| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Vicissitude
Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Location: Chef School
|
 Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 10:40 am Post subject: Iraq war: Bush gives HUGE bribes to allied coalition |
 |
|
I now present the real deal. Governments are motivated by money and politics. So which nation got the best deal for their involvement in the invasion of Iraq?
| Quote: |
Incentives given by the U.S. to coalition members
Many nations received monetary and other incentives from the United States in return for sending troops to or otherwise supporting the Iraq war. Critics of the Bush Administration such as Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, has said this approach smacks of "bribery" Below is a partial list of some of the incentives offered to coalition members:
Turkey - Turkey was offered approximately $8.5 billion in loans in exchange for sending 10,000 peacekeeping troops in 2003. Even though the US did say the loans and the sending of troops to Iraq were not directly linked, it also said the loans are contingent upon "cooperation" on Iraq.
Singapore - In May 2003 the Bush Administration signed a free trade agreement with Singapore, the first with an Asian country. In announcing the deal, President Bush hailed Singapore as "a strong partner in the war on terrorism and a member of the coalition on Iraq." Asia Times columnist Jeffrey Robertson argued was a reward for Singapore's support of the Iraq invasion.
Australia: In 2004 the Bush Administration "fast tracked" a free trade agreement with Australia. The Sydney Morning Herald called the deal a "reward" for Australia's contribution of troops to the Iraq invasion.
Great Britain: As of 2006, the Independent reported that British companies have received at least �1.1bn contracts for reconstruction work in postwar Iraq.
In addition to direct incentives, critics of the war have argued that the involvement of other members of the coalition was in response for indirect benefits, such as support for NATO membership or other military and financial aid. Indeed, almost all of the Eastern European nations involved in the Coalition have either recently joined or are in the process of joining the US-led NATO alliance (namely Bulgaria, Georgia, Albania, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Poland, Romania and Slovakia). Estonian Foreign Minister Urmas Paet, for example, said on April 21 that Estonian troops had to remain in Iraq due to his country's �important partnership� with the United States.
At least one country, Georgia, is believed to have sent soldiers to Iraq as an act of repayment for the American training of security forces that could potentially be deployed to the break-away regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Indeed, Georgian troops that were sent to Iraq have all undergone these training programmes.
El Salvador's President Antonio Saca has been accused of deploying troops in return for membership in the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), and as a member of the right-wing ARENA party that was supported heavily by the United States during the El Salvador Civil War, is certainly influenced by the United States.
Conversely, Greece's non involvement (a poll indicated 90% against the Iraq Invasion), may have led to the US recognising FYROM as 'Macedonia'. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multinational_force_in_Iraq
So if the US pulls out of Iraq, what's to become of these ongoing bribes? The UK will certainly not be able to benefit from the rebuilding contracts. I knew they had a good reason to send so many troops to Iraq. Brits don't give a damn about Iraq, the war on terror nor the USA in any way shape or form unless it's to reap a good reward. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 1:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bribe has connotations of backdoor and shady. These just seem like incentives to engage in a dangerous mission that may have been morally dubious.
Also, I'd like to point out that the US has actually lived up to its promises. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keane
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 25, 2007 10:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
Bribe has connotations of backdoor and shady. These just seem like incentives to engage in a dangerous mission that may have been morally dubious.
Also, I'd like to point out that the US has actually lived up to its promises. |
Were these reported openly by the administration or ever discussed publicly as part of the reason the "coalition of the (bribed) willing" were so willing? No. Their true motivations were hidden behind a smokescreen of righteousness. That's back door and shady, is it not? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 25, 2007 2:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Are bribers and bribees equally responsible? I don't think so. While both have dirt on their hands, the person who accepts a bribe is more reprehensible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wangja
Joined: 17 May 2004
Location: Seoul, Yongsan
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 25, 2007 2:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
2 bn USD of contracts to British companies? Whooooopppeeee !!
Isn't that less even than the overcharging by Halliburtn? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pligganease
Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Location: The deep south...
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 25, 2007 2:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| It's good that you used a source that is infallible. I'd hate to see a source that might be open to misrepresentation by posters who might want to make a world leader or power look bad. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Vicissitude
Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Location: Chef School
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 25, 2007 9:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Wangja wrote: |
2 bn USD of contracts to British companies? Whooooopppeeee !!
