Non-us Firms Frozen Out Of Iraq

[Billy_Dean]

Is anyone surprised by this move?

Oliver Morgan
Sunday November 9, 2003
The Observer

The US is to reaffirm that non-American companies cannot win government contracts in the multi-billion dollar effort to rebuild Iraq.

Only companies with US joint ventures can expect to take prime contractor roles in a fresh wave of reconstruction programmes to be funded by the $18.6 billion budget cleared by the US Congress last month.

Few UK companies have such agreements, although engineer Amec has a venture with California counterpart Fluor, through which it is bidding for oil and capital construction projects. The UK government is encouraging other interested companies to follow suit.

The contracting strategy will be spelt out at roadshows in Washington and London later this month by David Nash, the retired US admiral who heads the Iraq Infrastructure Reconstruction Office, part of the Coalition Provisional Authority.

The US-first rules have been a source of grievance to UK companies seeking to win work in Iraq. Some companies, and industry bodies such as the British Consultants and Contractors Bureau hoped the regulations would be relaxed.

But a briefing to British contractors from UK Trade and Investment, the government agency that promotes British commercial interests overseas, makes clear this will not happen: 'It is reasonable to expect that strong US connections will enhance the potential for businesses to secure contracts either by creating joint ventures with American majority partners or presenting themselves through their US operations.'

The key items in the reconstruction include $5.5bn on the electricity sector, $4.3bn on water systems and $1.9bn on oil infrastructure.

Source

[Billy_Dean]

Scandal-hit US firm wins key contracts

Antony Barnett
Sunday April 13, 2003
The Observer

A US military contractor accused of human rights violations has won a multi-million-dollar contract to police post-Saddam Iraq, The Observer can reveal.

DynCorp, which has donated more than £100,000 to the Republican Party, began recruiting for a private police force in Iraq last week on behalf of the US State Department.

The awarding of such a sensitive contract to DynCorp has caused consternation in some circles over the company's policing record. A British employment tribunal recently forced DynCorp to pay £110,000 in compensation to a UN police officer it unfairly sacked in Bosnia for whistleblowing on DynCorp colleagues involved in an illegal sex ring.

An Observer reporter who contacted the firm's US headquarters purporting to be a potential police recruit for Iraq was told it was hoping to 'get people on the ground in two to four weeks'. The recruiter told the reporter he could expect a salary of $80,000plus 'hazard bonuses'. He was offered a contract of between three months and a year and told he did not need to be able to speak Arabic. He had to be a US citizen who had served as a police officer in America, and when the reporter said he had worked in Texas for a number of years he was told he sounded 'ideal'.

Despite DynCorp's demands for US citizens only, it is offering the private contracts through its British office in Aldershot.

Former Labour Defence Minister Peter Kilfoyle said last night: 'I find it difficult to believe that, at a time when bringing law and order to Iraq needs to be handled with delicacy and sensitivity, a private American firm like DynCorp is entrusted with this job.'

DynCorp's advert, posted on a US website and headed 'Iraq mission', stated that it was acting on behalf of the US Department of State's Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs. It was seeking 'individuals with appropriate experience and expertise to participate in an international effort to re-establish police, justice and prison functions in post-conflict Iraq'.

The company is looking for active duty or recently retired policemen and prison guards and 'experienced judicial experts'.

While the US has promised help in bringing law and order to Iraq, the involvement of DynCorp has caused concern as it has been involved in a series of recent high-profile scandals involving personnel in sensitive missions overseas.

DynCorp personnel contracted to the United Nations police service in Bosnia were implicated in buying and selling prostitutes, including a girl as young as 12. Several DynCorp employees were also accused of videotaping the rape of one of the women.

When Dyncorp employee Kathy Bolkovac blew the whistle on the sex ring she was dismissed by the company for drawing attention to their misbehaviour, according to the ruling of a British employment tribunal in November.

DynCorp has also been heavily criticised over its involvement in Plan Colombia, instigated by Bill Clinton, that involves spraying vast quantities of herbicides over Colombia to kill the cocaine crop.

A group of Ecuadorean peasants have filed a class action against the company alleging that herbicides spread by DynCorp in Colombia were drifting across the border, killing legitimate crops, causing illness, and killing children. The company denies the charges.

DynCorp, which has its headquarters in Reston, Virginia, employs almost 25,000 staff, many of them former US military personnel. The Observer was unable to reach DynCorp for comment.

Source.

[DVD PIRATE III]

People were making plans for this sort of thing long before war was declared on Iraq..A lot of people stood to gain from this war

[chinook_apache]

nice post. i always knew Halliburton a oil company which Dick cheney once headed would have a part in stealing the iraqi oil. damn that bastard Cheney and his neo con zionist policy makers!

[billyfridge]

Originally posted by Billy_Dean@10 November 2003 - 08:22
Is anyone surprised by this move?

Oliver Morgan
Sunday November 9, 2003
The Observer

The US is to reaffirm that non-American companies cannot win government contracts in the multi-billion dollar effort to rebuild Iraq.

Only companies with US joint ventures can expect to take prime contractor roles in a fresh wave of reconstruction programmes to be funded by the $18.6 billion budget cleared by the US Congress last month.

Few UK companies have such agreements, although engineer Amec has a venture with California counterpart Fluor, through which it is bidding for oil and capital construction projects. The UK government is encouraging other interested companies to follow suit.

The contracting strategy will be spelt out at roadshows in Washington and London later this month by David Nash, the retired US admiral who heads the Iraq Infrastructure Reconstruction Office, part of the Coalition Provisional Authority.

