Iraq 'Agrees' to $5 Billion Contract with Boeing, Bombardier

[HotHotHeat]

How in the world will this help improve Iraq's dire situation?

My god. Talk about a lack of priorities. I'm sure they had the best interests of the Iraqi people in mind.

BAGHDAD — Iraq said it had agreed to buy aircraft from U.S. plane maker Boeing Co. [BA-N]and Canada's Bombardier Inc. [BBD.B-T] in a deal worth up to $5-billion (U.S.).

Iraq's national carrier grounded its planes in the early 1990s due to United Nations sanctions, and much of the carrier's fleet and assets were destroyed during the 2003 U.S.-led war and in subsequent looting. It resumed international flights in 2004.

ROB Story

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Gotta start someplace, and appealing to those with money in the country is a good way to get the money flowing in and around Iraq. That should lead to job creation is some parts of the country.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

How in the world will this help improve Iraq's dire situation?

My god. Talk about a lack of priorities. I'm sure they had the best interests of the Iraqi people in mind.



ROB Story

Aren't these two of the most reputable and advanced aircraft manufacturers in the world? What's so weird about this?

[Tyler]

Most of the country still lacks basic utilities I would imagine.

Therefore, improving things like the country's infrastructure would probably be a better option than brand new 747's

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by Tyler

Most of the country still lacks basic utilities I would imagine.

Therefore, improving things like the country's infrastructure would probably be a better option than brand new 747's

if it brings in new business as well as provides jobs for many Iraqis then i don't see the problem with it.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

I'd also like to know why it's "Agrees" in the thread title.

Honestly, you think that they were coerced by the American Government or something? I assume that is the implication of the quotes.

Doesn't make much sence considering Bombardier is also included.
Oh well, might as well make a huff about it instead of looking into what a healthy air transport network can do for a struggling, but relatively developed country.

[Azure]

I guess you missed this part.

Some of Iraq's current planes are so old some countries do not accept them at their airports for safety reasons, the official said.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Oh well, might as well make a huff about it instead of looking into what a healthy air transport network can do for a struggling, but relatively developed country.

No kidding.

Not to mention that the statement I quoted from the article points out that they actually 'needed' new planes.

But hey, lets not let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy.

If you didn't hear it on CNN...that doesn't mean it isn't true.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Azure

No kidding.

Not to mention that the statement I quoted from the article points out that they actually 'needed' new planes.

But hey, lets not let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy.

If you didn't hear it on CNN...that doesn't mean it isn't true.

Who said what about a conspiracy? It looks like the original poster's complaint was concerning the notion that the money could have been better spent for Iraq. If you disagree that's fair, but no need to paint someone as a conspiracy nut when nothing of the sort has been suggested. Bit quick on the draw to marginalize another poster for something they haven't said. Your savvy use of emoticons sure helps beating your opponent down, nice job.

[peter12]

If it helps create jobs and jump starts the Iraqi market economy, then I say it's great. If it's just corporate welfare dollars that could have been spent better on infrastructure and social programs, well we get too much of that in the West and it'd be a shame to see the Iraqis start doing the same.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Who said what about a conspiracy? It looks like the original poster's complaint was concerning the notion that the money could have been better spent for Iraq. If you disagree that's fair, but no need to paint someone as a conspiracy nut when nothing of the sort has been suggested. Bit quick on the draw to marginalize another poster for something they haven't said. Your savvy use of emoticons sure helps beating your opponent down, nice job.

Always jumping in to defend someone else, eh?

Let me guess, you didn't read the comments section?

and, now, juicy military contracts for Boeing. Each day brings a new and shocking surpise.

Bit quick on the draw are we?

I never said 'anything' about the OP. YOU brought that up.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Azure

No kidding.

Not to mention that the statement I quoted from the article points out that they actually 'needed' new planes.

But hey, lets not let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy.

If you didn't hear it on CNN...that doesn't mean it isn't true.

