U.S. Shuts Out France, Germany for Iraq Work

[Seraphim]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20031209/wl_nm/iraq_contracts_dc_3


By Sue Pleming

WASHINGTON (*******) - Citing national security reasons, U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz has ruled that prime contracts to rebuild Iraq (news - web sites) will exclude firms from nations such as France and Germany that opposed the U.S. war.


In a policy document released on Tuesday, Wolfowitz said he was limiting competition for 26 reconstruction contracts worth up to $18.6 billion that will be advertised in coming days.


"It is necessary for the protection of the essential security interests of the United States to limit competition for the prime contracts of these procurements to companies from the United States, Iraq, coalition partners and force contributing nations," Wolfowitz said in a notice published on the web site www.rebuilding-iraq.net.


The move is likely to anger France and Germany and other traditional allies in NATO (news - web sites) and the U.N. Security Council who are being blocked out of prime contracts after their opposition to the war. They may bid for sub-contracts.


But the decision will placate countries such as Britain, Italy and Spain, which provided troops to Iraq but whose companies were excluded from the first round of deals that went to U.S. firms.


The contracts cover electricity, communications, public buildings, transportation, public works and security and justice. Additional contracts are also being awarded to oversee those projects.


TIT FOR TAT RESPONSES


U.S. trade lawyer Clark McFadden questioned the administration's criterion for the contracts. "Is this going to set a precedent where national security can be used to justify limiting competition?" he asked.


Procurement specialist Prof. Steven Schooner from George Washington University said it was "disingenuous" to use national security as an excuse and predicted an angry reaction from those nations excluded.


"This kind of decision just begs for retaliation and a tit-for-tat response from countries (such as Germany, France and Russia)," said Schooner.


But a defense official said NATO partners had known for weeks they would not get prime Iraq business. "This is not a slight. We still have many agreements with those countries and good working relationships with them."


Wolfowitz is hoping that excluded companies will put pressure on their governments to join the post-war effort.


"Limiting competition for prime contracts will encourage the expansion of international cooperation in Iraq and in future efforts," wrote Wolfowitz.


The document, dated Dec. 5, listed more than 60 countries eligible for contracts funded by the $18.6 billion appropriated by Congress to rebuild Iraq.


The list included Britain, Australia, Poland, Japan, Italy, Norway, Spain, Turkey, Jordan, Egypt, South Korea (news - web sites), the Philippines, Romania and Saudi Arabia.


Some officials had argued privately the United States should not limit international competition to rebuild Iraq, where the infrastructure has been shattered by years of neglect, war and post-conflict looting and attacks.


The roll-out of tenders to rebuild Iraq has been delayed in recent days while "high-level" policy decisions were being taken on Iraqi reconstruction and as lawyers checked that the final wording complied with U.S. procurement laws.





A defense official said he expected the new contracts to be advertised on government Web sites later on Tuesday or on Wednesday.

U.S. trade lawyer Roger Schagrin told ******* non-coalition firms could still get business from selling material and equipment to the lead contractors.

"Much of the money is expended on materials. A British or U.S. company could get a prime contract and then buy 100 percent French materials," said Schagrin.

[Whistler]

Awww... Poor France and Germany :( http://www.wonderlandspace.com/music1.gif

[He219]

Key-Words:

The document, dated Dec. 5, listed more than 60 countries eligible for contracts funded by the $18.6 billion [US Taxpayer funds] appropriated by Congress to rebuild Iraq.

p-)

[Argyll]

National Security my ass.........this is just Sour Grapes,and Governments behaving like spoilt children!!.........no wonder we live in a ****ty world!!

[ßå$tĮТHÏ¿ð]

Yup talk about bull**** eh? So they didnt support the war so they are not going to get any contracts. Would it have been different if it was Canadians applying for contracts?

[Argyll]

I think the Iraqis need to be considered in all this after all it is their country is it not,or it was until before the invasion!!
Whats to say that the Iraqi's don't kick out the US contactors after the handover if the French and Germans come in with lower deals?
I just wish Britain would stop acting like a bloody poodle here,that knob in Zimbabwe has shown himself to be worse than Hussein at times,and all they did was tell the England cricket team not to go there........man I hate politicians..........what a bunch of jackoffs!!

[California Joe]

Yeah, what he said. Bastards.

