USA is staying in Iraq and its corporations profitting

[Egeides]

Yup. Contracts were given to Dick Cheney's interests and many others.

Here's USA that's staying:

http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2003/04/26/rumsfeld/index.html

And here's some people getting contracts from influence traffic:

Bechtel: http://www.corpwatch.org/issues/PID.jsp?articleid=6532

Cheney: http://www.corpwatch.org/issues/PID.jsp?articleid=6288

DynCorp: http://www.corpwatch.org/issues/PID.jsp?articleid=6328

Halliburton: http://www.corpwatch.org/issues/PID.jsp?articleid=6008

Did I mentioned that the companies that got contracts are all Republican supporters? For this, check here:

www.opensecrets.org

and www.corpwatch.org always talks about it

Also to be mentioned, DynCorp was accused of being cowboy in South America by spilling chemicals not only on coca plants but also normal crops (they stoped after plaintifs went against saying children and animal died). They also were accused of letting employees being implicted in sex-slaves traffic (comes from somewhere on CorpWatch) and are classed as USA's 10 worst corporations by CorpWatch (http://www.corpwatch.org/news/PND.jsp?articleid=5208). DynCorp are mercenaries, so if they get killed it doesn't make the news and all as "we lost our troops".

[Gobalopper]

Could you point out what other companies would have been able to do the reconstruction?

[Egeides]

Gob, I don't know all companies on Earth, but not all are American and supporting Republicans. Also, it is not mentioned anywhere that the people implicted in politics will give away the revenue they got from these contracts.

Do you believe someone at power should be able to be in such a partial position? The worst I saw is W.Bush getting Iraqi contract in 1991 while his father was president. Think it's ok?

Do you believe the poeple that decide should be impartial at first, not in a position of profit?

[Gobalopper]

Egeides there are very few companies that could have done these rebuilding contracts. First they would almost all have to be US owned companies and second they would have to have very high security clearance. It would be stupid to have a Russian firm come in and do a job like putting out oil well fires when they would be doing this during a war and would have to work very closely with Coalition forces.

Its one thing to accuse someone of something but if all you can do is point out how bad they are yet offer no viable alternatives you have no argument to stand on. Did you ever stop and think that maybe these companies are the best at what they do regardless of what ties they have with politicians? Because without pointing other companies who could do a better job you aren't going to convince me.

[Egeides]

And if there were 100 companies implicted and that all were (oh, it just happens...) Republican supporters? Do you believe that only US companies are able to make the job?

DynCorp is implicted in many problems, this is something known. About any other would do better since they are considered in the 10 worst. Rebuilding? Well there's ton of building companies. Getting wood/else? Many also.

Everything just "happens" to be profitable to Republican supporters and it is considered normal? It's like every important eyewitness of Kennedy's murder died and it would just be "shit happens"??

[Gobalopper]

Companies like Bechtel donate almost 50-50 to both parties. So yes, if those companies happen to be the best then they should get the job regardless who they support. And in this case it should be US companies because I don't know of many foreign companies that have high enough security clearance.

[number6]

Read this article:

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jul2002/tc20020719_5744.htm

Seems to me that this article carries more weight than anything from your preferred news provider Corporatewatch.org. Now one of your links seemed to be based in fact www.opensecrets.org. It shows that both democrats and republicans received donations so I don't really see your point from that source. You need to look at both sides of an issue before making a statement or you tend to look misinformed.

[Edric O]

Yes, of course, it's just a COINCIDENCE that the people who started and supported the war also happen to get the best contracts and highest profits as a direct result of it... ::)

[number6]

Obviously none of us here are experts on these companies and why they were selected. It would take some real research to get to the bottom of this. The data that has been provided proves nothing. It is speculation at this point. A hunch, who made the decision, and some donation amounts does not count as research. What are the merits of the companies? Who are their compteitors? Can foriegn companies compete for this work? More questions than answers. I tend to be skeptical of anything I read on the internet and I suggest that everyone here do the same. Don't just look for what you want to find. Look for the truth. You might be surprised at what you find.

