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

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Azure

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.

Um... this is a message board. I posted a message in a topic I'm interested in. Settle down.

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

Might just be easier to let people know what you're referring to when making a statement about 'conspiracy theories' when they don't appear in the thread. It's not obvious that you would take a comment attached to the posted article, reply to it in this thread, and expect everyone to know what you're talking about... pretty basic stuff.

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

No one's saying you can't post any ol' thing you want, however smart or dumb it might be... go nuts, just don't expect everything you say to go unchallenged, sometimes people don't agree with what you have to say... get used to it.

[Azure]

nm.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

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.

You're acting like they spent the money on Iraq.

They spent it on themselves.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

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.

I'm not suggesting you're a conspiracy theorist, I'm trying to figure out why it is that you use quotes in the title of the thread.
Several posiblities exist

1) You think the Iraqi government was coerced into buying these planes
2) You have absolutely no clue how to properly use quotation marks
3) You thought it would be cool to put it in quotes because it's fashoinable to insinuate that everything done in Iraq has a sinister purpose
4) some other reason I can't think of.

So let me know why which it is, and if it's #4 then please elaborate.
It seems you've gotte a little bit of flack for it, so I'm sure you'd like to clear it up.

[GirlySports]

*Waits for the new Bombardier commercial from Iraq!*

[RougeUnderoos]

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?

Well I don't know what he's saying, but do you honestly not see at least the potential or even appearance of "coercion" on this?

1. Country A invades Country B, destroys the infrastructure, takes over.
2. Country A starts selling Country B replacement infrastructure.

It's not all that crazy an idea, is it? The optics are not exactly perfect.

That being said, Iraq obviously needs a modern transportation system and they have to get the planes from somewhere and Boeing is (I assume) the biggest maker of the planes, so it seems like a pretty natural fit.

But, if I was an Iraqi citizen without either electricity or clean water I might not think so. Still though, they'll never get anywhere if people can't travel into or out of the country.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Well I don't know what he's saying, but do you honestly not see at least the potential or even appearance of "coercion" on this?

1. Country A invades Country B, destroys the infrastructure, takes over.
2. Country A starts selling Country B replacement infrastructure.

It's not all that crazy an idea, is it? The optics are not exactly perfect.

That being said, Iraq obviously needs a modern transportation system and they have to get the planes from somewhere and Boeing is (I assume) the biggest maker of the planes, so it seems like a pretty natural fit.

But, if I was an Iraqi citizen without either electricity or clean water I might not think so. Still though, they'll never get anywhere if people can't travel into or out of the country.

I can see why conspiracy minded people would jump to that conclusion.
Even when there are a few things that lend this to being a lot less sketcy than some deals. Things such as a Canadian company being involved, the fact that this is a legitimate necessity for the rebuilding of a healthy economy, and the fact that the majority of the damage to this infrastrucure was done before the current invasion.

That all aside, I'm more interesed in HHH's use of quotes in the thread title.
Does he really beleive there was coersion, was he just trying to be cool, or was there some other reason.

[HotHotHeat]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

I'm not suggesting you're a conspiracy theorist, I'm trying to figure out why it is that you use quotes in the title of the thread.
Several posiblities exist

1) You think the Iraqi government was coerced into buying these planes
2) You have absolutely no clue how to properly use quotation marks
3) You thought it would be cool to put it in quotes because it's fashoinable to insinuate that everything done in Iraq has a sinister purpose
4) some other reason I can't think of.

So let me know why which it is, and if it's #4 then please elaborate.
It seems you've gotte a little bit of flack for it, so I'm sure you'd like to clear it up.

You're under the assumption I care of my reputation on an internet message board. I post these things because it creates discussion and helps get through what can sometimes be dry university lectures. Have I taken flack? Yes. I also am confident I've made at least a few people question how they view the world.

