the great ape has spoken again...

[djxeno]

Bush defends restrictions on Iraqi contracts

President also calls on nations to forgive Iraq's debt

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush on Thursday defended his decision to exclude countries that did not support the U.S.-led effort to topple Iraqi President Saddam Hussein from bidding on some $18.6 billion in reconstruction contracts.

But he added that he still wants those countries to contribute to Iraq's recovery by forgiving its debts.

"Men and women from other countries, in a broad coalition, risked their lives to free Iraq, and the expenditure of U.S. dollars will reflect the fact that U.S. troops and other troops risked their life," he told reporters after meeting with his Cabinet.

"The U.S. people, the taxpayers understand why it makes sense for countries that risk lives to participate in the contracts in Iraq. It's very simple.

"Our people risked their lives. Coalition, friendly coalition folks risked their lives and therefore, the contracting is going to reflect that, and that's what the U.S. taxpayers expect."

The policy excludes France, Germany, Russia and Canada from bidding on construction projects. In an awkward bit of timing, Bush on Wednesday appealed to the leaders of those same countries to help speed Iraq's recovery by forgiving debt the country owes them.

"It is in every nation's interest that Iraq be free and peaceful, and we welcome contributions," Bush said.

Bush said he spoke Wednesday with French President Jacques Chirac, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and Russian President Vladimir Putin -- all of whom opposed the U.S.-led war -- and asked them to meet with former U.S. Secretary of State James Baker, Bush's special envoy on Iraq, about restructuring that country's debt.

Asked whether the exclusion of those countries from bidding on construction contracts violates international law, Bush said, "I don't know what you're talking about by international law. I better consult my lawyer."

The European Commission and World Trade Organization are investigating whether the exclusion violates international law.

German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder said Thursday that international law must apply to the awarding of contracts.

At a news conference in Berlin with U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, Schroeder said it was the task of all countries to help with reconstruction in Iraq.

"It makes little sense to discuss who can and who cannot individually participate economically in reconstruction," he said. "International law must apply here, and it does not help things to look backward. ..."

Annan called the decision "unfortunate."

"I believe it is time for us to work together to try to stabilize Iraq," Annan said. "Our decisions should be unified rather than divisive, and I think we would not characterize the decision taken yesterday as unified."

France has said that it will study the U.S. position in light of international law.

Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov was quick to point out his nation was still owed $8 billion from Iraq.

Exclusion stuns Canada

In Ottawa, incoming Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin said the decision was difficult to understand because his country already spent $300 million to support Iraq and also has troops in Afghanistan.

"I find it really very difficult to fathom," said Martin, who will take the helm of Canada's government Friday from Prime Minister Jean Chretien.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, left, and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder were both critical of the U.S. move.

"There's a huge amount of suffering going on there, and I think it is the responsibility of every country to participate in developing [iraq]."

According to U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz's memo posted on a Pentagon Web site, countries that either participated in the coalition effort or supported it -- including Britain, Australia, Spain, Italy, Poland, Turkey and Japan -- were on the list of nations that could be awarded primary rebuilding contracts.

U.S. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher added that while the prime contracts would go to coalition members, those companies could choose their own subcontractors.

"Subcontracting is open to companies from virtually all nations in the world," Boucher said.

In his memo, Wolfowitz said the list was restricted due to security concerns.

While "international support and cooperation are necessary for progress in Iraq, Wolfowitz said, it is "in the public interest" to limit the countries that can compete for contracts.

On Wednesday, a Pentagon spokesman said a postponement of bidding for 26 contracts was unrelated to the controversy over restrictions on which countries may compete for the deals. The bidding originally has been scheduled for Thursday.

[igloo]

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, left, and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder were both critical of the U.S. move.

"There's a huge amount of suffering going on there, and I think it is the responsibility of every country to participate in developing [iraq]."

:laugh:

Anyone who does not support the U.S. stance on this issue is completely out of their mind....

The hypocrisy that spews from Russia, Germany, and France...and Annan is downright embarassing

"and I think it is the responsibility of every country to participate in developing [iraq]"

:laugh: .....Interesting application of selective memory these great "world" leaders display

djschmuckeno......another good job by you displaying your stupidity

[djxeno]

displaying my stupidy?

i didnt write the article jackass, just posted it from CNN.

[igloo]

Originally posted by djxeno

displaying my stupidy?

i didnt write the article jackass, just posted it from CNN.

The editors of cnn.com added the "great ape"????.....

