Quick war will boost US economy

DHP:
Resurrecting stories almost a year old regarding investigations or allegations of accounting irregularities is not very probative of the issues before us today. If Haliburton is the best company for putting out oil fires and will do so at a competitive bid, I see no problem. If they are getting favorable treatment and get hired to do a job that they are not competent to do or get paid more than some other competent company would for the same job, I would have a problem.

Other than just posting an old article to smear Cheney, tell me in your own words what is the problem with Halliburton putting out oil fires in Iraq.

myvoice, its despicable but not surprising that the Bush Administration is awarding contracts to companies even before a war has started.. The fact is in the post war era, many companies awarded contracts will have direct links to key members wiithin the Republican party. Halliburton is one of them, its also no secret that corporate America supports Bush's war policies as they see the commercial benefits from war. The fact is Bush cannot wait to attack Iraq and order the destruction of its infrastructure just as Bush senior did during Operation Desert Storm.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Dil he Pakistani: *
myvoice, its despicable but not surprising that the Bush Administration is awarding contracts to companies even before a war has started.. The fact is in the post war era, many companies awarded contracts will have direct links to key members wiithin the Republican party. Halliburton is one of them, its also no secret that corporate America supports Bush's war policies as they see the commercial benefits from war. The fact is Bush cannot wait to attack Iraq and order the destruction of its infrastructure just as Bush senior did during Operation Desert Storm.
[/QUOTE]

I guess your response is about what I expected. On the one hand, the Bush administration is charged by its critics with not planning ahead for the post-war reconstruction of Iraq before going to war. When confronted with the facts, these same people criticize such post-war plans as being despicable because they were formulated before the war has started. If it's not one thing, it's another.

The truth is that given our political system, members of both parties have many direct and indirect links to corporate America. This only creates a problem when the spoils system is abused in such a way that unqualified people get contracts or qualified people get contracts that are not competitive in their terms. Despite being invited to do so, you cannot show any such abuse with respect to Haliburton and plans to have them put out oil fires. Besides which, there is no guarantee that there will even be oil fires. Are you that certain that Saddam will light Iraq on fire?

As to your final point, I guess Bush CAN wait to attack Iraq as he has done so for quite some time. The delay, uncertainty and wait has caused significant disruption to our economy and financial markets. If he's going to do it anyway, he should just do it and get it over with.

:konfused: Bomb first, then build later.
Regarding “lots and lots of money” - i think we both will have to wait and observe what actually occurs on the ground in Iraq, what type of government is ‘democratically installed’, how much money is not just “pledged” but actually put into the country. Will Iraq still have to pay reparations for the previous ‘Gulf War’ and if so how much percentage of its revenues will be forced into this fund? Reading the reports, thus far, of US plans for a post-Hussein Iraq, does not give me much confidence or peace of mind for a stable, prosperous Iraq - one that can even begin to return to the pre-sanctions level of education and infrastructures.

But perhaps i am jumping the gun, not certain.

Cheney is still paid by Pentagon contractor - Bush deputy gets up to $1m from firm with Iraq oil deal, Robert Bryce and Julian Borger
The Guardian, 12 March 2003

Halliburton, the Texas company which has been awarded the Pentagon’s contract to put out potential oil-field fires in Iraq and which is bidding for postwar construction contracts, is still making annual payments to its former chief executive, the vice-president Dick Cheney.

The payments, which appear on Mr Cheney’s 2001 financial disclosure statement, are in the form of “deferred compensation” of up to $1m (£600,000) a year.

When he left Halliburton in 2000 to become George Bush’s running mate, he opted not to receive his leaving payment in a lump sum but instead have it paid to him over five years, possibly for tax reasons.

An aide to the vice president said yesterday: “This is money that Mr Cheney was owed by the corporation as part of his salary for the time he was employed by Halliburton and which was a fixed amount paid to him over time.”

The aide said the payment was even insured so that it would not be affected even if Halliburton went bankrupt, to ensure there was no conflict of interest. “Also, the vice president has nothing whatsoever to do with the Pentagon bidding process,” the aide added.

The company would not say how much the payments are. The obligatory disclosure statement filled by all top government officials says only that they are in the range of $100,000 and $1m. Nor is it clear how they are calculated.

Halliburton is one of five large US corporations - the others are the Bechtel Group, Fluor Corp, Parsons Corp, and the Louis Berger Group - invited to bid for contracts in what may turn out to be the biggest reconstruction project since the second world war.

It is estimated to be worth up to $900m for the preliminary work alone, such as rebuilding Iraq’s hospitals, ports, airports and schools. The contract winners will be able to establish a presence in post-Saddam Iraq that should give them an invaluable edge in winning future contracts.

Not a surprise. It’s seems more and more of those getting involved in Politics aren’t during it for Public Service but to gain Public Contracts. Cheny shouldn’t accept this money nor should he ever be involved in anything energy related or anything else HAl gets into. Paybacks run deep in this administration, keep digging and see for yourself.