The US-first rules have been a source of grievance to UK companies seeking to win work in Iraq. Some companies, and industry bodies such as the British Consultants and Contractors Bureau hoped the regulations would be relaxed.

But a briefing to British contractors from UK Trade and Investment, the government agency that promotes British commercial interests overseas, makes clear this will not happen: 'It is reasonable to expect that strong US connections will enhance the potential for businesses to secure contracts either by creating joint ventures with American majority partners or presenting themselves through their US operations.'

The key items in the reconstruction include $5.5bn on the electricity sector, $4.3bn on water systems and $1.9bn on oil infrastructure.

Source

I think contracts should be given, in relation to aid given, so it looks like the US
have got it about right. or am i wrong (it has been known)

[Billy_Dean]

Billy, my beef at the beginning of this "invasion" was with the way the west went in. I said then that going in as an invading force, was different to going in as a liberating force. We went in as invaders, a purely military force, with the sole purpose of occupying the country. Had we gone in as liberators, we would have done things very differently. We would have invaded, sure, and secured the country. But at the same time we would have taken in truck loads of medical supplies, engineers to get the superstructure up and running, the power and water especially. We would have defended schools, hospitals, museums etc. from looters. We would have had plans for the immediate deployment of a police force, and many other things.

When you read the above post you can see this .. The key items in the reconstruction include $5.5bn on the electricity sector, $4.3bn on water systems and $1.9bn on oil infrastructure. Maybe I'm being cynical here, but it seems to me that we didn't do these things in the beginning because it was always planned to charge the Iraqis for them later.


PS. Billy, do you really think the US will pay that money in the long run? They'll get every cent back through Iraqi oil.

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by billyfridge+10 November 2003 - 17:47--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (billyfridge @ 10 November 2003 - 17:47)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Billy_Dean@10 November 2003 - 08:22
Is anyone surprised by this move?

Oliver Morgan
Sunday November 9, 2003
The Observer

The US is to reaffirm that non-American companies cannot win government contracts in the multi-billion dollar effort to rebuild Iraq.

Only companies with US joint ventures can expect to take prime contractor roles in a fresh wave of reconstruction programmes to be funded by the &#036;18.6 billion budget cleared by the US Congress last month.

Few UK companies have such agreements, although engineer Amec has a venture with California counterpart Fluor, through which it is bidding for oil and capital construction projects. The UK government is encouraging other interested companies to follow suit.

The contracting strategy will be spelt out at roadshows in Washington and London later this month by David Nash, the retired US admiral who heads the Iraq Infrastructure Reconstruction Office, part of the Coalition Provisional Authority.

The US-first rules have been a source of grievance to UK companies seeking to win work in Iraq. Some companies, and industry bodies such as the British Consultants and Contractors Bureau hoped the regulations would be relaxed.

But a briefing to British contractors from UK Trade and Investment, the government agency that promotes British commercial interests overseas, makes clear this will not happen: &#39;It is reasonable to expect that strong US connections will enhance the potential for businesses to secure contracts either by creating joint ventures with American majority partners or presenting themselves through their US operations.&#39;

The key items in the reconstruction include &#036;5.5bn on the electricity sector, &#036;4.3bn on water systems and &#036;1.9bn on oil infrastructure.

Source

I think contracts should be given, in relation to aid given, so it looks like the US
have got it about right. or am i wrong (it has been known) [/b][/quote]
Iraq is not a colony of the USA.

The reconstruction will be paid for by the Iraqi&#39;s through their oil.

They have every right to expect that the contracts will be awarded by this thing called value for money, not by nationality of the company.

This is just what everyone has said all along, US government is privateering...nothing more/nothing less.

The whole war can be looked at as a wy of taking money from the "Coalition" taxpayer and put it into the hands of the Republican backers (inc the families of the Administration)...

If it wasnt "the government", the FBI would call it what it is....money laundering.

[billyfridge]

Originally posted by Billy_Dean@10 November 2003 - 18:09
Billy, my beef at the beginning of this "invasion" was with the way the west went in. I said then that going in as an invading force, was different to going in as a liberating force. We went in as invaders, a purely military force, with the sole purpose of occupying the country. Had we gone in as liberators, we would have done things very differently. We would have invaded, sure, and secured the country. But at the same time we would have taken in truck loads of medical supplies, engineers to get the superstructure up and running, the power and water especially. We would have defended schools, hospitals, museums etc. from looters. We would have had plans for the immediate deployment of a police force, and many other things.

When you read the above post you can see this .. The key items in the reconstruction include &#036;5.5bn on the electricity sector, &#036;4.3bn on water systems and &#036;1.9bn on oil infrastructure. Maybe I&#39;m being cynical here, but it seems to me that we didn&#39;t do these things in the beginning because it was always planned to charge the Iraqis for them later.


PS. Billy, do you really think the US will pay that money in the long run? They&#39;ll get every cent back through Iraqi oil.

It all bears out what i posted a while ago about the money men in the shadows
running this war for their gain, not the military helping a downtrodden people.
but it was suggested i shut the f--k up.

[Billy_Dean]

Originally posted by billyfridge@11 November 2003 - 04:38
..... but it was suggested i shut the f--k up.

I can&#39;t imagine that stopping you Billy&#33;

[nikita69]

I said this a while back and couldn&#39;t find the link, even google&#39;s cached, yet apparently they fixed it or put it back in google. still don&#39;t know why the US Dept of Energy removed that link from their site.

Caspian Oil and Natural Gas Export Route Options - This was during a speech for Dick Cheney back in late 80&#39;s, yet the original link ("www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/casproute.html") no longer exists. WHY?

here&#39;s the cached google link http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:4UF5O...&hl=en&ie=UTF-8