[rokus2595]

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said it was necessary "for the protection of the essential security interests of the United States" to limit the competition

WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP.........Why doesn't he just say 'We are not allowing those countries to enter the competition as a punishment for not supporting us in invading Iraq'........i guess he really believes people are going to SWALLOW everything he says.........!?

[Kitsune]

They told the hockey team not to go there? God, that was tough for Zimbabwe...

And we Germans do not get any contracts to get some profit out of this war? :(
Now we're finished I think...


p-)

[Shake n Bake]

**** em'

[Seoulstriker]

Awww... Poor France and Germany :( http://www.wonderlandspace.com/music1.gif


i love the violin! :)




security concerns as in French companies getting their asses whooped by iraqis pissed about how they didn't support the war. :bash:

[He219]

The international community is free to help with Iraqi reconstruction and stabilization. However, the US will not finance FRANCE or GERMANY with US Taxpayer reconstruction funding. That is what is being said.

Oil has to be imported into Iraq, and until the Oil Industry can finance itself, any Iraqi regieme will be operating on debt and grants. The rebuilding of Iraq's infrastructure is financed through international reconstruction efforts and donations.

Who says that France, Germany or Russia would be halted at the border if they chose to voluntarily contribute (without US or foreign funding) the means and material for Iraqi infrastructure reconstruction.

:slap:

Iraq is still in debt to Russia and France for profiteering in the Oil for Weapons programs of the last thirty-odd years.....

[Whistler]

Exactly HE.

To expect that the US will give contracts funded by US TAXPAYERS to French and German companies, when all France and Germany have done so far to support the reconstruction is act as a speed bump trying to prevent EVERY move the US makes, is prepostorous.

And they are whining about it?!?! Cry me a river. They only care about reconstructing Iraq when theres a profit for them.

Like He said, if France and Germany want to make a contribution they are free too. They can contribute as much as they want... if they want to pay for it themselves. Don't expect to get funding from US TAXPAYERS.

This money belongs to American people. The US decides who gets it, and they've made their decision. Tough ****, life sucks doesn't it?

[rokus2595]

security concerns as in French companies getting their asses whooped by iraqis pissed about how they didn't support the war. :bash:

rofl rofl ....do u really believe that??? no, the reason why those countries are not included is simply the obvious reason, which has to do about the war......i find it very doubtful that the US would suddenly develop concern for the security of French or German or Russian companies in Iraq but have no reservations for the security of other nations.

As for iraqis whooping French or German asses because they didn't support the invasion, hmmm I would assume that there is a similar if not greater number of iraqis trying to do the same to the americas for INVADING their country....?

[Seoulstriker]

security concerns as in French companies getting their asses whooped by iraqis pissed about how they didn't support the war. :bash:

rofl rofl ....do u really believe that??? no, the reason why those countries are not included is simply the obvious reason, which has to do about the war......i find it very doubtful that the US would suddenly develop concern for the security of French or German or Russian companies in Iraq but have no reservations for the security of other nations.

As for iraqis whooping French or German asses because they didn't support the invasion, hmmm I would assume that there is a similar if not greater number of iraqis trying to do the same to the americas for INVADING their country....?

well, i just want to ask if you remember what happened to the Jordanian embassy after the war.

i just said the thing about the french or german companies because that could be the security concern that wolfowitz was talking about. i personally doubt that though.

the vast majority of iraqis support the US and coalition in what it has done. what do you think that the iraqis would do if they heard (if they don't already know) that the french and germans wanted to keep saddam in power?

[Fioraon]

Big deal, Deutschland and the frogs are left out in the cold. Wasn't that where they wanted to be? Power to them.

I pay taxes and I say **** them, coalition only. Think twice about that next time you feel the need to go on a crusade. Besides Americans are oppressed, our dollar is some 86 cents to the Euro, where is your heart?

As for NATO, two letters; EU. If anyone is undermining the alliance it’s not ‘amerika.’

[He219]

The US fought and invaded Germany, Japan and now Iraq.

While under US occupation, the ability for economic renewal and socio-economic prosperity was secure from outside threat. This is what happened in Japan and Germany. The USSR had every intention of keeping a defeated Germany weak, and it is more than probable that the entire nation would have become an occupied Soviet Satelite as the East was without US and NATO intervention.

Even France was able to focus on domestic and economic revitalization after the German occupation was reversed by means of an Allied effort.