[GhostHunter]

Okay that's just great, but might I ask the bill of this attack was what, 100 billion?

And know how much we're spending to rebuild and better shape Iraq? SIX HUNDRED FRICKING BILLION! Tax's can cover so much.

[number6]

The initial contract is capped at $680 million over 18 months, although experts say this may be one of the biggest export bonanzas in history that could eventually be worth up to $100 billion

This is from the first link in the orginal topic post by Egeides:

And here's some people getting contracts from influence traffic:

Bechtel: http://www.corpwatch.org/issues/PID.jsp?articleid=6532

I believe that was the biggest of the four companies listed. It is also unclear if the amounts listed in the four articles are under the same pot of money or seperate. Still combined the total is nowhere near $600 billion. Also the article said that the Iraqi government would pay for this in oil revenues.

[Egeides]

About Bechtel, I know many are financing both sides. But they simply have assets on both sides like this. About the article about CorpWatch, well it says nothing except a bunch of negative adjective (not saying WHERE it's false), saying the ENRON case isn't up to date and saying there's a leftish opinion. The only problem here is the ENRON thing and she (the author) didn't gave an exemple... Guess she may be right about ENRON, who knows. Maybe they only drew general lines, I don't know. But my point was that the ones profitting are advantageous to Bush. Give a look, and Cheney and others are still on the list. I don't need really more, do I?

Also, can someone say me why corporations would give money to political parties if not for profit?

[number6]

That's my whole point. You conclude that Cheney is using his influence to get the work for a company he has a vested interest in, but you provide no proof other than he owns part of a company. Again I ask who is the competion to this company? If this was a real issue it would be all over the news. All I see is a leftist website trying to attack businesses out to make an honest profit. It is easy to make a point by providing raw data. While it is no doubt acurate, it does not take other related data into the story and it seems like poor research to me. If they really want to break a story like this they need to dot their I's and cross their T's so skeptics cannot easily find holes in their logic. It's called unbiased research. It's easy to find what you are looking for and quickly make conclusions. It's much harder to go into an investigation with an open mind. That's why you should always try and find opposing arguments to what you want to prove and then systematically prove them wrong with facts not conjecture.

[DukeLeto]

Cheney owns a lot of stock in Halliburten.

Besides, there are hundreds of other oil companies in America alone, why Halliburten? ::)

[number6]

Oh so now you are an expert on the oil industry and know that all 100 companies have the ability to do the job right? Why not provide some info when making a point instead of snide remarks?

[DukeLeto]

My point is, it's an awfully suspicious coincidence they chose Halliburten... ::)

[number6]

That point has already been made several times in this thread and not backed by any info other than Cheney has stock in the company. Suspicious? Perhaps, but that's not proof of anything other than a coincidence. Was that the only point you were making? I think that's the point of this thread in the first place. I thought you were trying to say that there are 100 companies equally able to do the job as Cheney's company and that proves that there must be some special treatment going on. Did I miss something?

[DukeLeto]

There are other companies just as, if not more, capable of doing the job, in the US and around the world. IE: U.S Oil, US Oil & Refining Company, etc.

[number6]

lol, how does providing links to oil company websites make your point?

[DukeLeto]

You denied that there were other oil companies in the world, I proved you wrong. ;)

[number6]

I guess you are trying to be humorous, because I made no such claim.

[DukeLeto]

Oh so now you are an expert on the oil industry and know that all 100 companies have the ability to do the job right? Why not provide some info when making a point instead of snide remarks?

*cough hack wheeze* ::)

Where's your proof that Halliburten can do it right?

[number6]

The burden of proof is on the prosecution.

[Anathema]

Hard to prove. The White House can always claim that Halliburten is the best company for the job, wich is a debatable issue. Unless the Bush administration made similar suspicious choices it doesn't mean anything.

[number6]

It would not be too hard to prove if you did some research on the company and the industry. That's assuming something funny is going on the first place which is what I doubt.