Which led me to believe you did not support this U.S. stance

[djxeno]

Originally posted by igloo

The editors of cnn.com added the "great ape"????.....

Which led me to believe you did not support this U.S. stance

I added that. what i am saying is that the countries who did not help in this war shouldnt be asking for money.

as for the countries that were in the war, they shouldnt be profiting over somebody esle's misfortune.

[igloo]

Originally posted by djxeno

I added that. what i am saying is that the countries who did not help in this war shouldnt be asking for money.

as for the countries that were in the war, they shouldnt be profiting over somebody esle's misfortune.

"profiting" is a little rough...indeed the countries who supported the war are profiting, but in the end, the ones that profit the most will be the Iraqi people

[pattbateman]

you speak the truth

[xxgrooveericxx]

This WAR was about $$$???

[mr mahs]

Originally posted by xxgrooveericxx

This WAR was about $$$???

Yeah good investment..

87 billion plus to fight the war..

18 billion for this contract

15 for Halliburton....

+33

- 87

------

-54 billion perfect sense:rolleyes:

Oh and before you pull the oilfor war rebuttal out of your hippie ass... The oil will be sold on the world market

[xxgrooveericxx]

Originally posted by mr mahs

Yeah good investment..

87 billion plus to fight the war..

18 billion for this contract

15 for Halliburton....

+33

- 87

------

-54 billion perfect sense:rolleyes:

Oh and before you pull the oilfor war rebuttal out of your hippie ass... The oil will be sold on the world market

Hey hey hey! Relax buddy! Calm down, all I did was ask a question!

Since you said all this info, let me ask you then: $87 billion for the war. OK....what are we fighting for?

If we (the US) didn't start this "WAR", which we don't even know why we are fighting anymore, we wouldn't need to spend 87 billion dollars in the first place.

Btw, I ain't no hippie, not old enough to be one!

[pattbateman]

whats wrong with fighting for oil anyway, shit i mean people have fought for less, we all use it and we are gonna need it, it can only help our economy!!!!

[xpyrate]

Originally posted by pattbateman

whats wrong with fighting for oil anyway, shit i mean people have fought for less, we all use it and we are gonna need it, it can only help our economy!!!!

at least you admit it ... btw you are making a fool of all your pro-war buddies on this board who contend that it has nothing to do with that

[pattbateman]

i was just making a statement tryin to piss you people off, im not a politician i dont have to watch what i say o o o nooooo get this it was "SATIRE" hahhahahhha and my real name is michael moore!!!!!!!!!!!1

[mr mahs]

Originally posted by xxgrooveericxx

If we (the US) didn't start this "WAR", which we don't even know why we are fighting anymore, we wouldn't need to spend 87 billion dollars in the first place.

Sorry bud, gets rough around here lol

I am not sure I get your "we don't even know why we are fighting anymore" statement.. I think 911 is the answer to your question.

[marksimons]

but 9/11 isn't a f'ing answer!

see.

9/11, tragic as it was, a horrific event, BUT, and this is a big but, it does not give america cart blanch to do what it wants when it wants to.

for a start, how many hijackers were iraqi?

well?

none I do believe.

how many were saudi? lots.

did Iraq help in 9/11? methinks not?

What was this war about?

firstly it was WMD, then it was liberation and democracy, then it was terroisism, or was it terrorism then democracy, I can't remember.

the point is. the reasons have clearly changed.

if you can't see that thenjesuschristthereisnofuckinghopeforthisworld.

people have died for worse reasons.

see vietnam.

the point is it doesn't matter why we got here.

we are here.

what are we going to do about it.

do you think that America would let the iraqi's nationalise their oil industry?

do you think they will let the Iraqi people vote in an islamic theocracy?

American tactics, planning, pr, everything has been done badly, shoddily and with seeming indifference to the people on the ground.

this exercise could have been done with the support of the world, if things had been handled differently.

no-one argues that saddam wasn't a tyrant - but we could discuss who helped him to become, and stay one, and that the world isn't better off with out him.

but.

at the time we were told that iraq was an imminent threat to national security. which it wasn't.

now, the actions in iraq have served as a call to arms for jihadists, has alienated a lot of the world, killed a few thousand iraqis, made a few people rich, and done not much for international relations world wide.

I am no pacifist, I just believe that you've gotta pick your tactics carefully.

I don't see why saddam couldn't be executed by a highly skilled SEALS outfit.

why the invasion? why not just encourage a coup. why occupy the country? why pass laws granting american corps immunity? why try and privatise the oil before the elections?

