We Got Him!

[kokkelix]

I still don't understand the reasoning for the war in Iraq.
But at least you know where your taxes are used...

[dd74]

Originally posted by speeder

The right wing idiots on talk radio must be shooting heroin and giving Lewinskis to each other about now.

Now that's an image!

The left wing has been very gracious today. Dean has sent his congratulations circuitously through the press to Bush, saying today is a day for him to celebrate.

Thom says, "Okay, so now what?" Which is a very good question. This is by no means the endgame. And as I asked in a similar thread to this: "Are YOU ready for four more years of Bush?" I might have spoken ahead of myself. In all actuality, the real work begins. Capturing Saddam should have always been the easy part. Repairing the country's infrastructure will remain the difficulty. And if Bush can't do that relatively soon, he might find some trouble in being reelected.

The good thing about this capture is it shows to the world that the U.S. completes its tasks as far as capturing a tyrant. By no means does Saddam's capture eliminate the threat of continued violence, but on the surface, it gives some hope to the Iraqi people.

With that said, the Iraqis may be more cooperative with the U.S., and foreign countries who initially were resistant to involve themselves in the rebuilding process of Iraq might now get involved.

As for Bin Laden, they'll find him. But I feel it might involve going into Pakistan. If anything, he lives like an animal, and in that, is much more elusive.

[Speedster94]

hallo
As much as i like the USA and its Citizens ,i can not agree with the Politics . To me it was pretty much the Oil ( almost all Contracts to France and Russia ) what started this War for the Price of Thousands of
Soldiers and civilians on both sides .
The ultimate was when Bush was asked about international Rights he laughed and says " can i call my laywer" .
We all can be glad that this wasnt to easy otherwise a lot more People would be killed because the " Koalition for a better World "would be in
the Iran , Syria, Libya ,etc . by now .
And as we all know there is no winner in any War .
This is just my opinion and to be clear has nothing to do with the USA or the People .
harald

[kokkelix]

Originally posted by dd74
With that said, the Iraqis may be more cooperative with the U.S., and foreign countries who initially were resistant to involve themselves in the rebuilding process of Iraq might now get involved.

By the way, did you know that Bush administration does not allow many Europian countries to participate in rebuilding?

Companies from countries like Germany, Russia, France, Sweden and Finland are not allowed to get any contracts there. I don't think that this is a good way to get other countries more involved in rebuilding.

[Matt7084]

"And as we all know there is no winner in any War .
This is just my opinion and to be clear has nothing to do with the USA or the People .
harald"

I don't understand this logic at all. I can understand being against Vietnam, against this particular war, but this complete pacifism is astonishing to me.

War is what stopped Adolph Hitler. Please explain to me how the United States would have otherwised stopped the slaughter of millions of innocent men, women, and children via ovens. I suppose by your way of thought, the USA shouldn't have done anything at all.

Oh I forgot, liberals hate Jews, too...

-Matt

[350HP930]

Originally posted by Matt7084
War is what stopped Adolph Hitler. Please explain to me how the United States would have otherwised stopped the slaughter of millions of innocent men, women, and children via ovens. I suppose by your way of thought, the USA shouldn't have done anything at all.

War also created hitler and assisted his rise to power.

The US also turned away jewish refugees even when our government knew of their plight since our country was also awash in powerful antisemites.

What is your point again?

If the logic of war for war, death for death all in the name of national defense and security is a valid one then that would validate the actions of the insurgents currently killing our soldiers and saddams military actions in the past.

I personally see the lunacy in war for false reasons and ideals and refuse to be suckered into supporting the questionable ones.

That in no way makes me or others with similar opinions pacifists.

[dd74]

Where did Germany, Russia, France, Sweden and Finland stand when Bush was looking for coalition partners to defeat Saddam? The first three countries you list stood firmly against the U.S. in this effort. Where did Sweden and Finland stand? These countries not introducing themselves to the U.S. effort, may be the reason no contracts were offered to them.

[island911]

Originally posted by Speedster94

The ultimate was when Bush was asked about international Rights he laughed and says " can i call my laywer" .

That is not what transpired.

per adn.com
Bush mockingly dismissed questions raised by France and Germany about whether the Pentagon's contracting decision broke international law.

