pentagon contract ban

Anything else would have surprised me... greatly.

Lil' Timmy: I think it's spelled pre-teen-ious :cheese:
 
Well, after all, we went in there for economic profit. As the very end of the article casually mentions, the U$ has already distributed many contracts exclusively to US companies(who knows how many billiion$). For whatever remains, the US is willing to throw some bones to other countries that supported the military seizure of Iraq. They see no reason for any country that didn't invade Iraq to profit from that military action. Makes sense.
 
I'd like to see Bush advocates that think the war had no connection with profit rebut this one...
 
No!!1! Don't You Get it!??1! The US A Went in To Liberate Iraq!!11! Those countries get what they deserve for being heretics to god;s army!1! Curse them AQll!!1!1!11!oneone!!1
 
Well the ban makes sence. (well kinda) The French didn't fight for it why should they get a piece of the pie?
 
F*ckers. If they wanted a piece of the pie, they should've stood up and cut it themselves. They have no reason to question the U.S.A.'s imposed ban. I don't remember the U.S.A. watching other countries go to war, then jump in the middle once the military action was over...does anyone else?

Furthermore; Last time I checked, it was the French occupying peaceful territories of Africa, and only allowing French businesses to flourish,...not the U.S.A.
 
You didn't fight for your freedom. Why should you have any?

That's a stupid argument.
 
Originally posted by OCybrManO
You didn't fight for your freedom. Why should you have any?

That's a stupid argument.
Click to expand...

We're talking about Political influences, not freedom. Don't change the subject. This isn't about Freedom, at all.

BTW: How the hell did you come up with that, from I was talking about?
 
re-pub-li-can pre-si-dent who is the son of a re-pub-li-can pre-si-dent whose family fortune was made from this black stuff called "oil" which that one Iraq place has a lot of.

of course it's all about the money and scratching the backs of the big business lobby that got a republican the presidency.
 
You say they shouldn't be able to do business in Iraq because they didn't start a war against them.

I say you shouldn't be able to have freedoms because you didn't fight for them.

It's the same argument... "You can't have it because you didn't help."
 
Originally posted by OCybrManO
You say they shouldn't be able to do business in Iraq because they didn't start a war against them.

I say you shouldn't be able to have freedoms because you didn't fight for them.

It's the same argument... "You can't have it because you didn't help."
Click to expand...

i see both sides of this argument, but you're both missing the point.

it's not only about excluding france or other countries.
it's about giving as much money as possible to american businesses.

that's how the republican economy works...give tax cuts to the rich and as much money to businesses as possible...they claim that this helps create jobs, etc.

unfortunately, other countries see this as an effort to exclude them as opposed to seeing that it's just good ol' republican economics.
 
Simply put, the us wants it all to themselfes! bwahahah
 
This is about free-loading. This isn't about rights.

Many countries lost men in this conflict, not including the french. I think this sends a message of how much they really don'e care for the rest of the international community, but just how much they think only of themselves.

You can send your men into battle, while we site here and degrade you. But, we still want some of the benefits.
 
Originally posted by Maskirovka
it's not only about excluding france or other countries.
it's about giving as much money as possible to american businesses.

that's how the republican economy works.
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by GhostValkyrie
This is about free-loading. This isn't about rights.

Many countries lost men in this conflict, not including the french. I think this sends a message of how much they really don'e care for the rest of the international community, but just how much they think only of themselves.

You can send your men into battle, while we site here and degrade you. But, we still want some of the benefits.
Click to expand...
Wait... so, being able to do business in a "free" country is not a right? You have to invade said country to be able to do business there? I guess that's why we let the Japanese do business in the USA (you know because of Pearl Harbor).
 
Originally posted by Maskirovka
i see both sides of this argument, but you're both missing the point.

it's not about excluding france or other countries.
it's about giving as much money as possible to american businesses.

that's how the republican economy works...give tax cuts to the rich and as much money to businesses as possible...they claim that this helps create jobs, etc.

unfortunately, other countries see this as an effort to exclude them as opposed to seeing that it's just good ol' republican economics.
Click to expand...

