Do you see no difference between where American tax dollars earmarked to rebuild Iraq are spent, and where an American citizens spends their money for a car?
I see a big difference.
And my personal feeling is that the American tax dollars should be spent as follows:
Preference goes to:
Iraqi companies that did not do business with the previous regime.
Companies from countries that we are helping with other rebuilding efforts (Afghanistan, for example)
Companies from countries that took a risk to support our effort (Turkey? Pakistan?)
Companies from countries that sent troops.
Companies from countries who supported the war with money.
Companies from countries who voted with us.
Companies from the US and allies, in proportion to aid.
I also think that this type of prioritization should hold true for Bosnia, or Sierra Leone, or Afghanistan. Or Israel. Or Baltimore.
The money should be used to rebuild the business infrastructure as well as rebuilding the physical infrastructure. And the money should, wherever possible, benefit American citizens as well as the country the money is being shipped to.
Jerry Johnson
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/11/03 12:14PM >>>
Why should we then import anything from French, German or Russian
companies, or a company from any state that happened to think Bush's war
plans were based on conjecture? We're importing oil from Russia. Why
is that ok? We're giving tax dollars to Russian companies from that.
Why is it ok for Daimler-Benz to own Chrysler? They didn't support the
war, but thousands of people buy Mercedes and BMW's and Minis every
month. There's American money going straight to Deutschland right there.
Singling out this particular arena for denying particpation is nothing
more than childishness on Bush's part. If he was serious about
isolating non-participants, they'd assign massive tariffs to imports of
ALL products. But they can't, and they won't. The WTO said assigning
steel tariffs was illegal, and Bush stopped it. If they tried it on
anything else, it would be denied just as quickly. You don't get to say
you're a member of the "international community" then try to not play fair.
- Jim
Jerry Johnson wrote:
>Jim,
>
>Why in the world should the United States government give American tax dollars to French companies, regardless of their stance on the war?
>
>I don't see a single reason that they should get dollar one.
>
>Jerry Johnson
>Tax payer.
>
>
>
>>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/11/03 11:36AM >>>
>>>>
>>>>
>Who says that companies in France, Germany or Russia didn't agree with
>the government's official position? Governments are meant to take
>stances, but I guarantee companies with international business
>relationships are *far* more pragmatic. Do you really think that some
>electrical services firm officers in France sit around in street cafes,
>wearing striped shirts, pencil moustaches and berets, chain-smoking and
>saying "Zees Boosh, 'ee ees a merde-de-tete, non?" and singing "La
>Marseillese"? Wake up!
>
>Bush simply cuts off nations that saw through his flimsy excuse for a
>war like some sort of impetuous child. Russia is THE largest producer
>of oil in the world today. You don't think there are some experts in
>the field of oil field maintenance and management there, do you?
>Obviously, though, we don't want them competing with American firms! I
>mean, all the manuals will be in Russian or something.
>
>Anyone can criticize the faux-socialist French government or Russia's
>questionably stable democratic underpinnings, but these are not
>oligarchies. They're home to trillions of dollars of private enterprise
>who could possibly benefit from contracts in Iraq - money that would go
>not only to those organizations, but to the people that work for them.
>
>Bush said the war in Iraq was against the rulers of Iraq, not against
>the people. Funny that his backlash against the nations that opposed
>his war is against the people, and not the rulers.
>
>- Jim
>
>John Stanley wrote:
>
>
>
>>the us and the other sixty-odd countries who helped us get to bid. now I'm
>>not arguing the fact that the us companies may get the bulk of the
>>contracts, but I as a taxpayer would rather my money go to US companies than
>>another countries.
>>
>>i am also not arguing that there wont be corruption in the contract process,
>>ahem Halibuton, but it is still better than the French getting my money.
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Kevin Graeme [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 10:46 AM
>>To: CF-Community
>>Subject: Re: Bush gives the finger to the world again
>>
>>
>>Why should US companies benefit from a war manufactured by our own country?
>>When organized crime does that it's called a "protection racket".
>>
>>-Kevin
>>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "John Stanley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 9:32 AM
>>Subject: RE: Bush gives the finger to the world again
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>The countries in question can still do business with Iraq, they just cant
>>>bid on the contracts that the US taxpayers are paying for. They can be
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>hired
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>as subcontractors for the contracts as well. I dont see why this is such a
>>>huge deal? Why should the US taxpayers pay french companies to rebuild
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Iraq
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>when they werent willing to support the US efforts in the first place?
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: Kevin Graeme [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 10:28 AM
>>>To: CF-Community
>>>Subject: Bush gives the finger to the world again
>>>
>>>
>>>Former top U.S. officials are blasting the Bush administration for
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>reopening
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>a rift with Europe by excluding critics of the war from prime contracts
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>for
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Iraq's reconstruction.
>>>
>>>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,105433,00.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>><http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,105433,00.html>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>><http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,105433,00.html>
>>>
>>>"I thought we were in the process of acquiring support rather than
>>>alienating it," former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright (search)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>said.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>So let me get this straight.
>>>
>>>1. Economy is bad.
>>>2. Find a patsy country and accuse them of something unfounded.
>>>3. Get called on it by other countries.
>>>4. Attack anyway
>>>5. Deny reconstruction contracts to countries that wouldn't help in an
>>>illegal war.
>>>
>>>And people are complaining? I don't get it. It looks like a perfect plan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>to
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>boost the economy by giving local companies big contracts.
>>>
>>>-Kevin
>>> _____
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> _____
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
