US bars war opponents from Iraq contracts

[igloo]

Originally posted by cintron

"The interests of a political settlement of the situation in Iraq and the rebuilding of Iraq are best served by uniting the efforts of the international community, and not splitting it," Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said, visiting Berlin.

hilarious.

I wonder where he was a year ago when we were asking that exact same thing of HIM, France and Germany.

fuck europe and their self righteousness.

Embarassing.....

I only hope that those who put so much weight into the Security Council and the U.N. have a little better understanding at the dynamics that occurred...

Kofi Annan, Mr. ineffective, also annouced today that the U.N. will not be present in Iraq because it is "too dangerous".......

Of course, Mr. Annan never hesitates to beg the U.S. to intervene in other "dangerous" spots around the world in the name of stability and security

[pattbateman]

the damn french new and everyone that voted for this new why is everyone bakcing out make up your fuckin mind!!!!its easy how so many forget

ON THE ONE hand, France voted for U.N. Resolution 1441 in November, a resolution that explicitly acknowledges that Iraq had and still has weapons of mass destruction, that it is in material breach of 17 prior disarmament resolutions and giving it a final chance to come clean. On the other hand, the government of President Jacques Chirac not only opposes any effort to declare Iraq delinquent according to 1441, it has organized the opposition to U.S. efforts to bring the current crisis to a definitive conclusion. Paris has lobbied the non-permanent members of the Security Council against the Anglo-American second resolution. It even has declared its willingness to veto that resolution if it achieved the nine votes necessary for passage. France also sought to block NATO assistance to one of its own members, Turkey, forcing the other members of that organization to neutralize France’s obstructionism by moving to an alternate venue. And on Thursday, the French rejected the new British effort at compromise, beating even Iraq to the punch.

[igloo]

While the U.S. is catching heat for this good policy, everyone seems to forget Britain, Australia, Poland, Spain, Japan, and the other countries that supported the effort.

Should those countries lose out on reconstruction business to France and Germany?.......How is that fair?.......Those coalition countries gave their blood, sweat, tears and lives to this effort, and at the very least, should get reconstruction business over France, Germany, and Russia.

Besides, France, Germany, and Russia made billions from Saddam Hussein, including illegal billions in violation of U.N. sanctions (you know, the U.N.--that body that France respects sooooooomuch, and the inneffective, ineffecient, hypocritical body that the misguided put so much weight in with respects to the Iraqi war)...

Of course, these countries are also owed billions from Saddam Hussein, which they probably will never recover.....I guess that is the price you pay for illegally doing business with a dictator under U.N. sanctions (not all business was illegal, but enough).

I was wondering where the outrage is from the left towards these countries that illegally did business with Iraq, undermining their sacred U.N., and proving to Iraq and other countries that the U.N. is a joke

I was wondering where the outrage is from the left towards these countries that legally did business with Iraq, but money and funds (Foord for Oil program) did not go to the Iraqi people, but to Hussein's palaces and war machine

This reconstruction issue should not even be one...any clear thinking, fair person would be insane to think Germany, Russia, and most of all, France deserve anything......

Unless of course these countries, who are so concerned with the welfare of the Iraqi people and stability in the region, supply some money and troops..first

[igloo]

Originally posted by pattbateman

. France also sought to block NATO assistance to one of its own members, Turkey,

This had huge implications, during the war and now...

What most ignorant fools here do not realize is that the decision Turkey made to not allow U.S. to launch another pronged attack from their soil is costing dearly now......

Now of course, overwhelming public support in Turkey was against the war...however, the lobbying of France can not and should not be ignored here, and was a huge factor in Turkey's decision, as France removed their diplomatic cover for a pro-U.S. decision

With the 4th ID streaming down from the North, the Iraqi military (those engaged against the U.S.) would have had no where to run and hide from the main thrust of the U.S. from the South....

Additional "bad guys" would have been killed (the same ones that are fighting against us today), and a show of force would have been immediately shown in the "Sunni Triangle" ...of course, staging through Turkey would have other military, security, and stability benefits as well....

History will show that this element had a huge impact on the post-war efforts, and be tied directly to some of the problems that are now occuring

And France had a negative hand in it.....

[djxeno]

i myself would not want to profit over someone elses misfortune.

they were right for not supporting this bullshit war, but now they are wrong for asking for contracts for which they had nothing to do with.

[igloo]

Originally posted by djxeno

i myself would not want to profit over someone elses misfortune.

they were right for not supporting this bullshit war, but now they are wrong for asking for contracts for which they had nothing to do with.

You lost me.....didn't your previous post indicate that you are against this U.S. policy?

If I misread your intent, I take back calling you djschmuckeno (just on this issue of course)

[djxeno]

Originally posted by igloo

You lost me.....didn't your previous post indicate that you are against this U.S. policy?

If I misread your intent, I take back calling you djschmuckeno (just on this issue of course)

what i am saying is that the countries that are now asking for money (the ones who opposed the war) should feel horribe for trying to gain a profit on someone else's misfortune (the iraqi's) and for something they had nothing to do with.

They have no right to ask for money over something they voted against.

Seems hypocritical if you are asking for money which is generated by something you were against in the first place.

[igloo]

Interesting take from these big Bush supporters and "conservatives", who have been increasingly vocal against Rumsfeld......

Contracts for Iraq: Reverse the Pentagon's Decision

by William Kristol and Robert Kagan

12/11/2003 12:00:00 AM

President Bush, we suspect, is going to overrule the Pentagon's attempt to exclude from the bidding for Iraq reconstruction contracts certain countries that have opposed U.S. policy in Iraq. He might as well do it sooner rather than later, so as to minimize the diplomatic damage done by the Pentagon's heavy-handed and counterproductive action.

We hold no brief for the Chirac, Schroeder, or Putin governments. We are also very much in favor of finding ways to work more closely with other governments -- such as those of Britain, Spain and Poland -- who have courageously stood with us, and who hold the promise of continuing to be more helpful to us. We have even been critical of the Bush Administration for a certain lack of imagination in finding ways to work constructively with these friendly governments. But this particular effort by the Pentagon to reward friends and punish enemies is stupid, and should be abandoned.

A deviously smart American administration would have quietly distributed contracts for rebuilding Iraq as it saw fit, without any announced policy of discrimination. At the end of the day, it would be clear that opponents of American policy didn't fare too well in the bidding process. Message delivered, but with a certain subtlety.

A more clever American administration would have thrown a contract or two to a couple of those opponents, to a German firm, for instance, as a way of wooing at least the business sectors in

a country where many businessmen do want to strengthen ties with the United States.

A truly wise American administration would have opened the bidding to all comers, regardless of their opposition to the war -- as a way of buying those countries into the Iraq effort, building a little goodwill for the future, and demonstrating to the world a little magnanimity.

But instead of being smart, clever, or magnanimous, the Bush Administration has done a dumb thing. The announcement of a policy of discriminating against French, German, and Russian firms has made credible European charges of vindictive pettiness and general disregard for the opinion of even fellow liberal democracies. More important, it has made former Secretary of State James Baker's very important effort to get these countries, among others, to offer debt relief for the new government of Iraq almost impossible. This is to say nothing of other areas where we need to work with these governments.

This decision is a blunder. We trust it will be reversed.

[djxeno]

good article, doubt it will be reversed though.

[kramadas]

interesting take.

[igloo]

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.