U.S. Bars Iraq War Opponents From Bidding - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

rogue49 · 12-10-2003, 03:16 AM

Quote:

U.S. Bars Iraq War Opponents From Bidding

Dec 10, 5:39 AM (ET)
By MATT KELLEY

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Pentagon drew criticism from one U.S. ally after formally barring companies from countries opposed to the Iraq war from bidding on 26 reconstruction contracts.

The ruling bars companies from U.S. allies such as France, Germany and Canada from bidding on those contracts - worth $18.6 billion - because their governments opposed the American-led war that ousted Saddam Hussein's regime.

"If these comments are accurate ... it would be difficult for us to give further money for the reconstruction of Iraq," said Canada's deputy prime minister, John Manley. "To exclude Canadians just because they are Canadians would be unacceptable if they accept funds from Canadian taxpayers for the reconstruction of Iraq."

Steven Hogue, a spokesman for Prime Minister Jean Chretien, said Canada has contributed more than $190 million to the rebuilding effort.

The directive from Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, dated Friday and posted on a Pentagon web site Tuesday, limits bidders to firms from the United States, Iraq, their coalition partners and other countries which have sent troops to Iraq. It says restricting contract bids "is necessary for the protection of the essential security interests of the United States."

Bush administration officials have suggested publicly and privately since before the war started that countries which opposed the United States on Iraq would be cut out of at least some of the lucrative rebuilding contracts administered by Washington. The order from Wolfowitz covers contracts to manage the entire rebuilding effort, train and equip the Iraqi National Army and rebuild infrastructure including roads, sewers, power plants and oil fields.

Wolfowitz wrote that the restrictions would encourage other countries to join the coalition in Iraq. A Pentagon spokesman, Maj. Joe Yoswa, said the order does not prohibit companies from the excluded countries from getting subcontracts in Iraq.

Meanwhile, the Pentagon's top general said Tuesday the U.S. military will not be vulnerable when four of the Army's 10 divisions come home from Iraq to rest and retrain early next year.

Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Richard Myers also asserted that the United States is "clearly" winning in Iraq.

Myers and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld cautioned, however, that a recent decline in anti-coalition attacks in Iraq may be temporary.

"It's a bit early to call it a trend," Rumsfeld said, adding that he believes more attacks on American troops in Iraq are inevitable.

They spoke on a day when suicide bombers set off explosions at the gates of two U.S. military bases, injuring scores of American troops, most of them slightly. The coalition is increasingly able to thwart such attacks before they happen, Myers said.

"Our ability to gather intelligence and target specifically folks that are in the bomb-making business has gone up dramatically," Myers said. "We have had a real spike up in Iraqis coming forward to provide intelligence.

"This international coalition is not going to let ... the former regime elements that are fighting us win," Myers said. "We're going to win. That's it."

Rumsfeld returned Sunday from a weeklong trip, which included stops in Iraq and Afghanistan. He and Myers said there are no plans to add to the 123,000 U.S. troops in Iraq or change the schedule for sending fresh replacement troops in next year.

That troop rotation will involve most of the Army: Four of the Army's ten divisions will be going home from Iraq, replaced by three divisions. Another Army division will rotate into Afghanistan.

"In the next four months, we're going to pull off a logistics feat that will rival any in history," Myers said.

Would the United States be ready to fight another war during or after that transition?

"That's an unqualified yes," Myers said.

Still, the Pentagon will carefully manage the rotations to minimize the damage from replacing experienced troops, Rumsfeld said.

"The people going over are ready, but the people there are experienced and really know their stuff," Rumsfeld said. "There's going to have to be overlap. We're going to have to be sensitive to the fact that the knowledge that's built up there and the relationships have to be transferred."

Rumsfeld denied reports that Israeli experts were training American or Iraqi units to battle insurgents in Iraq. Myers said an American unit was working to capture Saddam and others of the 55 most-wanted Iraqis.

Myers also defended the arrest of the wife and daughter of Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, a former aide to Saddam Hussein who U.S. officials accuse of organizing anti-American attacks. The human rights group Amnesty International has said the arrests would violate international law if they were meant to pressure al-Douri into surrendering.

"I'm sure we wouldn't do anything illegal," Myers said.

Later, a senior defense official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the women were detained for questioning because they might have information about al-Douri's whereabouts, and the arrests therefore were legal.

Now, while I can understand why we don't some countries that didn't participate from profiteering,
this does not bode well for the US on the international scene.
We are stuck in the middle of this, overreaching our resources at the moment.
To not have EVERYONE's help rebuilding this area will mean we will be bogged down even further,
and the rest of the world won't have another chance to invest in stabilizing the region.
At this moment in time, there needs to be an inclusive commitment.
On top of that, this will FURTHER isolate the US from the international scene,
and anger countries that we've had significant connections with currently & in the past.
I can understand our will to go at war alone or with fewer allies,
it had to be done...so be it,
but now, that we are trying to rebuild, we need to include everyone.