"International law?" Bush said. "I better call my lawyer. He didn't bring that up to me."

McClellan said the new policy "is fully consistent with international obligations."

Originally posted by Speedster94

And as we all know there is no winner in any War .

I understand that is a French/German perspective.

While both sides do indeed loose something, it is not without winners.

The reality is, wars solve matters which diplomacy cannot.
"War" is a relative term, also. There are degrees of "War."
(note: the US did not glassify Iraq or Afganistan. . . that exteme of "War" has not been needed.)

[kokkelix]

Originally posted by dd74
Where did Germany, Russia, France, Sweden and Finland stand when Bush was looking for coalition partners to defeat Saddam?

Maybe they would have needed a real reason

[Speedster94]

@ matt
i am not really a pacifist ,but i think that my Countries ( germany ) history told me and most of our People that War is never the right answer ,my parents were 12 Years old when WW 2 was over and they still tell us how they duck in cellars and the Pains of the Years after the War ,my Grandfather was in the Kessel of St. Petersburg and died on the Aftermath ,there are still a lot of Houses you can see damaged from the War and Pictures ,so war is still a fresh Memory ,maybe that is the difference .I think we learned our lesson well .
I dont see how this war could be started against the UN ,with faulty reports from the worlds best intelligent Agencies . There are another few hundred Wars in the world going on right now but you wont see GW Oil-Gouverment Troops out there because of no OIL . Just as in Jugoslavia 10 Years ago .
And why are they not stopping the slaughter of Thousands of Palestinians,simple answer : because the Money is on the other Side
harald

[island911]

kokkelix
. . .and what is their (Germany, Russia, France, Sweden and Finland ) reason for wanting those contracts?

[Speedster94]

Money of course , but we are not killing for it or got killed .

[island911]

Originally posted by Speedster94
. . . simple answer : because the Money is on the other Side
harald

Yes, money is ONE factor. But not in a "do it for greed" kind of way.

Saddams wars were bought and paid for. They were NOT wars of principle. Saddam wanted to leverage his oil wealth to gain more oil wealth, by force.

So yes, the US/UK stopping Saddam, has been in part about oil; BUT, implying that the US/UK is there to take the oil is absurd.

It should be evident that some actions, in this world, are NOT simpley about gaining the money. Though for some others, it is all about getting paid.

[350HP930]

Originally posted by island911
So yes, the US/UK stopping Saddam, has been in part about oil; BUT, implying that the US/UK is there to take the oil is absurd.

Well, the fact that the US is keeping countries that opposed the war from directly accessing those resources certainly refutes your argument.

[island911]

the fact that the US is keeping OUT countries that opposed the war is CLEARLY a big thank-you to ALL those other countries whom help; and a big weinnie-prize for those few countries which gave us greif in this whole ordeal.

[350HP930]

I guess fighting a war with a much weaker nation and pissing off most of our allies is not enough for our current regime.

A global trade war with people who have been playing by our economic and political rules is a great way to take things to the next level, huh?

I guess bush and his cronies want to prove that they have just as much contempt for our allies being opposed the the war as they do for american citizens who opposed their scam.

Maybe bush's next tax break will only be for people and corporations that backed his war too. That would only be fair by your criteria, correct?

[RoninLB]

Originally posted by island911
the fact that the US is keeping OUT countries that opposed the war is CLEARLY a big thank-you to ALL those other countries whom help; and a big weinnie-prize for those few countries which gave us greif in this whole ordeal.

not exactly,

to my understanding the primary contractors go to coalition forces, but the sub-contracts can be bid on by all.. So if Spain gets the road building in the north Spain can sub out parts and labor to anyone.

[island911]

Originally posted by 350HP930
.. .
Maybe bush's next tax break will only be for people and corporations that backed his war too. That would only be fair by your criteria, correct?

heh-heh, no. . . .you are incorrect, . . .again.

Let's say, for example, that Gruppe-B did not invite the SCWDP to a group drive. By your strange leap of "fairness" they would then also have to exclude, anyone with in their group, who showed up with some bastardized SC.

Really, your anti-Bush fever is clouding your judgement here. There is plenty to be critical about Bush, but saying we (US) owe France or Germany the opportunity to cash-in on Iraq is not one of them.

