Real World Event Discussions

This Seems Strangely Orwellian to Me

POSTED BY: 6ixStringJack
UPDATED: Monday, August 31, 2026 15:50
VIEWED: 7862
PAGE 2 of 13

CHRISISALL

Monday, July 16, 2007 5:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Stupid Americans. Things aren't bad for us, really. So why bother changing?

Mal, why do you hate America?

The evil, smirking, snarky Chrisisall

MAL4PREZ

Monday, July 16, 2007 5:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Mal, why do you hate America?

Hey, what's not to like about frog soup?

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

CITIZEN

Monday, July 16, 2007 5:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
And here's another gripe: don't you think that the whole situation over there would now be more secure, the locals happier with the west, the infrastructure actually improved over Saddam's days, and the rush to continue the jihad less popular, if we had given reconstruction contracts to local Iraqi companies instead of handing huge no-bid, no-questions-asked contracts to Halliburton and their ilk? Maybe we could have let the Iraqis run their own country, and profit off their own resources?

But, no. This war is, and always has been, a cash cow for the exact companies that I would have predicted in 2000. I remember an article in the Boston Globe before that election that said that Cheney represented all that is evil about corporate America, and pointed straight to Halliburton. And now these bastards are running a war. Go figure.

This reminded me of something I read sometime ago, and was thankfully quite easy to find (first result on my first search):

Quote:
...

Yesterday, I read how it was going to take up to $90 billion to rebuild Iraq. Bremer was shooting out numbers about how much it was going to cost to replace buildings and bridges and electricity, etc.

Listen to this little anecdote. One of my cousins works in a prominent engineering company in Baghdad- we’ll call the company H. This company is well-known for designing and building bridges all over Iraq. My cousin, a structural engineer, is a bridge freak. He spends hours talking about pillars and trusses and steel structures to anyone who’ll listen.

As May was drawing to a close, his manager told him that someone from the CPA wanted the company to estimate the building costs of replacing the New Diyala Bridge on the South East end of Baghdad. He got his team together, they went out and assessed the damage, decided it wasn’t too extensive, but it would be costly. They did the necessary tests and analyses (mumblings about soil composition and water depth, expansion joints and girders) and came up with a number they tentatively put forward- $300,000. This included new plans and designs, raw materials (quite cheap in Iraq), labor, contractors, travel expenses, etc.

Let’s pretend my cousin is a dolt. Let’s pretend he hasn’t been working with bridges for over 17 years. Let’s pretend he didn’t work on replacing at least 20 of the 133 bridges damaged during the first Gulf War. Let’s pretend he’s wrong and the cost of rebuilding this bridge is four times the number they estimated- let’s pretend it will actually cost $1,200,000. Let’s just use our imagination.

A week later, the New Diyala Bridge contract was given to an American company. This particular company estimated the cost of rebuilding the bridge would be around- brace yourselves- $50,000,000 !!

...

So instead of bringing in thousands of foreign companies that are going to want billions of dollars, why aren’t the Iraqi engineers, electricians and laborers being taken advantage of? Thousands of people who have no work would love to be able to rebuild Iraq… no one is being given a chance.

The reconstruction of Iraq is held above our heads like a promise and a threat. People roll their eyes at reconstruction because they know (Iraqis are wily) that these dubious reconstruction projects are going to plunge the country into a national debt only comparable to that of America. A few already rich contractors are going to get richer, Iraqi workers are going to be given a pittance and the unemployed Iraqi public can stand on the sidelines and look at the glamorous buildings being built by foreign companies.

I always say this war is about oil. It is. But it is also about huge corporations that are going to make billions off of reconstructing what was damaged during this war. Can you say Haliburton? (Which, by the way, got the very first contracts to replace the damaged oil infrastructure and put out ‘oil fires’ way back in April).

Well, of course it’s going to take uncountable billions to rebuild Iraq, Mr. Bremer, if the contracts are

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

SIGNYM

Monday, July 16, 2007 6:19 PM

Here's another. Unfortunately I can't find it again.

The main power generating stations in Baghdad were is disrepair. Ducts were leaking, turbines needed spare parts. The Plant Engineer knew what it would take to repair the plant: spare parts and elbow grease. But because the turbines were French and Russian built, the United States refused to purchase those parts and instead gave complete turbine replacement contracts to GE. Which necessitated replacing just about everything.

KA-CHING!

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

CHRISISALL

Monday, July 16, 2007 7:19 PM

Thanks guys, for substantiating everything we suspected about war reps.

Now, a word from the boys at "What the market will bear" Capitalism Carpetbaggers, Inc....