I'm far from rich, and I remember getting a tax cut. I think the reason the rich get the biggest cuts, is because they're the ones paying the largest amounts. Thanks to liberal legislation, there are tax brackets. Rather than everyone paying 17%, they pay taxes per their hourly wage or salary. My father makes more than I, so his taxes are higher. I pay roughly 20%, my father pays about 35%... Why should my dad pay more? Can someone please tell me why they think that's a good idea? Sure, there are many rich kids,(Hilton sisters) who never worked for what they have,...but we can't punish those who have worked hard to get to where they are at.

If we're all paying the same amount, what's the big deal?
 
Its like being a little kid.

You have four kids trying to get to the cookie jar. The first kid watches to see if Mom is around. The second kid kneels on the floor and lets the third kid stand on his back so he can get the cookie jar.
The Fourth kid does nothing but wants a cookie too. He didnt do any of the work. So why should he get a cookie?
 
Originally posted by OCybrManO
Wait... so, being able to do business in a "free" country is not a right? You have to invade said country to be able to do business there? I guess that's why we let the Japanese do business in the USA (you know because of Pearl Harbor).
Click to expand...

We've established peaceful relations with the Japanese. Once that area has become less volitile, I think they can set up some businesses....maybe. Right now, that area is struggling very hard, and what they see other countries do influences the future. I don't want any of them thinking the French helped them, at all. And I really don't want the French spreading further deceit, and Anti-Anything-Related-to-Ameransism.
 
I'm far from rich, and I remember getting a tax cut. I think the reason the rich get the biggest cuts, is because they're the ones paying the largest amounts. Thanks to liberal legislation, there are tax brackets. Rather than everyone paying 17%, they pay taxes per their hourly wage or salary. My father makes more than I, so his taxes are higher. I pay roughly 20%, my father pays about 35%... Why should my dad pay more? Can someone please tell me why they think that's a good idea? Sure, there are many rich kids,(Hilton sisters) who never worked for what they have,...but we can't punish those who have worked hard to get to where they are at.

If we're all paying the same amount, what's the big deal?
Click to expand...
Does a billionaire need 80% of his income?
Generally speaking, the more money you have the less percentage of it you need.

If you take $200,000 from a person with $1,000,000 he still has $800,000 and should not be hurt by that loss.

If you take $200 from someone that has $1,000 and can barely afford to live at that level then he will be hurt quite a bit by that loss.

... and usually you will find that the amount of work you do is inversely proportionate to the amount of money you make. The people that make close to minimum wage are the ones that do the hard labor while the people that get paid the most do very little work.

If the government is not careful the poor people that do the hard work might understand what is happening to them and fight back....

We've established peaceful relations with the Japanese. Once that area has become less volitile, I think they can set up those businesses....maybe. Right now, that area is struggling very hard, and what they see other countries do influences the future. I don't want any of them thinking the French helped them, at all. And I really don't want the French spreading further deceit, and Anti-Anything-Related-to-Ameransism.
Click to expand...
The French were never hostile toward the Iraqis... so, if we let our former enemies do business with us what is to stop friendly nations from doing business with each other?

... and you don't mind the incredibly Anti-French-For-No-Reason-Whatsoever attitude of many Americans (even before the "war")?

EDIT: I've got to go take an exam. I should be back in a couple of hours.
 
basically republicans want to keep everything they make...and if you disagree with that your a "liberal commie"

hence why rich people and big business support republicans......profit.

This one really gets to me:

republicans also claim that there should be no special treatment for minoritys.

yet minoritys for the most part are poor people..... hispanics, blacks ect.....

....so how is an innercity black man supposed to go to college and improve his and his familys standard of living?

you cant pay for college working at mcdonalds....and these days to get a decent job....you pretty much need to go to college.

i believe this is somewhat racist.... keeping the poor man down if you want to call it that.

and they bitch about ilegal immigrants........taking jobs and such....
our economy would colapse without such an abundant scource of cheap labor.


I have no problem giving a small percentage of my earnings to things like welfare and healthcare(although both systems are VERY screwed up in the USA).


dont get me wrong....... im somewhere in the middle i guess..... becuase i like guns, violent video games ect......

these arejust a few things that i really cant stand about the republican party......


i can deal with the religious undertones
 
Originally posted by OCybrManO
Does a billionaire need 80% of his income?
Generally speaking, the more money you have the less percentage of it you need.