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by underthedome: * **Not a surprise. It's seems more and more of those getting involved in Politics aren't during it for Public Service but to gain Public Contracts. Cheny shouldn't accept this money nor should he ever be involved in anything energy related or anything else HAl gets into. Paybacks run deep in this administration, keep digging and see for yourself.
[/QUOTE]
*

i agree. Well-said.

So once the US has bombed Iraq to smitherenes it will rebuild it, awarding all the contracts to American companies.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=386222

First deals to rebuild Iraq will go only to US firms

The Bush administration is poised to award contracts worth up to $900m (£560m) to US companies for the first reconstruction projects in a post-war Iraq. The move, which could be harbinger of the most ambitious American nation-rebuilding effort since the 1947 Marshall Plan for Western Europe, is another sign of how the US is looking beyond the war, likely to start within the next fortnight or so, to laying the foundations of a new Iraq. The announcement is also intended to win over Iraqi public opinion to the presence of US occupying forces after what is now invariably referred to as the “liberation” of the country. US planners hope it will demonstrate America’s good faith, and that a change of regime will bring speedy benefits to ordinary people. For the five US companies invited to bid – they include the construction giants Bechtel and Fluor as well as Halliburton, the oil services group formerly headed by the Vice-President, Dick Cheney – there is the added inducement of a head start in the race for the massive economic opportunities in a post-Saddam Iraq, especially in the oil sector. This initial “umbrella” contract, put out by the US Agency for International Deve- lopment (USAID), would cover repairs to roads and bridges, as well as mosques, schools and hospitals. But it will run for just six months. As such it will be merely the first stage of the multi-billion reconstruction effort that will be necessary.

USAID is operating under emergency procedures allowing it to ask for bids from pre-selected companies. It has kept the arrangements largely secret, to avoid giving the impression that war is certain. Even President George Bush still maintains in public he has not yet taken the decision to launch an invasion. Halliburton refused to comment on the umbrella contract. But it confirmed that its subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Foot is working on a plan to fight oil-well fires in Iraq. President Saddam Hussein set the Kuwaiti oilfields ablaze as his forces withdrew from Kuwait in 1991, and US officials claim explosives are being installed at the fields around Kirkuk in northern Iraq. But the disclosure is bound to strengthen suspicions that Iraq’s vast oil wealth – at 112bn barrels, its proven reserves are second only to those of Saudi Arabia – is a driving motive behind the impending US and British-led invasion. The official administration line is that Iraq’s oil will be placed “in trust” for the Iraqi people. But assuming the military campaign is successful, British and US oil companies would be very well placed. Thanks to sanctions and deteriorating infrastructure, Iraq’s oil output has dropped to around 2m barrels per day compared with 3.5m when President Saddam took power in 1979. Experts say that with the right investment, output could rise to 8m or more.

But huge uncertainties remain. USAID has drawn up an 18-month plan, working with United Nations and other humanitarian agencies to provide food to the population after a war, and shelter for refugees. Washington, however, is expecting help from other countries to achieve its goal of getting full basic health, education and power services to all Iraqis. However, hostility to war among many rich potential donors in the West, and the disarray in the UN, casts doubt on whether that support will be forthcoming. Allies such as Japan, Germany and Saudi Arabia paid for 80 per cent of the cost of the 1991 Gulf war. The American decision to give out contracts sparked fury in Britain among union leaders and MPs opposed to war. Derek Simpson, the general secretary of the giant Amicus union, said British firms should have been included, and said he would speak to Tony Blair. Tam Dalyell, the Father of the Commons, said on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “Who can now doubt that the US are determined to go ahead whatever the UN say?”

Well, the conspiracy theorists are out in full force. If oil wells are burning and a refinery is damaged, and if it isn't fixed POST HASTE, some left wing looney will accuse the US of not properly planning for the needs of the Iraqi people. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

The ironies here are substantial. Hallibuton is one of the few companies that has expertise in energy projects, and large scale engineering projects. It is a natural choice for recovery projects. It's Kellogg Brown and Root engineering subsidiary, along with Bechtel and a third firm designed the England-France Channel tunnel. (They did the initial study at no cost at the urging of the Morgan Bank) Ironically the Channel Tunnel project sat dormant for decades, after first being proposed in the early 1800's because of the fears that the French would use it to invade England. Somethings never change......

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Ohioguy:

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[/QUOTE]

No it's quite simple. The US-UK unilateral bombers are going to obliterate Iraq's infrastructure i.e. roads, bridges, ports, power stations etc etc, just like it did in the first Gulf war. But with one difference - this time it will get American companies to rebuild that infrastructure.

Bomb, destroy, rebuild and make money.

"No it's quite simple. The US-UK unilateral bombers are going to obliterate Iraq's infrastructure i.e. roads, bridges, ports, power stations etc etc, just like it did in the first Gulf war."

Completely wrong.

The US WANTS to leave the roads and bridges intact, as they plan on using them to go into Baghdad. Infact, the US military has brought with them large portable scissor bridges to cross if the bridges are blown. Ports will not be blown, as the Marines will be using it to bring men and equipment ashore. Power plants will be "shorted out" using a new device that sprays the plant with graphite threads, but does no lasting damge.