Isn't that less even than the overcharging by Halliburtn? |
2 billion US dollars worth in contracts is a lot of money and Bush could have just as well given the contracts to American companies. There's some shady dealings going on between Britain and the US and it's certainly not all America's fault. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keane
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 25, 2007 10:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Interesting how some just gloss over the moral/ethical implications. Isn't that how we got into this mess? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Vicissitude
Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Location: Chef School
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 25, 2007 11:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| keane wrote: |
| Interesting how some just gloss over the moral/ethical implications. Isn't that how we got into this mess? |
All politicians throughout the world think in terms of money and power. Moral/ethical implications don't rank very high on their list of priorities. And if people really wanted leaders who worked and thought in terms of moral/ethical principles, they'd vote accordingly for such people (e.g. nobel peace prize winners, clergy etc.). People just don't do that. The masses like leaders who can fight; it's in the human dna. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 25, 2007 11:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
engage in a dangerous mission that may have been morally dubious.
|
"may have been"? Dude.. I think this case is closed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 26, 2007 7:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| BJWD wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
engage in a dangerous mission that may have been morally dubious.
|
"may have been"? Dude.. I think this case is closed. |
When did the case close? 2003 or 2005?
It makes a difference for the purpose of characterizing this kind of thing as a bribe. You don't need to bribe lemmings, they're going to follow each other no matter what, because their faculty of foresight is weak. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keane
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 27, 2007 2:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| When did the case close? 2003 or 2005? |
There never was a case, just a long push to war with no justification. Remember: long before Downing Street ever happened, O'Neill informs us that Iraq was given a "Just git 'er done" from the first days of the Bush administration.
If you need more proof than those two bits of information, you're not interested in the truth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 27, 2007 2:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| BJWD wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
engage in a dangerous mission that may have been morally dubious.
|
"may have been"? Dude.. I think this case is closed. |
When did the case close? 2003 or 2005?
It makes a difference for the purpose of characterizing this kind of thing as a bribe. You don't need to bribe lemmings, they're going to follow each other no matter what, because their faculty of foresight is weak. |
I was speaking of the war as morally wrong as a settled case. I was not speaking about this "bribe". I don't know when it (war = bad) was settled, but I'm quite confident that history will regard it so.
But the bribe, or gift or whatever. It is really dangerous of the Americans to arm the Saudi's, but what choice do they have? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Vicissitude
Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Location: Chef School
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 27, 2007 5:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| BJWD wrote: |
| But the bribe, or gift or whatever. It is really dangerous of the Americans to arm the Saudi's, but what choice do they have? |
GWB is the one arming the KSA, not the Americans. I really wish some people could separate what Bush does with the average American people. We don't control what that man does. It could be argued that the Americans have even less control over or influence on Bush's foreign policies than various other countries. It's no big secret that Bush has been in the pockets of the Saudis ever since the 70s. He owes them a lot of money. So he wouldn't dare do anything to upset them too much. I'm sure he not only had the blessing of the Saudi royal family to invade Iraq but an outright order. They hated Sadam. He was a competitor and an arch rival they wanted to get rid of. They sent their puppet dog Bush to do their dirty work as they shifted the blame from themselves to the American government and people. Brilliant plan and it worked. The Saudis continue gain their huge riches as a result of the plan. Don't think the media would attack this issue this way even it is the truth because they wouldn't dare. Saudis have huge power in the world economy. They basically run Bush and thus the world from behind a curtain.
Last edited by Vicissitude on Mon Aug 27, 2007 5:12 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 27, 2007 5:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| keane wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| When did the case close? 2003 or 2005? |
There never was a case, just a long push to war with no justification. Remember: long before Downing Street ever happened, O'Neill informs us that Iraq was given a "Just git 'er done" from the first days of the Bush administration.
If you need more proof than those two bits of information, you're not interested in the truth. |
What is this about Paul Oneil.
why don't you post the link.
Why don't you. Do it. It will not turn out the way you think it will.
Come on there why don't you educate us Kean? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