If you take $200,000 from a person with $1,000,000 he still has $800,000 and should not be hurt by that loss.
Click to expand...

Ha! Those numbers are false. If someone is making 1 mil a year, try 50 - 60%. Yeah, they still have a lot of money. But, it's money they worked for.

As for the Anti-French attitude. I don't condone hating for no reason, I'd like to say I don't hate people at all...but I do. Anyway; The French Govt. has been Anti-American for a looonnngggg time. But with this, it's gained new ground in the Propaganda war against the U.S.A.

EDIT: I'm gonna go play True Crimes for a while. So, I won't be here to argue with you guys. Bye.
 
lol 50% tax...hahaha

nobody pays more than 35%

and if you make more than about $320,000 you never pay a higher percentage no matter how much you make.

that shows how people have these assumptions about "how things are" and they base their entire view of life and of other people off of these incorrect assumptions. please go find out the truth before you try to claim that people who make $1,000,000 a year pay $500,000-600,000 in taxes.

Originally posted by GhostValkyrie
Ha! Those numbers are false.
Click to expand...

your numbers were the false ones...and he was just using them in a hypothetical situation...how can they be "false"?

he's just stating the reason why a flat-tax system isn't fair.

you're trying to say that it is fair...but it's really not.
i understand that people should be able to keep the money they work for. you have an argument there. but where your argument falls down is when you try to say that someone making $12,000 a year should pay the same percentage tax as someone making $120,000.

if the flat tax was 20%:
the poor person pays $2400
the rich person pays $24,000

which person is having trouble living? the person whose take home income is less than $10,000 or the person whose take home pay is just under $100,000?

seriously...if you look at it with your stupid hat on, it seems fair to pay the same percentage. but if you really understand that someone who takes home less than $10,000 a year has to pay for a car, rent, food, and bills, their life is gonna be shitty.

but if you have someone who is taking home $96,000 a year, the only way they're having trouble with living is if they waste all their money on frivolous things.

of course it's the american dream to be rich as hell and blow all your money on crap...and that should be your right to do so. but it's wrong to say that a person who is poor should pay the same percentage of their income as you is just flat out wrong.
 
GV against the world ;)


well, i'm not sure what pre-teen-ious means, but i used to be :farmer: and now i'm :bonce: b/c of that comment.

anyway, GV, i see what you're saying about those countries that have sacrificed something should have special considerations to the spoils of war. sounds human and natural. seems though that there are several arguements against this pov..

1) exclusionary business practices? despite recent republican governments.. shouldn't a fiscal conservative especially appreciate that this is as anti-"free market" as it gets? isn't the free market always the appropriate way to do business?? souldn't a conservative find virtue in that?

2) should there not be some consideration for the iraqi people in this issue? jingoistic business models aside, what do coalition countries bring to iraq? it could be argued that russia and france especially have business experience/reputation/connections in iraq. don't you think that would help rebuild iraq more efficiently/more intelligently?

3) does it concern you that this in the eyes of much of the world is simply an extension of perceived american imperialism? you mention the french-imperial africa example, are you saying we should get our turn at imperialsim too? i mean we might as well set up a colony in iraq and start trading, right? i remember when france, germany, and russia were our friends.. i personally think our international reputation is important now, and more so in the future.

these questions aren't just for GV, of course.
 
Does it bother me that these contracts are being awarded only to buisnesses from the countries that participated in the war? No, not really, it makes logical sense in way.
Does it bother me that these companies are very closely connected to the white house? Yes, it does. (I.E. Haliburton, considering the VP dick cheney, former CEO of haliburton, and they've already won contracts worth millions in Iraq. The funny part is they had no contest, they were straight up given the contest with out any bids which is kinda of fishy huh?)
 
Not really, its blatantly obvious they wan't theyr friends and relatives to get $$$ when the people who really need it don't.
 
Originally posted by Innervision961
(I.E. Haliburton, considering the VP dick cheney, former CEO of haliburton, and they've already won contracts worth millions in Iraq. The funny part is they had no contest, they were straight up given the contest with out any bids which is kinda of fishy huh?)
Click to expand...

yeah...the no-bid contract thing is scary...and bush didn't really take much heat for that...and it's pretty much dead in the news now...i don't understand why nobody cares enough to make that an issue.

these contracts will be the type where companies compete, but i'm sure that the "who can bid" rules will be incredibly complicated...complicated so the administration can really control who gets the bids by some clause or loophole.
 