We cannot afford to waste time, money, efforts, resources or political good-will.
This needs to be done quickly and with everyone's help.
Even at the cost of some profit-taking.
(This is insigificant in comparison to the costs of isolating ourselves & the region)

onetime2 · 12-10-2003, 04:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by rogue49
Now, while I can understand why we don't some countries that didn't participate from profiteering,
this does not bode well for the US on the international scene.
We are stuck in the middle of this, overreaching our resources at the moment.
To not have EVERYONE's help rebuilding this area will mean we will be bogged down even further,
and the rest of the world won't have another chance to invest in stabilizing the region.
At this moment in time, there needs to be an inclusive commitment.
On top of that, this will FURTHER isolate the US from the international scene,
and anger countries that we've had significant connections with currently & in the past.
I can understand our will to go at war alone or with fewer allies,
it had to be done...so be it,
but now, that we are trying to rebuild, we need to include everyone.

We cannot afford to waste time, money, efforts, resources or political good-will.
This needs to be done quickly and with everyone's help.
Even at the cost of some profit-taking.
(This is insigificant in comparison to the costs of isolating ourselves & the region)

While I agree to some extent I think there are other things going on here. The first is that the international community is not and likely will not help us in Iraq in the near future. You can argue that it was Bush's inadequacy at foreign relations, you can argue that it was a failure of our "allies" to overcome the financial motivations they had to keep Saddam in power, that they don't want to expose their troops to the tactics of the "insurgents" in Iraq, or even that they don't want to become bigger targets to international terrorism, whatever. But the current reality is that we will not see any help from them on the troop/security side of things.

I'm not making a judgement whether this move is right or wrong since I (and no one else here) really know what's going on behind the scenes between all the countries involved, but here are some reasons why this might be justified:

It may allow us to get more commitments from those who are helping us in Iraq. Whether that means more troops, more money, more police or whatever.

It may help to increase pressure on those governments who refuse to join us in Iraq from corporations within their borders who would like to participate but are barred from it.

Macheath · 12-10-2003, 05:47 AM

Ah well, I suppose if these companies want to bid, they could try writing a check made out to "Bush 2004".

Personally, I constantly have this kind of hypothetical that plays out in my head where the Iraqis elect their own leaders who promptly nationalise all industry and kick US companies out. It's always a constant exercise in "Well, what next?"

m0ntyblack · 12-10-2003, 07:59 AM

/cheer Free Market

/boggle

MB

Ustwo · 12-10-2003, 08:53 AM

Screw'em, why should they profit?

I could give a shit about good will with France and Germany right now. France has been a worthless ally since shortly after 1781, have been of NO help to us in the mideast but have blocked us where they could. Germany wants to elect some wacky socialist pacifist thats their problem. Canada I might let in just because lately they have been showing sings of crawling back to us.

I know this sounds nicely jingoistic, but if the only way we can get help from these nations is when they can make money at it, we don't need them.

james t kirk · 12-10-2003, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ustwo
Screw'em, why should they profit?

Canada I might let in just because lately they have been showing sings of crawling back to us.

Keep it, I don't want it.

Personally, i actually understand this concept. Canada did not back up the US in its desire to conquor iraq, so we should not be bellying up to the trough now to pick up contracts to "rebuild" iraq. Totally hypocritical if we do.

I think the americans have marked 18 billion towards rebuilding iraq and we have offered a paultry 300 million. Since our population is 1/10 of the US's, we should be offering up 1.8 billion to be fair. We are not.

To the victors go the spoils, that's the way it goes.

Mind you, i think we should reconsider even that paultry 300 million. Or at least ensure that it went to say medical aid for the Iraqis or something noble like that rather than halliburton's fat grease ball hands.

Mr. Mojo · 12-10-2003, 09:40 AM

I don't see what the big deal is. Countries that are not helping are being shut out? That sounds fair. Its mostly France (worthless military) and Germany ("Bush is Hitler" hypocrites) who are complaining.

The other 18 of 26 NATO member countries who have deployed troops are getting the goods. Their are 24,000 allied troops (US Forces 130,000) 63 nations have pledged support. And this is still America Unilaterism? Oh right, we don't have 2 European countries who cant defend themselves.

We need the French?! no thanks...
<a target=new href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/12/16/wfran16.xm">(UK Telegraph: French farce of the force de frappe)</a>

Ustwo · 12-10-2003, 09:47 AM

Your link is broken, L got cut off...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...16/wfran16.xml

Charlatan · 12-10-2003, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ustwo
Canada I might let in just because lately they have been showing sings of crawling back to us.

