The baby-oil theory ...

bitbitch at magnesium.net bitbitch at magnesium.net
Sat Apr 19 00:08:39 PDT 2003


Add Stevedoring to that list and I'll agree with you.

Bethel and Halliburton were obviously bad.  Stevedoring is less so,
but does have some influental folks on the list.


j> If bidding is involved, 7 is more than enough.  It is no-bid contracts
j> that are potentially far more worrisome.


Yea, but is it really competitive bidding when the companies were
hand-chosen by the administration in the first place?

>> Second, the bids were pretty much restricted to US companies due to
>> the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act:
>> 
>> A 1996 U.S. law, the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act, or ILSA, threatens
>> sanctions on foreign companies that make $40 million or more in new
>> investments in Iran. These companies could be barred from U.S.-awarded
>> contracts in Iraq.
>> 
>> The law, which Bush renewed in 2001 for five years, has outraged
>> members of the European Union. They reject it as an illegal attempt to
>> impose U.S. foreign-policy goals on others.
>> 
>> Major corporations that have energy projects under way in Iran include
>> the French company TotalFinaElf, Japan's state-owned oil company and
>> Britain's Shell group.

j> Companies from coalition countries should definitely not be excluded.
j> That obviously means Britain, but it also means Japan where the
j> government was clearly supportive.

This is (one) of the reasons folks are complaining John.  And the
reason why merely labeling it as an exercise in American Corporations
benefiting misses the facts.  My only real point to the article you
submitted was that the author didn't have his facts straight.  This
wasn't a case of people just whining because American Corps got the
bids.  This was a case of people whining with some fairly legitimate
grievances.  Excluding the coalition countries is just one facet.


>>  Third, this was done quietly:
>> 
>>  USAID quietly circulated a request for proposals to a select group of
>>  firms at the end of January, in order to quickly line up contractors
>>  without making a public announcement that would disrupt diplomatic
>>  negotiations, spokeswoman Ellen Yount said.

j> I thought you were of the opinion that we should be more diplomatic.  Do
j> you think asking for bids publicly would have benefited the diplomatic
j> dialogue?

I don't see how this would hurt.  The regime is toppled. Letting folks
in on the fact that it needed to be rebuilt would harm very little,
and would take some of the conspiracy in this matter.  Part of the
problem (correct or not) that people see with these arrangements is
that they were extremely hush hush.  Others were summarily excluded.
That has the makings for great conspiracy, and is prime subject fodder
for investigation.  It hardly serves diplomacy when the country you're
going to recondition has this strange suspicion that you employed all
your friends to 'make things better.'


==>> What percentage of all work in the future is involved here?  Are
j> these 10 year deals of 2 year deals?  Sweetheart or 'reasonable rate'
j> for the work to be performed?

Not entirely sure.  I know a few of them (the International Resources
Group) were short term contracts.  Others, like Bechtel and
Halliburton will conceivably be longer (given the $$$ and the type of
work being performed).

>>  While not all corporations are as nefarious, the big and heavy
>>  hitters really do stand out.  Halliburton, Bechel and Stevedoring
>>  Services all have some pretty deep ties with the administration.  And
>>  they donate effectively.  This is less a case about true 'American
>>  Corporations' winning the contracts fairly, and more about who you
>>  know, how much you paid, and what quirks control the system.

j> In your list of 6, only 2 were really significant (#1 and #5).  Both of
j> them are relatively large corporations.

The largeness makes less of a difference to me than the connections.

j> If you want to question something, I'd question #1 (which is the largest
j> and is listed as a no-bid contract).  It is certainly reasonable to
j> question it.

Wow.  You're deviating from your neocon bretheren John.   :-)

>> 
>> War Analysis: The destruction of Iraq is good for business
>> Posted on Tuesday, April 15 @ 13:00:25 GMT
>> Topic: New Iraq
>> By Kurt Nimmo

j> 1. Yes, corporations would be good for Iraq.
j> 2. Cluster bombs are not illegal, nor is detention of unlawful
j> combatants.
j> 3. The disorder in Iraq is better than the order under Saddam.
j> 4. If the US and Britain wanted to "destroy a large number of
j> dark-skinned people and various distinct cultures in the Middle East"
j> they could have done so without leaving home.  If they had tried to kill
j> dark skinned people in Iraq, the dead wouldn't be 1,500 it would be
j> 1,500,000.
j> 5. The 'devastation of Iraq'?  It was amazing how hard we tried not to
j> break things we'd have to pay to rebuild later.
j> 6. Why would anyone import Filipino labor into Iraq?
j> 7. Regime change in Syria, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Saudi Arabia and
j> Cuba would all be good things.  Does he really want to claim otherwise?


As I stated, the article was biased.  It was more a good source to
pull names from (initially) and it did have some yummy bits on
Halliburton.   I don't agree with all of his comments, nor do I
entirely understand the Filipino Labor thing.  That was odd, even to
me.







-- 
Best regards,
 bitbitch                            mailto:bitbitch at magnesium.net



More information about the FoRK mailing list