Originally posted by MaxiKana
Not really, its blatantly obvious they wan't theyr friends and relatives to get $$$ when the people who really need it don't.
Click to expand...

Yeah youre right , cut and dried! NO QUESTIONS!


How many companies can acutally operate in Iraq a country with no organized infastructure and is still a combat enviroment? I dont agree with ALL of the contracts going to American firm. But it seems everyone has forgotten about merit and logistics here.

Im with GhostValk , hes pretty much stated my opinion. Why should countrys who didnt participate and infact prevent us from going to war with the UN which everyone is bitching about , we tried! But they block us and now they want in on the action. No Fin way , after the reconstruction contracts they are free to do business , but they dont get the spoils while taking no critizism , only dishing it out liberally.


PS - Halliburton complainers - did anyone WANT to bid against them?
 
/me cries



whats funny is that bush made a point of saying it wasent an oil war and that it would remain a resource for the IRAQI people......... IRAQI
 
It is the Iraqi peoples resource, only thing is the US are stealing it.
 
Originally posted by DimitriPopov
How many companies can acutally operate in Iraq a country with no organized infastructure and is still a combat enviroment? I dont agree with ALL of the contracts going to American firm. But it seems everyone has forgotten about merit and logistics here.

Im with GhostValk , hes pretty much stated my opinion. Why should countrys who didnt participate and infact prevent us from going to war with the UN which everyone is bitching about , we tried! But they block us and now they want in on the action. No Fin way , after the reconstruction contracts they are free to do business , but they dont get the spoils while taking no critizism , only dishing it out liberally.
Click to expand...
There are no "spoils" in a war to "free people"... or at least there shouldn't be. Just because they weren't at war against the Iraqis doesn't mean they can't help in the reconstruction process... that is, if you actually think we wanted to help them.

This is the whole reason everyone was against us going to war in the first place. They knew what we were going after... economic benefits for the USA. They wanted proof of our reasons for going to war and they got none. Nations aren't supposed to go in and destroy other nations on a guess. If you want to say it was about Saddam's previous crimes against his own people to try to make the war sound noble, go ahead... pat yourself on the back. Though, if they were really making a case against Saddam why didn't they ask for help on those grounds instead of making up WoMD?

I'll tell you why.

Weapons of mass destruction are frightening. The best way to get the public on your side is to convince them of a threat to their lives and scare them into believing that the threat must be eliminated for their safety.

Yes, Saddam was a "bad man" and I'm glad to see him go... but we wen't about it the wrong way. I hope this doesn't set a precedent.
 
Originally posted by Maskirovka
i see both sides of this argument, but you're both missing the point.

it's not only about excluding france or other countries.
it's about giving as much money as possible to american businesses.

that's how the republican economy works...give tax cuts to the rich and as much money to businesses as possible...they claim that this helps create jobs, etc.

unfortunately, other countries see this as an effort to exclude them as opposed to seeing that it's just good ol' republican economics.
Click to expand...

Of coarse, why should it be any other way. i dont see french people dieing over thier for money, i didnt see them fight a war, to liberate iraq. personally the U.S.A is reaping what they have sown. quit trying to make the republican party look so bad. At least we took some action. Id also like to debate afganistan, what reward do we get over thier? (this is to all you people who say its all about the money)
 
Originally posted by OCybrManO
There are no "spoils" in a war to "free people"... or at least there shouldn't be. Just because they weren't at war against the Iraqis doesn't mean they can't help in the reconstruction process... that is, if you actually think we wanted to help them.

This is the whole reason everyone was against us going to war in the first place. They knew what we were going after... economic benefits for the USA. They wanted proof of our reasons for going to war and they got none. Nations aren't supposed to go in and destroy other nations on a guess. If you want to say it was about Saddam's previous crimes against his own people to try to make the war sound noble, go ahead... pat yourself on the back. Though, if they were really making a case against Saddam why didn't they ask for help on those grounds instead of making up WoMD?

I'll tell you why.

Weapons of mass destruction are frightening. The best way to get the public on your side is to convince them of a threat to their lives and scare them into believing that the threat must be eliminated for their safety.