**edited by rogue49
Frankly, as a Canadian I say keep your money, pay off your Allies. Nothing would make me happier that to see your economy implode under the weight of the mounting debt of the war.

Mojo_PeiPei · 12-10-2003, 11:06 AM

If our economy implodes, the rest of the world is worse off then us.

onetime2 · 12-10-2003, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
If our economy implodes, the rest of the world is worse off then us.

You speak the truth Sir Mojo.

Charlatan · 12-10-2003, 01:00 PM

I don't disagree.

apechild · 12-10-2003, 02:02 PM

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/370599.html

Israel was also left off the list of eligible nations, also for reasons of national security.

Notes the Wall Street Journal's OpinionJournal.com, in today's "best of the web" ( link ), "If the EU-niks want to show that they're motivated by principle rather than greed, they ought to protest Israel's exclusion as well as their own."

Moskie · 12-10-2003, 02:34 PM

I guess he was serious when he said "You're either with us, or you're with the the terrorists."

Seriously, what does this do, besides make people angrier? Does it teach the lesson of "if you disagree with the US, then you're screwed"? Does it help Iraq rebuild any faster? I see nothing beneficial coming from this. Sorry for the cliche, but can Bush and co. at least try to be a uniter, and not a divider?

Mojo_PeiPei · 12-10-2003, 03:03 PM

Why should they profit for their own self interests when they were fucking asshole goons over those same self interests? Also I doubt this will slow down the reconstruction. And who will it further piss off, everyone who already hates the US? This doesn't punish anyone directly, it just rewards those who have RESOLVE and a pair hanging between their legs.

Liquor Dealer · 12-10-2003, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Charlatan
**edited by rogue49
Frankly, as a Canadian I say keep your money, pay off your Allies. Nothing would make me happier that to see your economy implode under the weight of the mounting debt of the war.

I'd almost like to see it happen for a little while - just to see what happens to our loyal northern neighbors - but hey! WTF!!! They don't need us! Right?

james t kirk · 12-10-2003, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Liquor Dealer
I'd almost like to see it happen for a little while - just to see what happens to our loyal northern neighbors - but hey! WTF!!! They don't need us! Right?

The truth of the matter is that we need you, and you need us.

Ask yourself LD, who would you rather have along your largest boarder? (The largest undefended boarder in the world actually)

nirol · 12-10-2003, 05:08 PM

We need you for what, exactly?
Maple Syrup?
Gobs of pinkish white people invading the South East coast line in February?
A buffer to keep those evil residents of the North Pole from invading? One of them comes anyway every 25th of December.

As a conduit for potential terrorists, who proclaim they are political refugees as soon as they depart the plane in Toronto, are granted asylum, then plot the next 9/11 in Toronto coffee shops?

I think we will muddle through, but thanks.

EDIT: All above wisecracks about our beloved brethren to the north are made strictly in jest and in no way connote any hostility to Canadians.

Liquor Dealer · 12-10-2003, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by james t kirk
The truth of the matter is that we need you, and you need us.

Ask yourself LD, who would you rather have along your largest boarder? (The largest undefended boarder in the world actually)

"Frankly, as a Canadian I say keep your money, pay off your Allies. Nothing would make me happier that to see your economy implode under the weight of the mounting debt of the war."

Actuallly JTK, I was merely replying to this quote from Charlatan. I'm not unhappy with either of our border neighbors. I've explained to you several times how I feel about Canada and Canadians.

SLM3 · 12-10-2003, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by nirol
We need you for what, exactly?
Maple Syrup?
Gobs of pinkish white people invading the South East coast line in February?
A buffer to keep those evil residents of the North Pole from invading? One of them comes anyway every 25th of December.

As a conduit for potential terrorists, who proclaim they are political refugees as soon as they depart the plane in Toronto, are granted asylum, then plot the next 9/11 in Toronto coffee shops?

I think we will muddle through, but thanks.

You really have no idea, do ya? If you want, I'd be happy to provide you with a list of all the things you receive from Canada. Trust me, you wouldn't last a year without us.

SLM3

P.S. Remember, the US takes more from the world than it gives.

james t kirk · 12-10-2003, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Liquor Dealer
"Frankly, as a Canadian I say keep your money, pay off your Allies. Nothing would make me happier that to see your economy implode under the weight of the mounting debt of the war."

Actuallly JTK, I was merely replying to this quote from Charlatan. I'm not unhappy with either of our border neighbors. I've explained to you several times how I feel about Canada and Canadians.