[350HP930]

Clouding my jugement? I just post facts and my opinions that explain why such strange incidents occur. You appear to like to deny facts that disprove your opinions. For example we have US administrations that for years have told us we must engage in unrestricted trade and direct competion with any gulag state or dictatorship that is willing to play by the amoral financial rules that govern global trade. Now we are told that our best financlal and political allies must be banned from this system because they dared to question and abstain from the US invasion of another country. Hypocrisy at its finest. Sure, you can shoot democracy protestors down in the streets and get MFN, but dare to resist our rush to shoot other people down in the streets of a third world country and you are banned from the trough.

Originally posted by RoninLB
not exactly,

to my understanding the primary contractors go to coalition forces, but the sub-contracts can be bid on by all.. So if Spain gets the road building in the north Spain can sub out parts and labor to anyone.

The cat is already out of the bag on how profitable this subcontracting system is turning out to be for companies that get the primary contract.

Halliburton's Iraqi Fuel Imports Raise Eyebrows

By Don Van Natta Jr.
New York Times Service

The U.S. government is paying the Halliburton Co. an average of 69 cents per liter to import gasoline and other fuel to Iraq from Kuwait, more than twice what others are paying to truck in Kuwaiti fuel, government documents show.

Halliburton, which has the exclusive contract to import fuel into Iraq, subcontracts the work to a Kuwaiti firm, government officials said. But Halliburton receives 7 cents per liter to cover overhead costs and its fee, according to documents from the Army Corps of Engineers.

The cost of importing fuel to Iraq first came to public attention in October when two senior Democrats in Congress, Representative Henry Waxman of California and Representative John Dingell of Michigan, criticized Halliburton, the huge Houston-based oil-field services company, for "inflating gasoline prices at a great cost to U.S. taxpayers." At the time, it was estimated that Halliburton was charging the U.S. government and Iraq's oil-for-food program an average of about 42 cents per liter for fuel that was available wholesale in the Persian Gulf region for 18 cents.

But a breakdown of fuel costs, contained in Army Corps documents recently provided to Democratic congressional investigators and shared with The New York Times, shows that Halliburton is charging 69 cents for a liter of fuel it imports from Kuwait and 32 cents per liter for fuel from Turkey. The price of fuel sold in Iraq, set by the state oil company, is 1 to 4 cents per liter. The price is a political issue and has not been raised to avoid another hardship for Iraqis.

The Iraqi state oil company and the Pentagon's Defense Energy Support Center import fuel from Kuwait for less than half of the cost per liter charged by Halliburton, according to government records.

A spokeswoman for Halliburton, Wendy Hall, defended the company's pricing. "It is expensive to purchase, ship and deliver fuel into a wartime situation, especially when you are limited by short-duration contracting," she said.

Hall said the company's Kellogg Brown & Root unit, which administers the contract, must work in a "hazardous" and "hostile environment," and that its profit on the contract is small.

She said Halliburton's subcontractor has had more than 20 trucks damaged or stolen, nine drivers injured and one driver killed making fuel runs into Iraq.

Hall said the contract was also expensive because it was difficult to find a company with the trucks necessary to transport the fuel, and also because Halliburton is only able to negotiate a 30-day contract for fuel.

"It is not as simple as dropping by a service station for a fill-up," Hall said.

A spokesman for the Army Corps of Engineers, Bob Faletti, also defended the price of imported fuel.

"Everyone is talking about high costs, but no one is talking about the dangers, or the number of fuel trucks that have been blown up," Faletti said. "That's the reason it is so expensive." He said recent government audits had found no improprieties in the Halliburton contract. Gasoline imports are one of the largest costs of the Iraqi reconstruction effort so far. Although Iraq sits on the third-largest oil reserves in the world, the demand for fuel has outstripped production, which has been hampered by pipeline sabotage, power failures and an antiquated infrastructure hurt by 11 years of UN sanctions.

Nearly $500 million has already been spent to transport gas, benzene and other fuels into Iraq, according to the Army Corps of Engineers. And as part of the $87 billion supplemental financing package for Iraq operations that President George W. Bush signed into law last month, $18.6 billion will be spent on additional Iraqi reconstruction projects, including an additional $690 million appropriated for gasoline and other fuel imports into Iraq in 2004.