Yes, Saddam was a "bad man" and I'm glad to see him go... but we wen't about it the wrong way. I hope this doesn't set a precedent.
Click to expand...

The French and Russians were fundamentally against the war and always would have been for the same reasons you try to place solely on the US. They were making money selling weapons and goods to Iraq that other countries couldnt or wouldnt. They didnt want their gravy train to stop rolling so they would never have allowed a UN sanctioned war to take place. They however did not count on us going in unilateraly , its a downside of the veto system in the UN that makes things NOT get done. Youre obviously not going to change your radical opinion , I would merely advise you to move more to the center to make your view more palattable.
 
Where is the center? Closer to killing people for money? Closer to imperialism? Closer to totalitarianism? We go in alone against the will of most of the world (not even a majority of our population supports this fiasco, last time I checked) and you think you're closer to the center?

... and I can't believe they are doing this right after the trouble the EU was giving us about our steel tariffs. It's a slap in the face... and one that could be followed with more threats of retaliation. "Fine, we'll let you sell your steel freely in our country... but we get all of the oil in Iraq!"

Free trade, anyone? "Shyeah, and monkeys might fly out of my butt!"



Tell me. Why must we persist in pissing off the entire world? That's why we got kicked in the nuts (read as: attacked) in the first place.
 
Originally posted by waedoe
Of coarse, why should it be any other way. i dont see french people dieing over thier for money, i didnt see them fight a war, to liberate iraq. personally the U.S.A is reaping what they have sown. quit trying to make the republican party look so bad. At least we took some action. Id also like to debate afganistan, what reward do we get over thier? (this is to all you people who say its all about the money)
Click to expand...

Well no one is complaining about afghanistan because afghanistan made sense, the taliban and al queda are tied together, we have proof of that, they attacked us and we attacked back. that war was justified. And if you think we have no economic gains there your wrong to, who do you think is building the new highway systems?
I would also like to point out that we have sold arms to iraq, and afghanistan, so give me a break. You think the russians and the french were making that much money off of iraq?
 
Originally posted by crabcakes66
basically republicans want to keep everything they make...and if you disagree with that your a "liberal commie"

hence why rich people and big business support republicans......profit.

This one really gets to me:

republicans also claim that there should be no special treatment for minoritys.

yet minoritys for the most part are poor people..... hispanics, blacks ect.....

....so how is an innercity black man supposed to go to college and improve his and his familys standard of living?

you cant pay for college working at mcdonalds....and these days to get a decent job....you pretty much need to go to college.

i believe this is somewhat racist.... keeping the poor man down if you want to call it that.

and they bitch about ilegal immigrants........taking jobs and such....
our economy would colapse without such an abundant scource of cheap labor.


I have no problem giving a small percentage of my earnings to things like welfare and healthcare(although both systems are VERY screwed up in the USA).


dont get me wrong....... im somewhere in the middle i guess..... becuase i like guns, violent video games ect......

these arejust a few things that i really cant stand about the republican party......


i can deal with the religious undertones
Click to expand...

Get into porn, no im just kidding, but what i think the republicans are trying to do, is make everyone equal. If minorities get special shit, just cause thier mexican,black, ETC its a racial discrimintory against other races. Yes it is racism when you put another race over another race. Any how, change can be met, with the willingness of the comunity. There are plenty of poor white people too.
 
Originally posted by waedoe
Get into porn, no im just kidding, but what i think the republicans are trying to do, is make everyone equal. If minorities get special shit, just cause thier mexican,black, ETC its a racial discrimintory against other races. Yes it is racism when you put another race over another race. Any how, change can be met, with the willingness of the comunity. There are plenty of poor white people too.
Click to expand...

republicans discriminate against the poor, not against race.
 
Originally posted by OCybrManO
Where is the center? Closer to killing people for money? Closer to imperialism? Closer to totalitarianism? We go in alone against the will of most of the world (not even a majority of our population supports this fiasco, last time I checked) and you think you're closer to the center?
Click to expand...


actually about 50 to 51% of the US supports the war , that a majority I believe. Totalitarianism , you must be joking. Imperialism? I hope youre joking again , Iraq will not be the 51st state , Afghanistan not the 52nd , Kosovo is not a US territory now last time I checked. But hey , in youre overly negative world we probably are imperialist. Killing people for money , sure some of it was for economic means , it must be we are running a country here not a fing charity. To say that economics shouldnt be important is a little too negative , but it was also about something else. Not WMD , I admit , but it was about security , and now its about the people of Iraq , I know it didnt begin that way , but its what it has become.
 