And to answer your question, I think you want me to answer it's #1, so I'm going to say #3.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

You're under the assumption I care of my reputation on an internet message board. I post these things because it creates discussion and helps get through what can sometimes be dry university lectures. Have I taken flack? Yes. I also am confident I've made at least a few people question how they view the world.

And to answer your question, I think you want me to answer it's #1, so I'm going to say #3.

Okay, you want people to question how they view their world?
Why?
What about this article makes them question their view of the world?
What leads you to believe that you have accomplised this?

I think you're gonna see exactly the reaction you'd expect from most folks around here.
Those with a liberal bent are going to say things like this money could be better spent on other things such as social programs, and those like me who see the practical implications are going to say just that, that these planes are essential to strenghthing the economy.

You still haven't answered what your true intentions were with the quotes, you seem to have jokingly given an answer to avoid giving one that you think I want to hear, or that you think will portray you in a bad light, which is a little odd, becasue you said you don't care about what folks think about you here. So turthfully why the quotation marks?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

I can see why conspiracy minded people would jump to that conclusion.
Even when there are a few things that lend this to being a lot less sketcy than some deals. Things such as a Canadian company being involved, the fact that this is a legitimate necessity for the rebuilding of a healthy economy, and the fact that the majority of the damage to this infrastrucure was done before the current invasion.

That all aside, I'm more interesed in HHH's use of quotes in the thread title.
Does he really beleive there was coersion, was he just trying to be cool, or was there some other reason.

Well one man's conspiracy theory is another man's common sense.

By that I mean it is "common sense" to be just a tad suspicious of the motives of American government and the decisions that are made in Iraq.

Given the handling of this whole affair (whether you believe it to be criminal or just gross incompetence) I don't think you have to be wearing a tinfoil hat to question pretty much everything that happens over there.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Well one man's conspiracy theory is another man's common sense.

By that I mean it is "common sense" to be just a tad suspicious of the motives of American government and the decisions that are made in Iraq.

Given the handling of this whole affair (whether you believe it to be criminal or just gross incompetence) I don't think you don't have to be wearing a tinfoil hat to question pretty much everything that happens over there.

Hey, I'll say that there are certainly some deals/situations that seem pretty sketcy, specifically stuff like no bid contracst to Halliburton. But I prefer to look at it from a much simpler angle. Was the war started so Halliburton could make a ton of money? I HIGHLY doubt it, but now that the war is on, is this a great opportunity for some high ranking government officials (Cheeney for example) to help out their buddies? Probably.

But is this deal on that level? I'd say absoluelty not.
This was a deal made by the Iraqi government, for what appears to be legitimate reasons, and under legitimate circumstances, Boeing being probably the biggest manufacturer seems like a likely choice just based on that, and yeah maybe they were given some extra consideration because they are based in the country that helped oust the former dictator as opposed to say Airbus who is based in France and was opposed to giving Sadam the boot. Add to that the fact that a Canadian company was included for reasons that look to be at least related to schedule, and it seems like a pretty transparent legitimate deal to me.

So yeah, one man's conspiracy is sometimes another man's common sense, but more often than not, a conspiracy is based on missing out on some pretty common sense.

[HotHotHeat]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Okay, you want people to question how they view their world?
Why?
What about this article makes them question their view of the world?
What leads you to believe that you have accomplised this?

I think you're gonna see exactly the reaction you'd expect from most folks around here.
Those with a liberal bent are going to say things like this money could be better spent on other things such as social programs, and those like me who see the practical implications are going to say just that, that these planes are essential to strenghthing the economy.

You still haven't answered what your true intentions were with the quotes, you seem to have jokingly given an answer to avoid giving one that you think I want to hear, or that you think will portray you in a bad light, which is a little odd, becasue you said you don't care about what folks think about you here. So turthfully why the quotation marks?

This isn't that complicated. Your belief appears to be that if it's not in plain view, it can't be true. Mine is that there's more to dealings like this than we hear about in main stream media. The facts are there to interpret how you may.