Speaking of conspiracy,

Assuming that Boeing made 30% gross margin on those aircraft, American corporations will need to sign approximately 2000 more deals of similar fiscal magnitude within the next two years to give the US less than a 10% annual return (Which is pretty crappy return given the risks involved) on that $2 Trillion invested on invading Iraq. Of course that also builds in the assumption that Iraq's GDP can even get to $1.5 Trillion a year (which would put it in the economic size of Canada) to hand over to American corporations.

The numbers simply don't go around.

[HotHotHeat]

Originally Posted by Azure

No kidding.

Not to mention that the statement I quoted from the article points out that they actually 'needed' new planes.

But hey, lets not let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy.

If you didn't hear it on CNN...that doesn't mean it isn't true.

You're growing in maturity every day.

I'm not saying this a conspiracy, I'm saying it's not a well thought out decision. That's not to say they didn't need new planes...I'm sure they did. They also need basic humanitarian necessities. In my opinion, that's more important than air transport.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Azure

Always jumping in to defend someone else, eh?

Let me guess, you didn't read the comments section?

Bit quick on the draw are we?

I never said 'anything' about the OP. YOU brought that up.

No, I actually don't usually read the 'reader comments' on newspaper articles... I read the article itself and the comments posted here. Do you usually read all comments on these articles, and then respond to them in threads without specifically referring to them?

So... you selected a comment on the attached article, didn't quote it, and then railed about conspiracy theories. I find it wierd that you would bring it up (when no other poster had), then smash it down, as though it were an issue... seems a bit confusing, redundant, and uneccessary.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

You're growing in maturity every day.

I'm not saying this a conspiracy, I'm saying it's not a well thought out decision. That's not to say they didn't need new planes...I'm sure they did. They also need basic humanitarian necessities. In my opinion, that's more important than air transport.

Fair enought. But would you care to comment on your use of quotes around "Agrees"?

Seems to me that you are implying that they were coereced into making this deal.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

You're growing in maturity every day.

I'm not saying this a conspiracy, I'm saying it's not a well thought out decision. That's not to say they didn't need new planes...I'm sure they did. They also need basic humanitarian necessities. In my opinion, that's more important than air transport.

Eh?

Where did I say anything about HHH and a conspiracy?

Feeling a bit guilty are we?

For the record...I agree with your last statement. But that isn't our problem...the Iraqi government can purchase what 'they' want too.

It has nothing to do with the 'US.' Except for the fact that Boeing is located in Seattle(magnificent factory if you're ever in the area).

[HotHotHeat]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Fair enought. But would you care to comment on your use of quotes around "Agrees"?

Seems to me that you are implying that they were coereced into making this deal.

Just quoting the article I guess.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

No, I actually don't usually read the 'reader comments' on newspaper articles... I read the article itself and the comments posted here. Do you usually read all comments on these articles, and then respond to them in threads without specifically referring to them?

Slow day? How exactly does any of this concern you?

I really don't care if you have a problem with what I respond too.

So... you selected a comment on the attached article, didn't quote it, and then railed about conspiracy theories. I find it wierd that you would bring it up (when no other poster had), then smash it down, as though it were an issue... seems a bit confusing, redundant, and uneccessary.

Well sorry, next time I'll PM you before I make a statement that might confuse you.

Excuse me for using my right as a CP member to post whatever the hell I want.

Geez.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

Just quoting the article I guess.

Come on, you honestly want us to believe that you chose to put quotes around one word to indicate that it was from an article, and that you weren't trying to imply something about the circumstances under which the deal was struck?

[HotHotHeat]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Come on, you honestly want us to believe that you chose to put quotes around one word to indicate that it was from an article, and that you weren't trying to imply something about the circumstances under which the deal was struck?

The circumstances are the government of Iraq purchased something while under the supervision of the county which looks to profit off such a sale. Sure, it's an easy point to suggest I'm a conspiracy theorist, so go ahead.