Originally posted by waedoe
Of coarse, why should it be any other way. i dont see french people dieing over thier for money, i didnt see them fight a war, to liberate iraq. personally the U.S.A is reaping what they have sown. quit trying to make the republican party look so bad. At least we took some action. Id also like to debate afganistan, what reward do we get over thier? (this is to all you people who say its all about the money)
Click to expand...

afghanistan was attacked because the taliban government was supporting bin laden and for no other reason. of course that didn't have anything to do with money...and nobody's saying it did. it's beneficial because it's another democracy in the region.

============

look, i'm not saying we should be like "hey france, germany and russia! come get some iraq rebuilding contracts so your economy can benefit from our war!"

and i don't think it's bad that they're being excluded from bidding on the contracts.

but...i'm opposed to the way things are being done. i'm opposed to bush continuously pissing off the rest of the world.

the administration is trying to get these countries to contribute troops to iraq in order to bid on the rebuilding contracts. there's nothing wrong with that. it's just being done in a confrontational way. bush is saying "contribute or else you're out." it's just not the way to do things after you've pissed everyone off already.

bush should be humbling himself saying "sorry we did this thing alone...sorry we made saddam's weapons seem more threatening than they actually were...sorry there was no immediate threat...but we were right to get rid of saddam, so let's put that behind us and get to work on helping these people."

but that's not what he's doing...he's saying, "hey guys...**** you...you don't wanna help with troops? we'll do all this ourselves and get all the benefit from it."

it's the same message but it's just the asshole way of saying it.

and personally i'm tired of my president making our country sound like a bunch of assholes instead of a bunch of people who really care about what happens to the rest of the people in this world.
 
Originally posted by Maskirovka
lol 50% tax...hahaha

nobody pays more than 35%

and if you make more than about $320,000 you never pay a higher percentage no matter how much you make.

that shows how people have these assumptions about "how things are" and they base their entire view of life and of other people off of these incorrect assumptions. please go find out the truth before you try to claim that people who make $1,000,000 a year pay $500,000-600,000 in taxes.



your numbers were the false ones...and he was just using them in a hypothetical situation...how can they be "false"?

he's just stating the reason why a flat-tax system isn't fair.

you're trying to say that it is fair...but it's really not.
i understand that people should be able to keep the money they work for. you have an argument there. but where your argument falls down is when you try to say that someone making $12,000 a year should pay the same percentage tax as someone making $120,000.

if the flat tax was 20%:
the poor person pays $2400
the rich person pays $24,000

which person is having trouble living? the person whose take home income is less than $10,000 or the person whose take home pay is just under $100,000?

seriously...if you look at it with your stupid hat on, it seems fair to pay the same percentage. but if you really understand that someone who takes home less than $10,000 a year has to pay for a car, rent, food, and bills, their life is gonna be shitty.

but if you have someone who is taking home $96,000 a year, the only way they're having trouble with living is if they waste all their money on frivolous things.

of course it's the american dream to be rich as hell and blow all your money on crap...and that should be your right to do so. but it's wrong to say that a person who is poor should pay the same percentage of their income as you is just flat out wrong.
Click to expand...

You win, my first stab at propaganda has failed...
/me sighs.
I guess I'll have to stick to the truth. ;)

Timmy: No, I don't think we should take a turn at imperialism. I'm merely saying it's funny how the French oppose military action agaisnt looming threat, when they wrongfully occupy peaceful lands.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

TechnoHippyChic
Email Blast
Replies
6
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
BabyHeadCrab
What are we to make of this?
Replies
1
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
W
How to load in custom model files?
Replies
0
Views
4K
wantotry
W
bbson john
Hi everyone. I am new to this forum!
Replies
11
Views
6K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
Hectic Glenn
Cold Case #1: Valve Voice Actress - October Moore
Replies
1
Views
18K
Gerzowktz
Gerzowktz
Back
Top