I know LD, you are a cool cat and I am in total awe of your taste in women in the days of the former tittie board (sigh). If you are ever in Toronto, give me a call and i will take you to a few of our more memorable institutions.

james t kirk · 12-10-2003, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by nirol
We need you for what, exactly?
Maple Syrup?
Gobs of pinkish white people invading the South East coast line in February?
A buffer to keep those evil residents of the North Pole from invading? One of them comes anyway every 25th of December.

As a conduit for potential terrorists, who proclaim they are political refugees as soon as they depart the plane in Toronto, are granted asylum, then plot the next 9/11 in Toronto coffee shops?

I think we will muddle through, but thanks.

I guess it would surprise you to learn then that Canada is your largest foreign trading partner. Yep, more than Japan, more than China, more than Mexico, more than any other country in the world.

You guys must eat a lot of maple syrup.

Oh yeah, and there was not a single 911 terrorist who spent any time in Canada.

Most of them did go to flight school in Florida though. Hey, isn't florida in the south east too. Aren't YOOOOOUUUUUUU FROM THE SOUTH EAST??

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Off hand, i would say you are more guilty than me there amigo.

If you want, i will talk to the mounties and see if we can ship a few of them down to the south east to teach you guys how to deal with terrorists.

splck · 12-10-2003, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by nirol
We need you for what, exactly?
Maple Syrup?
Gobs of pinkish white people invading the South East coast line in February?
A buffer to keep those evil residents of the North Pole from invading? One of them comes anyway every 25th of December.

As a conduit for potential terrorists, who proclaim they are political refugees as soon as they depart the plane in Toronto, are granted asylum, then plot the next 9/11 in Toronto coffee shops?

I think we will muddle through, but thanks.

Judging from your post, it's apparent the education system in the South East has yet to improve.

I'll give you credit in that you spelled Toronto correct.

I don't really care that the US is doing this, it sounds like schoolyard politics that are above most countries. Chalk up another one for your foreign policy.

rogue49 · 12-10-2003, 08:38 PM

OK
Calm down...don't get personal.
I do NOT want to see any insults about each others country.
If you do so you WILL be pounded on by the mods

Keep this debate clean, that's what I intended it to be
DISCUSS the situation
Do NOT flame or troll. (not even indirect)
First & last warning

Ustwo · 12-10-2003, 08:50 PM

The following are Canada's greatest exports.

I will NEVER EVER support any sort of trade war with Canada as long as these two precious resources are to be found in the land of our northern friends.

So far my best pike is 26 lbs, but I'll get a 30 yet.

silent_jay · 12-10-2003, 11:07 PM

[
As a Canadian i resent this ther is no way in hell that Canada would "crawl" back to anyone. why are we apparantly crawling back to the states, because Chretien is leaving and we all know that he thought bush was a goomba anyway, try to push Paul Martin around we'll see what happens.

Charlatan · 12-11-2003, 02:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Liquor Dealer
I'd almost like to see it happen for a little while - just to see what happens to our loyal northern neighbors - but hey! WTF!!! They don't need us! Right?

LD... I too recognize that it is a two way street. However, I think it would be a good thing to see the US economy collapse, if only for a little while, as it might do wonders for the smug attitude of many Americans who are ignorant of that two-way street (as witnessed by any number of posts on this board and this post in general).

BTW, as with others, my reaction has more to do with the poorly chosen words of Ustwo than anything... to imply that Canadians will be "crawling" back to the US is just... rude, let alone inflamatory (I take note that the mods had little to say about this).

silent_jay · 12-11-2003, 05:25 AM

whenb did this post turn into a war of words between Canada and the US? i figure that both countries need each other but the US needs Canada more. Maybe the Americans are still bitter about that whole double gold medal at the Salt Lake games who did Canada beat by the way. just playing. of course the mods said nothing is this not an American forum?just asking not insinuating anything

silent_jay · 12-11-2003, 05:28 AM

what the hell happend with my posts? sorry people.

apechild · 12-11-2003, 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Charlatan
I think it would be a good thing to see the US economy collapse, if only for a little while, as it might do wonders for the smug attitude of many Americans...

All right, seriously, this kind of sentiment is totally misplaced and entirely inappropriate. Please keep your jealous resentment out of this discussion and stick to the topic.

Canada, along with several other nations, was not invited to participate in the reconstruction of Iraq for a number of reasons, not the least of which is security. Within the nations that opposed the US action in Iraq are strong elements that continue to oppose the US presence there and show sympathy towards insurgents. I am not suggesting that Canadian companies will aid guerillas and terrorists, but I think we should at least recognize that there are indeed some security considerations that have to be made when choosing partners in the reconstruction effort. This is precisely why Israel was left off the list. Some of our more cynical critics would like to characterize this as cronyism, but let me assure you, it isn't just about rewarding our pals with lucrative contracts.

