# Gobsmacked!! (War related)



## W7 PMC (May 6, 2002)

Just heard on our internal grapevine that the US goverment has just released tenders to major construction companies to bid for the rebuilding of Iraq's infrastructure, once they've blow everything up.

How fcuking cheeky is that?? We're gonna blow the fcuk out of this particular damn today & then on Monday we want Bechtel to go & re-build it. The total bid is multi $billion & its assumed that most of the major US construction companies are going to respond.

Bush is defo getting way too big for his boots, although i do to a degree support some military action & my best wishes go out to the troops & their families.


----------



## coupe-sport (May 7, 2002)

thats been in the news for weeks...


----------



## W7 PMC (May 6, 2002)

I've been busy for the past few weeks. What chance do i get to read papers or watch TV.

Only reason i found out is that we're gonna be involved in the bidding process & our software will be used to rebuild Iraq (not sure i'm chuffed about that bet hey ho).

Difference here though Coupe is that i've now seen the bids (sure that was not in the papers) and its a very, very chilling read & really just drives home the arrogance of Bush surrounding this war.


----------



## raven (May 7, 2002)

I know what you mean, but there's actually been a lot of critisism about the _lack_ of planning for a post-war-Iraq.

I actually think it's quite pragmatic to get the ball rolling now for the inevitable. As long as they include the Iraqis in the whole thing, after all, they are supposed to be the ones we are liberating (as well as ridding the war of terror)...


----------



## Dubcat (Jun 10, 2002)

ridding the world of terror? Â so you guys have some link between sadam and terrorist groups that is stronger than links between loads of other countries and terrorist groups?

fyi - osama hates sadam. Â that is clear. Â Sadam had diametrically opposed ideolagy to Osama.

oh yeah - and as mentioned in another post, when you 'liberate' iraq do you mean you will give the iraqi people democracy? Â Iraq is 70% shia - just like Iran. Â Given true democracy Iraq will form an alliance/federation with Iran - hardly what the west wants.

No - liberation in this case will not yield democracy. Â It will not even yield your so called liberation. Â It will just result in another puppet govt set up exclusively for america's own best interests. Â Such a govt has been upheld in Saudi for many years, Sadam himself is an example of such a govt, and the list goes on.

phoTToniq.


----------



## jgoodman00 (May 6, 2002)

I dont see a problem in that.

What is wrong with them participating in the rebuild? Surely this is a very positive step because they are showing an interest in post-saddam iraq?


----------



## ^outt^kast^ (Jun 7, 2002)

> As long as they include the Iraqis


Well someones got to pay for the war...........and it sure won't be the Americans....

mmmmmmmm.....oil [smiley=whip.gif]


----------



## W7 PMC (May 6, 2002)

I agree that its probably a snesible stance for any government to take, but it still comes across as very arrogant.

Bit like being out on a Friday night & for no reason at all, you buy a stranger a pint, he asks "why have you bought me a pint" at which point you give him a kicking because you don't like the look of him, but justify it by reminding him that you had bought him a pint before hand.

The tenders make very chilling reading & were a little too graphic for my liking. At least they seem to know where they're gonna drop the bombs this time.


----------



## r1 (Oct 31, 2002)

> I agree that its probably a snesible stance for any government to take, but it still comes across as very arrogant.
> 
> Bit like being out on a Friday night & for no reason at all, you buy a stranger a pint, he asks "why have you bought me a pint" at which point you give him a kicking because you don't like the look of him, but justify it by reminding him that you had bought him a pint before hand.
> 
> The tenders make very chilling reading & were a little too graphic for my liking. At least they seem to know where they're gonna drop the bombs this time.


I think arrogant's the wrong word......responsible is probably more like it.

And your pint analogy doesn't really apply in this case as the rebuilding work is not for the guy thats just been given a kicking its for the (largley) innocent civilians of Iraq.


----------



## W7 PMC (May 6, 2002)

Fair point


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

I still don't think that they should be putting the tender out to American companies though.

If they really wanted to help, they should set aside that money and give it to whomever is left in the country to rebuild for themselves.

Otherwise you're gonna get the CEO's of thes big building firms putting in requests to destroy certain things, because they are experts in building them.

The whole thing is fucked up in my opinion. Â And if you're looking for arrogance, the most arrogant thing the Americans can do is tell other people who can and who can't have nuclear weapons. Â Given that they're the only country that's ever used one in anger, who the fuck are they to judge?

I'm not saying they're wrong in wanting to stop Saddam getting his hands on them, only that people in glass houses and all that.


----------



## jgoodman00 (May 6, 2002)

> And if you're looking for arrogance, the most arrogant thing the Americans can do is tell other people who can and who can't have nuclear weapons. Â Given that they're the only country that's ever used one in anger, who the fuck are they to judge?


I do agree with this to a point, but the US would never present a threat to the modern developed world. Iraq, Iran, Syria, North Korea etc all do. They must therefore be kept in check.


----------



## ^outt^kast^ (Jun 7, 2002)

I hope Iran, Syria North Korea DO have nukes........stop this war mongering once and for all.

It seems to me to be the only detterence from being attacked.


----------



## giles (May 6, 2002)

> I still don't think that they should be putting the tender out to American companies though.
> 
> If they really wanted to help, they should set aside that money and give it to whomever is left in the country to rebuild for themselves.


Good thought but simply not going to happen. Especially after the War.


----------



## giles (May 6, 2002)

Sad moment - just thought about us TT owners going on about the war thousands of miles away in a poor, dangerous and out of control country.......we buy Audi TT's and they are waiting for death....

Sorry...had to be said after I looked at my sig pic.

All the best to our loyal troops too.


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

> I do agree with this to a point, but the US would never present a threat to the modern developed world. Iraq, Iran, Syria, North Korea etc all do. They must therefore be kept in check.


I agree with that - hence my final point about saying that while the Americans might be right, it's hard for people to take them seriously considering their track record.

And lastly, Giles' point about the difference between us and them certainly does ring true.

Nice sig pic btw.


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

> I do agree with this to a point, but the US would never present a threat to the modern developed world. Iraq, Iran, Syria, North Korea etc all do. They must therefore be kept in check.


The US have bombed 45 countries since WW2. They are the only nation to have used both nuclear and toxic weapons and killed 1m people in Vietnam with Agent Orange.

I'd say they are very dangerous indeed - whether you are a developed or underdeveloped country.

I am so pissed off with Bush. War was declared the day the first troops arrived in the Gulf - there was no chance of troops mobilising and not being deployed in some action - the US are far too gung ho for that - although this necessitated moving the goal posts several times. Can anyone imagine them going home without getting a run out?

There was also no final and last chance for Iraq: an invasion was always planned regardless of disarments via the weapons inspectorate.

F**king politicians - and Yanks at that.


----------



## jgoodman00 (May 6, 2002)

On this subject, was anybody listening to Jeremy Vine this lunchtime?

It got me thinking, & I wonder, if offered France, Germany et al would want to bid for re-construction work. If any of these countries did, it would be very hypocritical...

At the end of the day, if it costs the US $65Bn, & the UK $3Bn why shouldnt they be given the contracts as a way of recovering their losses? :-/


----------



## vagman (Sep 6, 2002)

> mmmmmmmm.....oil [smiley=whip.gif]


JHC, not that old chestnut, yet again. Get over it.


----------