The big contracts will be reworking the Iraqi oil fields, and refineries. For years no investments have been made in the infrastructre of the wells, and many are now invaded with ground water. The work over of these wells will take years and billions. That is where the money will be made, and I would expect that Russia and France will not be bidding!

The real value for business world-wide is ongoing price stability of oil. Even France and Germany, whose economies are MUCH worse than the rest of the developed world, will benefit. (funny, nobody seems to be noticing that the German unemployment rate has hit almost 12%. No wonder they want to distract the european debate!)

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Ohioguy:

Completely wrong.

[/QUOTE]

So the United States did not go around bombing and destroying roads, bridges, ports and power stations etc in the first Gulf war, and it's subsequent bombing operations? I think we have seen pictures to the contrary, and wll see more of the same despite all your theorising. The facts of history are there for all to see...all wars lead to destruction of the opposing side's national infrastructure. Just as the article I posted says - This initial "umbrella" contract, put out by the US Agency for International Deve- lopment (USAID), would cover repairs to roads and bridges, as well as mosques, schools and hospitals.

So as I said it's all about bomb, destroy, rebuild and make money.

After a looong time I visit the World Forum, and I find same people with same arguments, nothing changed, no one convinced, no one moved a bit here or there. Most Americans firmly behind there government, most non-Americans stay anti-war :k:

While reading some of the posts, I found OG suggesting that US can “buy” all the oil from Iraq for about 100-200 billion dollars. Lets say US really does that, next government comes in after sometime, and that government denies to entertain such contract, what will US do? still go to war, right? so why not now?!?

It really amazes me how media/blatant lies from govt can clean people’s minds. “We are going there to give them liberty/freedom”, yeah, damn right. “We are going there for our national security”, yeah damn right, they do have thousand miles travelling WMDs without US noticing it. etc. etc.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
....
The US WANTS to leave the roads and bridges intact, as they plan on using them to go into Baghdad. Infact, the US military has brought with them large portable scissor bridges to cross if the bridges are blown. ....
[/QUOTE]

Right, because US will use Ford Escort, Taurus or Contour to travel from ports to baghdad which will definitely need a road. And so far bombing by US / UK planes have not hit any road, infrastructure in Iraq (No-Fly zone).

Please answer this. Why would the US spend 100 Billion on war when it could fund our oil needs for nearly three years?

And, if this war is about the economics of oil, then why did we not keep Kuwait? Why did we not move into the Iraqi oil fields in the south of Iraq during 1991? What financial incentives were there in Afghanistan? But some basic economics must apply here. Stability of oil prices is the ONLY economic motivation that could make any type of sense. But a 100 billion dollar Oil and Gas exploration credit to large US companies would find MUCH more oil and gas than the US needs.

If you can credibly answer those questions, then you can tell me that there is a NET profit to bombing and repairing.

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Ohioguy:

Please answer this. Why would the US spend 100 Billion on war...
[/QUOTE]

When did the US spend 100 billions of it's own money on war? Rather is it not true that the Saudi's, Kuwaiti's, UAE and other Gulf states bankrolled America's first Gulf War by tens of billions dollars. In fact I think the US ended up making as slight monetary profit out of the last war.

This whining about American companies getting contracts to rebuild Iraq is quite entertaining.

First, the anti-everything- American contingent were complaining that we had no plan to rebuild Iraq post-war.

Then when they find out there is a plan, they whine some more about who will do it. Not because the companies are ill-equipped to do the job right, but because they are ....... American.

I'm sure that any country that wants to help the US militarily, logistically, and/or financially to "destroy" Iraq will be well rewarded with reconstruction contracts. But those countries that would oppose us every step of the way and make us bear all the burdens should not be heard to complain that they do not reap the "spoils" of our efforts. I'm quite sure the liberated Iraqi people will be quite willing to share the wealth of rebuilding a new and better Iraq with their liberators, whoever they are. My guess is that they too will be eating freedom fries rather than french fries very, very soon.

No kidding myvoice.

Don't support evil dictators...but don't remove them either, catch 22

Malik, the U.S. did not make money on the Gulf War.

Estimates are that the deployment to the Middle East is costing $10 Billion per month. That has been ramping up for three months. No one has vounteered a dime, nor has anyone been asked. (although I suppose that the Kuwaiti's are funding some supplies) On March 4th the US military pumped over a million liters of aviation fuel in one day at Rhine-Main Air base. (from a nice German contractor). To imagine that the US has not borne the financial burden is to ignore the facts. The US ended up spending about 7 Billion in Gulf War I.

But you are ducking questions. Why did the US not maintain a military governorship in Kuwait, or simply capture some of the southern Iraqi oil fields? Did the US demand exclusive Oil contracts in Kuwait?

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Ohioguy:

No one has vounteered a dime, nor has anyone been asked.
[/QUOTE]

Was that the case in the first Gulf War? Certainly not.