Charlatan · 12-11-2003, 07:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by apechild
Please keep your jealous resentment out of this discussion and stick to the topic.

Yes, a bit off topic (but not entirely given the topic) and not jealous resentment in the slightest.

Charlatan · 12-11-2003, 07:48 AM

What is interesting about this thread is what is not being discussed, namely that as part of the restructuring of Iraq the US is in the process of selling off Iraqi companies/organizations that have until now been state owned.

While it is true that many of these companies would be privatized at some point this privatization should take place once there is an Iraqi government in place.

Essentially the US has put Iraqi services up on the block. Sadly when the Iraqis eventually take over the administration of their own country they will find that much of it is owned by foreigners.

This is not a good thing. There is no need to rush to privatization. Why not just wait until the Iraqis have taken charge?

james t kirk · 12-11-2003, 08:49 AM

he he

It always turns into a friendly game of Canada / USA verbal jousting. It's usually good natured, but sometimes can get a little personal.

I think that many americans get a little perplexed sometimes that a country like Canada, so much like the USA, can think so damn differently sometimes.

But to my American cousins i say, don't worry, we still like you despite all your flaws

You can travel here safely. We will welcome your greenbacks, and you will probably find that people here are pretty friendly.

Just one thing i ask, if you come to toronto, please prononce it TER-RON-TOE, whenever I hear TOE-RON-TOE, it grates on my ears like finger nails on a chalk board.

Nice pike there Ustwo. Used to be some good ones up in Lake Nipissing, but haven`t been fishing there in a few years.

Mojo_PeiPei · 12-11-2003, 09:44 AM

I mean sure we could allow them to bid for the contracts, but I mean couldn't we just discriminate and not hire them?

OFKU0 · 12-11-2003, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by james t kirk

Just one thing i ask, if you come to toronto, please prononce it TER-RON-TOE, whenever I hear TOE-RON-TOE, it grates on my ears like finger nails on a chalk board.

o.K,..just rememeber when you come to Ottawa,please pronounce it OT-TA-WA,..not OD-DA-WA.

Charlatan · 12-11-2003, 11:50 AM

LINK

Quote:

Canada not excluded from Iraq business

Thursday, December 11, 2003

President Bush comments on the Iraq contracts issue at cabinet Thursday morning.

CREDIT: Associated Press, Ron Edmonds

OTTAWA -- U.S. President George W. Bush is grateful for help in the war on terrorism and is ''working'' to include Canada in hefty contracts to help rebuild Iraq, he said in a farewell phone call to retiring Prime Minister Jean Chretien.

''He thanked me for what we're doing in Afghanistan and for the offer of money in the reconstruction of Iraq,'' Chretien told a news conference Thursday.

''As for the news in the newspapers stating that Canada would be excluded from economic activities in Iraq, the president assured me that this was not the case, and that he would be taking action,'' Chretien said. ''And so I thanked him.

''We are still good friends.''

The United States announced this week that countries which did not support the U.S.-led war in Iraq last spring, including Canada, would not be allowed to bid on reconstruction contracts worth $18 billion.

But Chretien said Bush called Thursday and, ''he was telling me basically not to worry.''

The prime minister, who retires Friday, received the call before 8 a.m. at 24 Sussex Dr.

The president's exact words on the issue were: ''We are working to rectify the situation,'' said Chretien spokesman Stephen Hogue.

Bush's comments to Chretien seemed to fly in the face of what he was saying at home.

He told reporters in Washington on Thursday that countries which sent troops to Iraq should share in the American-financed reconstruction projects while other nations are shut out.

''What I'm saying is, in the expenditure of the taxpayers' money . . . the U.S. people, the taxpayers, understand why it makes sense for countries that risked lives to participate in the contracts in Iraq. It's very simple. Our people risked their lives, friendly coalition folks risked their lives and therefore the contracting is going to reflect that.''

Presidential spokesman Scott McLellan later said: ''We'll be glad to discuss the issue with you,'' when asked about Canada's status.

Incoming prime minister Paul Martin said Wednesday that he couldn't fathom the U.S. move to shun its northern neighbour, especially after Canada has pledged nearly $300 million for Iraq reconstruction.

Canadian troops in Afghanistan are also ''carrying a very, very heavy load'' in the war on terrorism in Afghanistan, Martin said.

He said he would raise the matter with the U.S. ambassador.

Deputy Prime Minister John Manley suggested Canada may cut aid to Iraq in response to the U.S. snub.

Chretien and Bush talked for about 10 minutes Thursday, said Chretien spokeswoman Thoren Hudyma.

Bush congratulated Chretien ''on your very, very distinguished and honourable career,'' Hudyma said, quoting the president.

