all the time. Nothing new on the table with this thread. If you like you could pull up tons of articles from the internet. (Its funny how Owen's comments isnt that substantial either but you choose to dismiss that part.)

If I avoided or skirted one of your queries, please just say so. What other information could I provide to substantiate my reply? As far as the rest of the quoted post above-I wasn't arguing that the origins of the war weren't in WW1, only that to call WW2 a continuation of WW1 is misleading and a little simplistic.

Freddy
18th December 03, 06:10 PM
"to call WW2 a continuation of WW1 is misleading and a little simplistic."
For example explain WHY it is misleading or simplestic.

Freddy
18th December 03, 06:33 PM
"Same damn thing you did on your article-spamming on the US and Torture thread."
Whats there to argue about. People could do their own research and draw their own conclusions. Theres alot of information that others could search for over the net or their local library.

Owen
18th December 03, 10:21 PM
Originally posted by Freddy
For example explain WHY it is misleading or simplestic.

I think I began answering this sufficiently in one of my previous posts:

There was decidedly different mentalities in the players of the war, whether you're speaking of the Japanese treatment of POWs, the use of chemical weapons, methods and/or tactics, Russia's revolution, the Washington and London Naval treaties, the Japanese turning from ally to the axis, etc. It seems like you're trying to simplify things more than would be justifiable, especially when speaking on something as complex as the reasoning behind world wars.

It's misleading because they simply aren't "continuous." While some of the origins and motivations of WW2 may well proven to date back to WW1, they are not one continuous war. I'll reiterate some of the big differences:

Chemical warfare

Trench Warfare

The coming of Communism

Better small arms and larger ones

Decisively more air power being used

A decided change in Naval methodology as a result of the air power increase.

Death of the Battleship-Birth of the Aircraft Carrier

Japan being the on the Axis rather than the Allies

Japan's treatment of POWs

The Holocaust

A decidedly different geopolitical situation.

Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere

Tripartite

Submarines

What else do you need exactly?

Another thing is, you're switching the burden of proof from yourself to me.

Freddy
19th December 03, 12:10 PM
"Another thing is, you're switching the burden of proof from yourself to me."
I'm not trying to turn it into an argument. Like I said on my first post "....My two cents opinion." I was only making a GENERAL comment.

Freddy
19th December 03, 01:08 PM
Thought it would be nice to read other people's perspectives.

patfromlogan
19th December 03, 02:01 PM
Freddy is right about WW1 leading directly to WW2.

*Waves hand dismissively*




ps. the above (*Waves hand dismissively*) is a joke. Thought I had better warn Wastrel before I get taken down.


But after reading John Keegan's WW1, I'm convinced. WW1 not only planted the seeds for WW2, it watered and added compost to the mix. That technology was different is just a matter of the advances over time.



Keegan, unlike some of us on Bullshido, admits he doesn't have the answers to all the questions and issues. He asks if WW1 seems so obviously futile and such a massive waste of life now, how could it have seemed worthwhile back then? Why did people carry on, knowing they would die?

Another book by Keagan, Face of Battle, is a very good read.

The Wastrel
19th December 03, 03:44 PM
Whether or not WWI led to WWII is not in question.

Owen
20th December 03, 04:42 PM
Originally posted by patfromlogan
But after reading John Keegan's WW1, I'm convinced. WW1 not only planted the seeds for WW2, it watered and added compost to the mix. That technology was different is just a matter of the advances over time.

I'm not debating that the origins of WW2 lay (lie?) in WW1. I'm having a problem with Freddy's justification(s) of them being one continuous war, which I believe is not correct.

patfromlogan
27th December 03, 11:26 AM
Well, ofcourse I agree that there was a long intermission...

patfromlogan
27th December 03, 11:31 AM
Originally posted by Bolverk
What are the opinions out there on excluding France, Russia, and Germany from contracts to rebuild Iraq? Do you think Germany belongs on this list, in veiw of their commitment they made in Afghanistan?

This was the original thread and IMHO contracts should be open to everyone. And look at the sad case of Afghanistan to see how successful 'rebuilding' is going on. According to the Salt Lake Tribune many of the refugees who returned to Afghanistan are trying to get back to Pakistan because of the miserable conditions at home.

Best bumper sticker seen in Hawaii: Blame Canada