Between May and late October, Halliburton imported about 232 million liters of fuel from Kuwait and about 680 million from Turkey, for a total cost of more than $383 million.

A company's profits on the transport and sale of gasoline are usually razor-thin, with companies losing contracts if they overbid by half a penny. Independent experts who reviewed Halliburton's percentage of its gas importation contract said the company's 7 cents charged for each liter of gas imported from Kuwait appears to be extremely high.

"I have never seen anything like this in my life," said Phil Verleger, a California oil economist and the president of the consulting firm PK Verleger LLC. "That's a monopoly premium. That's the only term to describe it. Every logistical firm or oil subsidiary in the United States and Europe would salivate to have that sort of contract."

In March, Halliburton was awarded a no-competition contract to repair Iraq's oil industry, and it has already received more than $1.4 billion in work. That award has been the focus of congressional scrutiny in part because Vice President Dick Cheney is the former chief executive officer of Halliburton. As part of that contract, Halliburton began importing fuel in the spring when gasoline was in such short supply in Baghdad and other large Iraqi cities that long gas lines clogged the streets and tempers flared.

The government's accounting of imported fuel costs shows that Halliburton paid its subcontractor 30 cents per liter in Kuwait, when gas was selling for 19 cents per liter on the wholesale market in the Middle East. In addition, Halliburton is paying 31 cents per liter to transport the fuel an estimated 640 kilometers from Kuwait to Iraq, the documents show. It is paying 6 cents per liter to transport gas into Iraq from Turkey.

The 7 cents per liter kept by Halliburton includes a 0.5 cent fee and 6.5 cents for "markup costs," the documents show. The "markup" portion is intended to cover the company's overhead costs of administering the contract.

Hall of Halliburton said it was "misleading" for the Army Corps to call the charge a markup. "This simply means overhead costs, which includes the general and administrative costs like light bulbs, paper and employees," Hall said. "These costs are specifically allowable under the contract with the Corps of Engineers, are defined by detailed regulations, and are scrutinized and approved by U.S. government auditors."

In recent weeks, the costs of importing fuel from Kuwait have spiraled higher. Figures provided recently to congressional investigators by the Corps show that Halliburton was charging as much as 80 cents per liter to bring fuel from Kuwait into Iraq in late November.

If the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers concludes that Halliburton has successfully administered the gas importation contract, the company could be paid an additional 5 percent of the total value of all the gas imported. This could mean the company could make an additional 3.7 cents per liter for a total of 10.5 cents per liter, congressional investigators and independent petroleum experts said.

The work of importing the fuel is performed by a subcontractor that Halliburton hired last May, but both Halliburton and the Army Corps refused to identify the firm for security reasons. Aides to Waxman said that government officials have identified the subcontractor as a Kuwaiti firm named Altanmia Commercial Marketing Co. Several independent petroleum experts in the Middle East and the United States said they had not heard of Altanmia.

Copies of the Army Corps documents were given to Mr. Waxman's office, which provided them to The New York Times.

Iraqi's state oil company, SOMO, which also imports gasoline from Kuwait, pays 25 cents per liter, which includes the cost of gasoline and transportation costs, according to the aides to Waxman. The Pentagon's Defense Energy Support Center is also importing gas from Kuwait, paying between 28 and 31 cents per liter, congressional aides said. That price includes the price of the gas and its transportation costs.

The money for Halliburton's gas contract has come principally from the UN oil-for-food program, though some of the costs have been borne by U.S. taxpayers. In the appropriations bill signed by Bush last month, U.S. taxpayers will subsidize all gas importation costs beginning early next year.

In an interview Tuesday, Waxman responded to the latest information related to costs of the Halliburton contract. "It's inexcusable that Americans are being charged absurdly high prices to buy gasoline for Iraqis and outrageous that the White House is letting it happen," Waxman said.

[Victor]

Whatever.

Saddam will continue to be a pin up boy for all those in Iraq that now want freedom and independence from the Americans.

But I agree that his capture does do a lot to assuage the missing/non existant WOMD fiasco.

Hey - is Milosevitch(sp) still refusing to acknowledge the international court and it's rulings on the basis that the US Government is therefore as guilty as him?