Chretien was ''very moved,'' she said.

''The prime minister said to Bush: 'You know we've had a few disagreements in the past, but relations between our two countries have never been better.''

Hudyma described the chat as very warm and cordial.

The two leaders have never formed the kind of bond Chretien enjoyed with former U.S. president Bill Clinton.

There was an infamous incident just over a year ago when former Chretien press aide Francoise Ducros called Bush ''a moron.'' She lost her job after Chretien's attempts to defend her were widely mocked in the U.S. media.

Previous stories:

U.S. defends ban on Canadian firms bidding for Iraq contracts

Apparently Canada is OK after all...

james t kirk · 12-11-2003, 12:18 PM

Well, any way you cut it, the big boys will always sneak in the back door somehow.

You can't tell me that the Nortels, Suncors, Bombardiers, and the rest won't find a way to belly up to the trough one way or another.

hobo · 12-12-2003, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by james t kirk
Keep it, I don't want it.

Personally, i actually understand this concept. Canada did not back up the US in its desire to conquor iraq, so we should not be bellying up to the trough now to pick up contracts to "rebuild" iraq. Totally hypocritical if we do.

I think the americans have marked 18 billion towards rebuilding iraq and we have offered a paultry 300 million. Since our population is 1/10 of the US's, we should be offering up 1.8 billion to be fair. We are not.

To the victors go the spoils, that's the way it goes.

Mind you, i think we should reconsider even that paultry 300 million. Or at least ensure that it went to say medical aid for the Iraqis or something noble like that rather than halliburton's fat grease ball hands.

Canada may have *only* offered 300 million, but the EU offered only like 230-280 million and it is made up of a heck of a lot of countries.

In my opinion, Canada has done more for the US than it will acknowledge. Canada has to shoulder the burden of Afganistan because the US moved all its troops to Iraq. Why should Palau, Micronesia, Tonga, Rwanda, the Solomon Islands, and Angola and other tiny countries get to bid on contracts because they supported the war? Do you think that offering use of airspace nowhere near Iraq really helps more then $300 million?

rgr22j · 12-13-2003, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by hobo
Canada may have *only* offered 300 million, but the EU offered only like 230-280 million and it is made up of a heck of a lot of countries.

In my opinion, Canada has done more for the US than it will acknowledge. Canada has to shoulder the burden of Afganistan because the US moved all its troops to Iraq. Why should Palau, Micronesia, Tonga, Rwanda, the Solomon Islands, and Angola and other tiny countries get to bid on contracts because they supported the war? Do you think that offering use of airspace nowhere near Iraq really helps more then $300 million?

Well, apparently we didn't shut out Canada. But I disagree that small countries shouldn't get to bid on contracts -- why not? Why should only big countries get to bid on contracts? It is something palpable that will help a small country's economy, and purely subjectively, I find that small countries do quite a good job at what they promise.

Do I think offering use of airspace helps more than $300 million? No. But those small countries supported us and gave us what they could. $300 million to a rich country like Canada is peanuts. Why should contracts be based on dollar amounts, anyway? Money shouldn't be the only influence on the reconstruction, and thankfully so far this hasn't been the case.

I've attached this URL, http://slate.msn.com/id/2090636/, which actually lists the top 10 campaign contributors and the top 10 US contractors in Iraq. There are only 3 overlaps, contributors #5, #6, and #7 (Fluor, Bechtel, Halliburton). GE contributed more money then they received in reconstruction contracts -- not exactly a winning strategy, I would say. I don't see much of a correlation between campaign contributions and the awarding of reconstruction contracts, and my mathematician friends tell me that the 0.192 correlation over all 70 of the companies covered by the report isn't much of one either. There is no evidence that the Bush administration "kicks back" contracts based on donations.

Just because Canada gives us money doesn't mean squat. But truth be told, in my purely subjective opinion, Canada seems to genuinely want to help. But, again in my purely subjective opinion, to me Canada is that friendly aunt who sincerely wants to help everyone. France and Germany opposed us every step of the way, and show no signs of genuinely being interested in a rebuilt, democratic Iraq. I don't trust them to deliver, plain and simple. They would like nothing more than to see the reconstruction going poorly, slowly, anything to try to hoist the United States on its own petard, anything to try to justify their completely revolting anti-war position. If that means wrapping up their companies in red tape, or whatever, no thanks.

It's sickening to me to see them rail against us and attack us but jump for the cash as greedily as anyone. I've had enough. Give those contracts to Palau, or to the Solomon Islands, or whatever. They could use the money, and their economy will grow. Maybe those contratcs will grow the economy big enough to even kick the sweatshops out. After all, I can hope, can't I?