Chrisisall

FLETCH2

Monday, July 16, 2007 7:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Thanks guys, for substantiating everything we suspected about war reps.

Now, a word from the boys at "What the market will bear" Capitalism Carpetbaggers, Inc....

Chrisisall

I knew a guy that worked for a European telecoms equipment manufacturer. Back before 1991 they supplied most of the equipment to Kuwait Telecom. During the Iraqi invasion almost anything technical was ripped out by the Iraqi's and they tried to ship it home when they withdrew. Needless to say most of the telephone equipment was wrecked. Once hostilities were over he was sent to Kuwait to assess the damage. While he was there a complete containerised telephone exchange was flown in to Kuwait City by US airlift command (ie the US Military.) The US competitor that provided this exchange then offered free calls usinging it, allowing many Kuwaities to call family abroad to let them know they had survived.

Needless to say that American company got the lions share of the contracts for rebuilding the telephone system after the war. Is it an unfair advanatge do you think? Is this commerce and government a little too close?

It doesnt surprise me that the US would want to put in GE equipment for the power grid. They know who they are dealing with, have ideas of making a big shiney gift to the Bagdad utility (with doubless other orders to follow.)

This is Americans spending American tax money on American goods, if the contract had gone to Thompson or a Russian company you know they would be pilaried at home, especially by whatever representative has the GE plant in their constituency.

CHRISISALL

Monday, July 16, 2007 8:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Is it an unfair advanatge do you think? Is this commerce and government a little too close?

The government IS commerce.

No effective seperation there Chrisisall

FLETCH2

Monday, July 16, 2007 8:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Is it an unfair advanatge do you think? Is this commerce and government a little too close?

The government IS commerce.

No effective seperation there Chrisisall

As I said in the other thread economic concerns become national concerns and politics rides herd on both.

CITIZEN

Monday, July 16, 2007 10:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
I knew a guy that worked for a European telecoms equipment manufacturer. Back before 1991 they supplied most of the equipment to Kuwait Telecom. During the Iraqi invasion almost anything technical was ripped out by the Iraqi's and they tried to ship it home when they withdrew. Needless to say most of the telephone equipment was wrecked. Once hostilities were over he was sent to Kuwait to assess the damage. While he was there a complete containerised telephone exchange was flown in to Kuwait City by US airlift command (ie the US Military.) The US competitor that provided this exchange then offered free calls usinging it, allowing many Kuwaities to call family abroad to let them know they had survived.

Needless to say that American company got the lions share of the contracts for rebuilding the telephone system after the war. Is it an unfair advantage do you think? Is this commerce and government a little too close?

It's not quite that simple though Fletch. It's a select few companies, not all American corporations. What about contractors from nations that also fought? Would the American Government not know what to expect with them?

Where we're talking rebuilding bridges with outside contractors, that by rights should have lost the bid, I find it a funny definition of 'winning hearts and minds' to freeze out the indigenous population from rebuilding their own country for the sake of Foreign contractors. In fact it's startling similar to something you might expect from the British during the colonisation of India...

Middle East Iraqi Trading Company is all.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

FLETCH2

Monday, July 16, 2007 10:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Where we're talking rebuilding bridges with outside contractors, that by rights should have lost the bid, I find it a funny definition of 'winning hearts and minds' to freeze out the indigenous population from rebuilding their own country for the sake of Foreign contractors.

I agree. However, politics messes with what should be a simple equation. First, there is an understandable preference to work with known parties and people whose reputation for "getting the job done" is well known. There would likely be a lot of eyes on the project and you wouldn't want to screw up in public. Second you'd want somebody compliant with accounting and reporting standards used for US Gov projects since the work has to be audited. A legal US entity lets you take legal action if they screw up etc.

It is most definately the wrong thing to do, but it's also the safest, least risk way forward when you are spending a lot of tax dollars really quickly.

As an analogy, when I lived in the UK I could do a fast deal with a couple of dodgy gents on the Totenham Court Rd if I needed a cheap motherboard. There is no way I could use that same firm to supply parts for my company computers, no matter how cheap they could sell to me. If I needed parts I had to go through prefered suppliers to get them, not smart, not cheap but infinately ass covering.

Finally this is a US government contract. The way government bidness is done here is that members of congress from company X's state tends to look out for company X's interests because not only is X likely to have dropped a nice campaign contribution but the local economy and many of the congressman's constituents depend on company X. So if Uncle Sam is flashing cash in an area that company X competes in and X doesnt get any of it then "questions" will be asked.

And yes, back home that would sound suspiciously like graft.