[jamiroguy1]

Originally posted by marksimons

but 9/11 isn't a f'ing answer!

see.

9/11, tragic as it was, a horrific event, BUT, and this is a big but, it does not give america cart blanch to do what it wants when it wants to.

for a start, how many hijackers were iraqi?

well?

none I do believe.

how many were saudi? lots.

did Iraq help in 9/11? methinks not?

What was this war about?

firstly it was WMD, then it was liberation and democracy, then it was terroisism, or was it terrorism then democracy, I can't remember.

the point is. the reasons have clearly changed.

if you can't see that thenjesuschristthereisnofuckinghopeforthisworld.

people have died for worse reasons.

see vietnam.

the point is it doesn't matter why we got here.

we are here.

what are we going to do about it.

do you think that America would let the iraqi's nationalise their oil industry?

do you think they will let the Iraqi people vote in an islamic theocracy?

American tactics, planning, pr, everything has been done badly, shoddily and with seeming indifference to the people on the ground.

this exercise could have been done with the support of the world, if things had been handled differently.

no-one argues that saddam wasn't a tyrant - but we could discuss who helped him to become, and stay one, and that the world isn't better off with out him.

but.

at the time we were told that iraq was an imminent threat to national security. which it wasn't.

now, the actions in iraq have served as a call to arms for jihadists, has alienated a lot of the world, killed a few thousand iraqis, made a few people rich, and done not much for international relations world wide.

I am no pacifist, I just believe that you've gotta pick your tactics carefully.

I don't see why saddam couldn't be executed by a highly skilled SEALS outfit.

why the invasion? why not just encourage a coup. why occupy the country? why pass laws granting american corps immunity? why try and privatise the oil before the elections?

I love how marksimsons posts... He'll actually have the word "but" on one line by itself. Excellent!!!

[pattbateman]

hey asshole remember who got us into vietnam??????i liet you all guess but it strats with a L it has a I and a B and or course a ER and finally a ALS whats that spell?????????

again no on would know that except people who read cause if you watch our media they never mention that fact

[marksimons]

erm, well it was actually the french.

and the CIA, who were conducting operations before the war officially started.

oh, and what date are you using for the start of vietnam bateman?

[pattbateman]

dont have exact date kennedy was in office. and fuck the french!!!!!

what does erm mean???? is it like "ahhhh" like you are typing the way you talk????

[marksimons]

well the french were the colonial power in vietnam before america took on their cause.

the vietnam war was started before kennedy came to office, in part by the CIA.

kennedy in fact was apparently considering scaling back forces in vietnam.

it was Lyndon B Johnson, who with the golf tonkin incident - which was a fake, provided the pretext for the scaling up the war and the ensuing carnage.

LBJ was not a liberal, hell, neither was kennedy really.

[pattbateman]

kennedy was but lbj was a democrat still young people today would say that republicans were the reason for vietnam and they were not that kinda stupidity drives me nuts thats all im sayin. i mean i have had heated drunk discussions and people are tellin me this shit that just is not true. not bias not spun simply not true.

[xxgrooveericxx]

Originally posted by mr mahs

I think 911 is the answer to your question.

Nope.

Osama Bin Laden organized the attacks against the US. Not Iraq nor Saddam. Like what marksimons post said, non of the hijackers were Iraqi. Most of them were Saudi's.

The first reason we went to war was to fight terrorism. So we go look for the master-mind of 9/11, Osama Bin Laden. We bomb the the hell out of Afghanistan. We got Osama on the run. No one knows where he is. You'd think we would try and continue looking for him. Nope. We turn our attention To Iraq.

We go after Iraq because supposedly they were a great threat to the US in the sense they had WMD's. Before the war started, the UN inspectors were inspecting EVERY possible location the US inellegance claimed they were hiding WMD's. Did they find any? No. The UN tried to plead their case that Iraq had no WMD's, but it was clear that the US, mainly Bush, wanted to go to war anyway.

So the war started (again), because of possible WMD's being hidden in Iraq; so we must take out Saddam. We got him on the run now, and we being looking for these WMD's; none found yet to date. Then, they changed their thoughts of the war because since there were no WMD's found, they had to come up with another reason. So, then came out the idea that it was to free and liberate the Iraqi's. Then it's back and forth between liberation, then WMD's, liberation again. Like I said, who knows why we are fighting for anymore.