-- Alvin

smooth · 12-13-2003, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by rgr22j
I've attached this URL, http://slate.msn.com/id/2090636/, which actually lists the top 10 campaign contributors and the top 10 US contractors in Iraq. There are only 3 overlaps, contributors #5, #6, and #7 (Fluor, Bechtel, Halliburton). GE contributed more money then they received in reconstruction contracts -- not exactly a winning strategy, I would say. I don't see much of a correlation between campaign contributions and the awarding of reconstruction contracts, and my mathematician friends tell me that the 0.192 correlation over all 70 of the companies covered by the report isn't much of one either. There is no evidence that the Bush administration "kicks back" contracts based on donations.

No evidence? lol, check your list a bit more thoroughly. The groups you listed happen to be at the top. Then you mention GE. Do you realize how tied GE is to defense? The fact that they get a reconstruction bid at all is plum, not evidence of any point you're trying to make. They already made all their money back in dividends during the destroying stage.

Just think, a company that gets paid to rebuild what it helped level: "such a deal."

/chicago gangster

From the link:

Quote:

The CPI devoted six months to research and filed more than 70 Freedom of Information Act requests and appeals to get to the bottom of the story. The conclusion of the report, "Windfalls of War," is that a clear quid pro quo exists between government procurement and campaign contributions to George W. Bush. Charles Lewis, the group's executive director, released a statement arguing that the report reveals "a stench of political favoritism and cronyism surrounding the contracting process in both Iraq and Afghanistan."

There's just one problem: The CPI has no evidence to support its allegations.

You and I sift through two charts and that qualifies either one of us to question a report that was researched for 6 months? Me thinks you need more info...

12-10-2003, 08:53 AM	#5 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Re: U.S. Bars Iraq War Opponents From Bidding Screw'em, why should they profit? I could give a shit about good will with France and Germany right now. France has been a worthless ally since shortly after 1781, have been of NO help to us in the mideast but have blocked us where they could. Germany wants to elect some wacky socialist pacifist thats their problem. Canada I might let in just because lately they have been showing sings of crawling back to us. I know this sounds nicely jingoistic, but if the only way we can get help from these nations is when they can make money at it, we don't need them. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

12-10-2003, 09:40 AM	#7 (permalink)
Mr. Mojo Addict Location: NYC	I don't see what the big deal is. Countries that are not helping are being shut out? That sounds fair. Its mostly France (worthless military) and Germany ("Bush is Hitler" hypocrites) who are complaining. The other 18 of 26 NATO member countries who have deployed troops are getting the goods. Their are 24,000 allied troops (US Forces 130,000) 63 nations have pledged support. And this is still America Unilaterism? Oh right, we don't have 2 European countries who cant defend themselves. We need the French?! no thanks... <a target=new href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/12/16/wfran16.xm">(UK Telegraph: French farce of the force de frappe)</a> __________________ When I jerk off I feel good for about twenty seconds and then WHAM it's right back into suicidal depression

12-10-2003, 09:47 AM	#8 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Your link is broken, L got cut off... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...16/wfran16.xml __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

12-10-2003, 11:06 AM	#10 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	If our economy implodes, the rest of the world is worse off then us. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

12-10-2003, 01:00 PM	#12 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	I don't disagree. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

12-10-2003, 05:47 AM	#3 (permalink)
Macheath Junkie Location: Sydney, Australia	Ah well, I suppose if these companies want to bid, they could try writing a check made out to "Bush 2004". Personally, I constantly have this kind of hypothetical that plays out in my head where the Iraqis elect their own leaders who promptly nationalise all industry and kick US companies out. It's always a constant exercise in "Well, what next?"

12-10-2003, 07:59 AM	#4 (permalink)
m0ntyblack Crazy	/cheer Free Market /boggle MB

12-10-2003, 02:02 PM	#13 (permalink)
apechild Crazy Location: Vermont	http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/370599.html Israel was also left off the list of eligible nations, also for reasons of national security. Notes the Wall Street Journal's OpinionJournal.com, in today's "best of the web" ( link ), "If the EU-niks want to show that they're motivated by principle rather than greed, they ought to protest Israel's exclusion as well as their own." __________________ Skwerl. Its wuts fer dinner.

12-10-2003, 02:34 PM	#14 (permalink)
Moskie Pure Chewing Satisfaction Location: can i use bbcode [i]here[/i]?	I guess he was serious when he said "You're either with us, or you're with the the terrorists." Seriously, what does this do, besides make people angrier? Does it teach the lesson of "if you disagree with the US, then you're screwed"? Does it help Iraq rebuild any faster? I see nothing beneficial coming from this. Sorry for the cliche, but can Bush and co. at least try to be a uniter, and not a divider? __________________ Greetings and salutations.