It's obvious what I was implying...But you don't seem to be able to read between to lines.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

This isn't that complicated. Your belief appears to be that if it's not in plain view, it can't be true. Mine is that there's more to dealings like this than we hear about in main stream media. The facts are there to interpret how you may.

It's obvious what I was implying...But you don't seem to be able to read between to lines.

Nice change of tune, now we finally get to the heart of the issue.
Thanks for finally admitting that you think there is something underhanded about this deal, I'm not sure why it took so darn long, especially for someone who apparently doesn't care what people think of him.

So why exactly do you think that there is something going on here that isn't above board?
Is it becasue there is a Canadian company involved?
Is it becasue rebuilding a crippled air transit system is a real priority for an industrialized but weakened nation?
Is it because Boeing is the natural choice due to size, and familiarity with their aircraft?

I'll concede that Boeing was probaly given special consideration because they are based in the country that had the most to do with ousting Sadam vs, a country that was opposed to it, but even that seems pretty reasonable.

Your assumption about what I belive is a little presumptuous, and a whole lot wrong.
Is my conclusion that this deal is legitimate and appropriate really an ignorant denial that something sinister is going on, or is it a logical conclusion based on the facts?

You claim I dismiss anything that isn't in plain view? Well maybe we're both looking into the same dark closet, and where you see monsters, I just see some shirts on hangers.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

Yes. I also am confident I've made at least a few people question how they view the world.

Nah, not really.

You've probably made a few 'more' people think conspiracy theorists are annoying.

[HotHotHeat]

Originally Posted by Azure

Nah, not really.

You've probably made a few 'more' people think conspiracy theorists are annoying.

Also satisfying. Especially if you're talking about yourself

[HotHotHeat]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Nice change of tune, now we finally get to the heart of the issue.
Thanks for finally admitting that you think there is something underhanded about this deal, I'm not sure why it took so darn long, especially for someone who apparently doesn't care what people think of him.

So why exactly do you think that there is something going on here that isn't above board?
Is it becasue there is a Canadian company involved?
Is it becasue rebuilding a crippled air transit system is a real priority for an industrialized but weakened nation?
Is it because Boeing is the natural choice due to size, and familiarity with their aircraft?

I'll concede that Boeing was probaly given special consideration because they are based in the country that had the most to do with ousting Sadam vs, a country that was opposed to it, but even that seems pretty reasonable.

Your assumption about what I belive is a little presumptuous, and a whole lot wrong.
Is my conclusion that this deal is legitimate and appropriate really an ignorant denial that something sinister is going on, or is it a logical conclusion based on the facts?

You claim I dismiss anything that isn't in plain view? Well maybe we're both looking into the same dark closet, and where you see monsters, I just see some shirts on hangers.

There's really no argument here. You think the economy should come before the basic needs of human beings, I don't. That's fair enough. Doesn't make either of us wrong. Beyond that, we could squabble all day about reasons you think this is a legitimate deal and I don't. You know the points I'll raise, and I know what you'll argue.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

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.

Nice assumption.

Boeing doesn't make anywhere near 30% on any aircraft.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Nice assumption.

Boeing doesn't make anywhere near 30% on any aircraft.

Then that just further justifies my point.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Then that just further justifies my point.

Your original point hinges on the idea that the current bigwigs are interested in recouping the costs of the war, instead of just lining the pockets of their cronies.

EDIT: Of course that's just a conspiracy theory, so it's easily dismissed. Everyone knows this Iraq disaster was really on the level from day 1.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

There's really no argument here. You think the economy should come before the basic needs of human beings, I don't. That's fair enough. Doesn't make either of us wrong. Beyond that, we could squabble all day about reasons you think this is a legitimate deal and I don't. You know the points I'll raise, and I know what you'll argue.

Last I checked an economy is exactly what provides people with basic human needs. But hey why don't we bring out the 5 year plans and good old central planning for good measure.