This is interesting too…Halliburtons head start
They had another need for all those people?
The more I delve into this war the sicker I get.
No one said I was good at remember to edit… sorry for the obvious erorrs.
Yeah I did think it odd Dick Cheney’s former employer got first dibs on the contracts.
Help wanted: Firm once headed by Cheney was gearing up to rebuild Iraq before war started
Well, who else would you suppose do it, France? Who has the resources to? Alright, I think I get the jist of the OP. You think the US is keeping the UN out of this because you see the US as fighting this war simply for the gain to those who support president bush? Or rather, the US is keeping the rebuilding “monies” to itself? I think I can see some valid points in that people will have actual work to do in rebuilding Iraq, but I do not see the overal gain nor do I see any proof that the US is gonig to use it’s power of Iraq to ship out oil to the US. That was what I first saw in the OP, then as I saw the rest of your posts saw what else you were referring to. I agree certain companies have favor with the government, and will gain out of the war, but the US as a hole is not going to start strip mining Iraqi oil (drilling, whatever.)
The US is invading Iraq because our gov’t believes it is necessary for the defense of this country. You may disagree with that, as the UN has done. I’m giving the administration the benefit of the doubt myself on that one. But since the UN has shown that it’s interests are NOT the same as the US’s in Iraq, why should we get them involved in the “rebuilding” effort? The rebuilding is as important, if not more so, than the toppling of S.H.
Exactly. Thats why the UN will have no role. Because the US took the responsibility.
As far as Haliburton, if anyone on this board can provide some proof that they had some sort of help towards getting an Iraqi contract, I’d like to see it.
You went into Iraq to liberate them: they didn’t ask you to. As such, you can’t expect “payment” or even reparations of any kind.
I do not want to see any US or UK troops die. I grieve all their deaths.
But I have to say - if US companies force themselves in afterwards, against the wishes of the Iraqi people, against the advice of the UN and EU - then I will have no sympathy for the terrorism that that will provoke, and the deaths that will cause.
You guys have NO idea how much more the US (administration) is hated now in this region. It is hated more than Saddam. This may be unjust, but it is not untrue.
Istara:
I can believe you about the US administration being hated. We’ll have to see if the aftermath generates postive PR for the US.
Ah, but not just any Iraqi! For as sure as Haliburton will get the lions’ share of the post-war contracts, you can bet your bottom dollar that whoever controls Iraq will be an American-friendly, American-controlled Iraqi!
You don’t seriously think that the United States is going to wage a war and then run the risk that the Iraqis might elect a leader who won’t kowtow to Washington’s interests, do you? Perish the thought! Even if they want such a leader, it’ll be up to George Dubya Bush and the spinmeisters in D.C. to make sure they never get such a candidate to begin with – or, barring that, to make sure he gets assassinated before he could take office and do something dangerous, like nationalizing the oil fields (remember what happened with Iran when that happened?)!
So sleep well, soon-to-be-freed Iraqis! Your America-approved America-friendly democratic government is on its way! 
Funny, when I first heard the story, I don’t remember there being any cursing.
Anyhoo, the UN can’t even pay their parking tickets. What makes them think they can administer a major nation?
Haliburton has dropped out of the running.
What you are talking about is not rebuilding. It is plain out colonization. Rebuilding would NOT happen under US guidance, but under Iraqi guidance. The US has already made quite clear that it has no interest in that. While the British want to give the port of Umm Qasr under civilian Iraq administration, the US has already given out a contract for the reconstruction and administration to the port to a US company.
As for the UN’s interests not being the same as the US’s, what would you expect? It’s the JOB of the UN not to have identical interests of any one, single country, but rather build common ground.
The course of action you are advocating here is going to have only one result: A lot of money in US companies, and heaps of dead Americans as they are bombed out of Iraq by the locals over the years. It’s your choice what you consider more important. The locals have already declared that they expect the US to exit stage right at the latest as soon as Saddam Hussein is gone, and that it is they who get the final say on any contracts.
I hate to break it to you, but the central UN administration in New York is not ‘The UN’. And I am not sure what makes you think that the US can administer a major nation that has no inclination whatsoever of being administered by it. Unless, of course, you consider filling body bags a major part of administering a nation.
Right. The UN is a bunch of squabbling diplomats. They have about as much chance of rebuilding Iraq properly as I do of becoming Superman.
Really? I suppose those diplomats wandering around the building making deals and setting up programs are really just polite fictions, then? Who do you think chooses administrators, gives them a budget, and sets the guidelines?
The Japanese government wasn’t too thrilled about the occupation, either, but we made it work quite well. If anything, the Iraqis will be much more inclined to accept us. They’v suffered far more under Saddam and have suffered far less under the US. And they are mch less inclined to be religiously fanatical than the denizens of Saudi Arabia and some other states. In any event, why would the Iraqis respect the UN any mroe than the US?
It is apparent that this thread is nothign mroe than a pathetic attempt to take cheap shots filled with bitter self-delusions. I pity you.
**
I would suggest you inform yourself better on the UN. The UN is made up of much more than diplomats, and the US attempts at rebuilding volatile nations have so far been spectacular failures.
I wouls suggest you inform yourself better on the UN.
**
Japan isn’t the Iraq, and bringing up such a comparison shows a serious lack of understanding Iraq as it is now.
The only one bringing up self-delusions and cheap shots here are you. There’s plenty of information on this board to show you that the Iraqis have no inclination, and no reason to have an inclination, to accept the US.
What is apparent is that you chose to make this thread a vehicle for your prejudices and mudslinging at organisations you don’t like.
Cough up some cites for both of those propositions, please.
Well, of course Iraq could be administered by outsiders: the British and French pretty much ran the entire region through the first half of the 20th century.
But trying to turn administration over to the hodgepodge diplomacy of the U.N.? That’s a disaster waiting to happen, as member nations will inevitably squabble and play political games. The postwar scenario should be similar to previous operations, where one nation is given a limited-time mandate to set up a provisional government (i.e. the French mandate over Syria, 1920-22). In this case, though, the Americans should just claim temporary administrative control, sharing with the more experienced Brits, because the U.N. is completely useless on this issue.
Yeah, I am sure that would be very successful. Especially the British experience from getting bombed their arses out of their administrations.
Well, that was mainly because they overstayed their welcomes, and they were playing standard colonial games by pitting one ethnic group against another.
Okay, forget the Brits. The Americans can run the show alone.
Except that the Americans overstay their welcomes already now and have already started playing standard colonial games by deciding how to use the land’s resources and by giving out contracts on the rebuilding and administration effort to US companys. Pretty much straight out of the colonial handbook.
Reeder, am I understanding you to say that the U.S.'s principal interest in this war is to:[ul][li]Take control of Iraq’s oil.[/li][li]Allow the U.S. to divert profits from the sale of the seized Iraqi oil into our own coffers.[/li][li]Bush’s pals can also fill their pockets with the profits from ancillary infrastructure-building projects. (Bonus!)[/ul]All the rest of the administration’s rhetoric is a smoke screen. Bush is at this moment cackling evilly, à la Dr. Evil, over his sinister plan to make big, big money for himself and his henchmen. It’s nothing more than that, just an “arch criminal” plan only you and the rest of the “no blood for oil” crowd were clever enough to recognize. Something maybe the Penguin or the Joker could have cooked up. Is that it in a nutshell?[/li]
It is to laugh.