12-10-2003, 03:03 PM	#15 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Why should they profit for their own self interests when they were fucking asshole goons over those same self interests? Also I doubt this will slow down the reconstruction. And who will it further piss off, everyone who already hates the US? This doesn't punish anyone directly, it just rewards those who have RESOLVE and a pair hanging between their legs. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

12-10-2003, 05:08 PM	#18 (permalink)
nirol Crazy Location: South East US	We need you for what, exactly? Maple Syrup? Gobs of pinkish white people invading the South East coast line in February? A buffer to keep those evil residents of the North Pole from invading? One of them comes anyway every 25th of December. As a conduit for potential terrorists, who proclaim they are political refugees as soon as they depart the plane in Toronto, are granted asylum, then plot the next 9/11 in Toronto coffee shops? I think we will muddle through, but thanks. EDIT: All above wisecracks about our beloved brethren to the north are made strictly in jest and in no way connote any hostility to Canadians. __________________ 'Tis better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than open one's mouth and remove all doubt. Samuel Johnson (1709 - 1784) Last edited by nirol; 12-19-2003 at 06:19 PM..

12-10-2003, 08:38 PM	#24 (permalink)
rogue49 Loser	OK Calm down...don't get personal. I do NOT want to see any insults about each others country. If you do so you WILL be pounded on by the mods Keep this debate clean, that's what I intended it to be DISCUSS the situation Do NOT flame or troll. (not even indirect) First & last warning Last edited by rogue49; 12-10-2003 at 08:43 PM..

12-10-2003, 08:50 PM	#25 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	The following are Canada's greatest exports. I will NEVER EVER support any sort of trade war with Canada as long as these two precious resources are to be found in the land of our northern friends. So far my best pike is 26 lbs, but I'll get a 30 yet. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

12-10-2003, 11:07 PM	#26 (permalink)
silent_jay Her Jay Location: Ontario for now....	[ As a Canadian i resent this ther is no way in hell that Canada would "crawl" back to anyone. why are we apparantly crawling back to the states, because Chretien is leaving and we all know that he thought bush was a goomba anyway, try to push Paul Martin around we'll see what happens. __________________ Absence makes the heart grow fonder

12-11-2003, 05:25 AM	#28 (permalink)
silent_jay Her Jay Location: Ontario for now....	whenb did this post turn into a war of words between Canada and the US? i figure that both countries need each other but the US needs Canada more. Maybe the Americans are still bitter about that whole double gold medal at the Salt Lake games who did Canada beat by the way. just playing. of course the mods said nothing is this not an American forum?just asking not insinuating anything __________________ Absence makes the heart grow fonder

12-11-2003, 05:28 AM	#29 (permalink)
silent_jay Her Jay Location: Ontario for now....	what the hell happend with my posts? sorry people. __________________ Absence makes the heart grow fonder

12-11-2003, 07:48 AM	#32 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	What is interesting about this thread is what is not being discussed, namely that as part of the restructuring of Iraq the US is in the process of selling off Iraqi companies/organizations that have until now been state owned. While it is true that many of these companies would be privatized at some point this privatization should take place once there is an Iraqi government in place. Essentially the US has put Iraqi services up on the block. Sadly when the Iraqis eventually take over the administration of their own country they will find that much of it is owned by foreigners. This is not a good thing. There is no need to rush to privatization. Why not just wait until the Iraqis have taken charge? __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

12-11-2003, 08:49 AM	#33 (permalink)
james t kirk Junkie Location: Toronto	he he It always turns into a friendly game of Canada / USA verbal jousting. It's usually good natured, but sometimes can get a little personal. I think that many americans get a little perplexed sometimes that a country like Canada, so much like the USA, can think so damn differently sometimes. But to my American cousins i say, don't worry, we still like you despite all your flaws You can travel here safely. We will welcome your greenbacks, and you will probably find that people here are pretty friendly. Just one thing i ask, if you come to toronto, please prononce it TER-RON-TOE, whenever I hear TOE-RON-TOE, it grates on my ears like finger nails on a chalk board. Nice pike there Ustwo. Used to be some good ones up in Lake Nipissing, but haven`t been fishing there in a few years.

12-11-2003, 09:44 AM	#34 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	I mean sure we could allow them to bid for the contracts, but I mean couldn't we just discriminate and not hire them? __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition. Last edited by Mojo_PeiPei; 12-11-2003 at 09:46 AM..

12-11-2003, 12:18 PM	#37 (permalink)
james t kirk Junkie Location: Toronto	Well, any way you cut it, the big boys will always sneak in the back door somehow. You can't tell me that the Nortels, Suncors, Bombardiers, and the rest won't find a way to belly up to the trough one way or another.