Now we see the ability of those nations to prosper, while under US and NATO stewardship, be flaunted in our faces with charges that they are being denied the opportunity to profiteer in Iraq for subverting 'this brutal war of US unilateralism'.

:slap:

edit: mis-spelled profit ;)
Hood: Where's the spell czeck?!?

[Operation Ivy]

The US fought and invaded Germany, Japan and now Iraq

We didnt invade Japan we almost did :P .....(i just feel like being a smart ass :D , dont get angry;) )

[He219]

What, Okinawa (http://www.japan-101.com/history/battle_of_okinawa.htm) was not a part of Japan???

Smartypants.....

:D

[Operation Ivy]

Yarrrr u got me :D rofl

[rokus2595]

i just said the thing about the french or german companies because that could be the security concern that wolfowitz was talking about. i personally doubt that though. So what do YOU think is the reason France, Germany and Russia are being left behind??


what do you think that the iraqis would do if they heard (if they don't already know) that the french and germans wanted to keep saddam in power? ?? probably not much...hell, I am sure there are iraqis who remember that the US supported Hussein's goverment during the 80s....are those the same iraqis that are taking up arms agains the US now??

[He219]

i just said the thing about the french or german companies because that could be the security concern that wolfowitz was talking about. i personally doubt that though. So what do YOU think is the reason France, Germany and Russia are being left behind??
They left themselves behind!



what do you think that the iraqis would do if they heard (if they don't already know) that the french and germans wanted to keep saddam in power? ?? probably not much...hell, I am sure there are iraqis who remember that the US supported Hussein's goverment during the 80s....are those the same iraqis that are taking up arms agains the US now??
You are talking about the Sunni loyalsits. They are also the ones who terrorized that country...

:roll:

[Seoulstriker]

* He219 cracks the whip *

:D :hug:

[rokus2595]

They left themselves behind! out of contracts that could be worth millions of dollars? Either Frech business people are totally inept, or you are being disingenuous.




what do you think that the iraqis would do if they heard (if they don't already know) that the french and germans wanted to keep saddam in power? ?? probably not much...hell, I am sure there are iraqis who remember that the US supported Hussein's goverment during the 80s....are those the same iraqis that are taking up arms agains the US now??
You are talking about the Sunni loyalsits. They are also the ones who terrorized that country...
:roll: So what would you call those Iraqis that could be attacking the americans because the US supported Hussein in the 80s?

[16 OBr SpN]

Guys you are talking this and that, "contracts... money.... America"

Jesus Christ, how the hell are you going to rebuild a country when the war against Americans seems just starting, and IMHO won't stop in near future!
Do you think that companies would be sending their staff right into the middle of the warzone?
IMHO, It's all just politicall bull**** by White House and Pentagon. Their statements, considering current security problems in Iraq, seem very funny to me.

Regards,
16 OBr SpN

[rokus2595]

* He219 cracks the whip *

:D :hug:

hey..you still haven't answered..;)





i just said the thing about the french or german companies because that could be the security concern that wolfowitz was talking about. i personally doubt that though. So what do YOU think is the reason France, Germany and Russia are being left behind??

[Seoulstriker]

hey..you still haven't answered..;)





i just said the thing about the french or german companies because that could be the security concern that wolfowitz was talking about. i personally doubt that though. So what do YOU think is the reason France, Germany and Russia are being left behind??

i wouldn't put it as bluntly as saying that france and germany were sissy girls before the war, but i would say if they put in nothing, they get nothing. they risked nothing, they will get nothing.

[Ratamacue]

Maybe you remember how they were planning on vetoing our plans entirely.

[rokus2595]

Maybe you remember how they were planning on vetoing our plans entirely. Exactly. The US remembers, and that is why France, Germany and Russia are being left behind...



Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said it was necessary "for the protection of the essential security interests of the United States" to limit the competition

WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP.........Why doesn't he just say 'We are not allowing those countries to enter the competition as a punishment for not supporting us in invading Iraq'........i guess he really believes people are going to SWALLOW everything he says.........!?

[Seoulstriker]

Maybe you remember how they were planning on vetoing our plans entirely. Exactly. The US remembers, and that is why France, Germany and Russia are being left behind...



Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said it was necessary "for the protection of the essential security interests of the United States" to limit the competition

WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP.........Why doesn't he just say 'We are not allowing those countries to enter the competition as a punishment for not supporting us in invading Iraq'........i guess he really believes people are going to SWALLOW everything he says.........!?


but also france and germany and russia threatening veto ALSO means that they didn't risk troops or resources in Iraq. THAT is what rumsfeld remembers. :)

[rokus2595]

but also france and germany and russia threatening veto ALSO means that they didn't risk troops or resources in Iraq. THAT is what rumsfeld remembers. :) but then why won't Mr. Wolfowitz (not Rumsfeld btw) say that's the reason? instead he says 'it was necessary "for the protection of the essential security interests of the United States" to limit the competition'..that's a load of CRAP whichever way you want to see it....

[Whistler]

Because hes not going to come out and say:

"We aren't letting France and Germany in because they are stingy bastards and only want to come in for profit after all the blood has been payed by US soldiers."

Obviously hes a politician, so he puts it into diplomatic terms.

[Seoulstriker]

but also france and germany and russia threatening veto ALSO means that they didn't risk troops or resources in Iraq. THAT is what rumsfeld remembers. :) but then why won't Mr. Wolfowitz (not Rumsfeld btw) say that's the reason? instead he says 'it was necessary "for the protection of the essential security interests of the United States" to limit the competition'..that's a load of CRAP whichever way you want to see it....

maybe he was legitimately concerned about security, maybe not. we don't know. it seems obvious that he doesn't want to 'treat' the non-participants. who knows? :|

[Fioraon]

Guys you are talking this and that, "contracts... money.... America"

Jesus Christ, how the hell are you going to rebuild a country when the war against Americans seems just starting, and IMHO won't stop in near future!
Do you think that companies would be sending their staff right into the middle of the warzone?
IMHO, It's all just politicall bull**** by White House and Pentagon. Their statements, considering current security problems in Iraq, seem very funny to me.

Regards,
16 OBr SpN

The war against Americans started over 225 years ago.

Im not sure if you were talking to Jesus Christ or your readers but to answer your question yes. Companies, have, are, and will contenue to send resources and people to Iraq to build jobs, houses, and everything life calls for.

Iraq is a War Zone, but a War Zone can be safe. War Zone mearly means a place where military combat takes place. As long as troops are there and they are acting as a police force Iraq will remain a War Zone by defenition.

[He219]

They left themselves behind! out of contracts that could be worth millions of dollars? Either Frech business people are totally inept, or you are being disingenuous.
The French and Russians had Tens of Billions in Oil-Field interests from financing Saddam's lavish weapon's procurements. They did not want to lose those with Saddam removed. So who was being disingenuous?




what do you think that the iraqis would do if they heard (if they don't already know) that the french and germans wanted to keep saddam in power? ?? probably not much...hell, I am sure there are iraqis who remember that the US supported Hussein's goverment during the 80s....are those the same iraqis that are taking up arms agains the US now??

You are talking about the Sunni loyalsits. They are also the ones who terrorized that country...
:roll:
So what would you call those Iraqis that could be attacking the americans because the US supported Hussein in the 80s?
Liberated Iraqis that could be attacking - because of 80's US Foreign Policy that allowed Saddam to wield authoritarian rule??? I think not! That is about as nutty as claiming their attacks are based upon US support for Israel's bombing of the French built Nuclear Powerplant that is denying them the ability to export more oil...

Saddam has not been captured or killed. Without the removal of the threat of Baathist resurgenge, the insurgents are motivated to fight to exercize thier loyalist allegiances. They have not been demoralized and beaten to a pulp like Japan and Germany were at the end of WWII. All the fans of Hitler knew he was dead, the Emperor renounced his devine authority and the unconditional surrender was enforced by a desire for peace - that becomes the motivation for rebirth and renewal. The insurgents wish to prevent this.

[Russian Texan]

Only France and Germany? Aparantely Russia was omitted for some reason or am I mistaken?

[He219]

Only France and Germany? Aparantely Russia was omitted for some reason or am I mistaken?
:D We tend to expect vehement criticism from Russia, Russian Texan, as happened in the Balkan campain, but not from a traditional ally like we considered France to be or NATO partner Germany. Russia's relationship with Saddam was second only to France's!


;)

[Nizark]

National Security my ass, its what they get for not backing us up. As for Russia, anyone remember what Condie Rice said last year?

Punish France, Ignore Germany, Forgive Russia.

Russia is SO incredibly more important to the US then Germany or France, its no wonder why we are not punishing Russia.

BTW, today a female suicide bomber blew herself up and killed 5 others across the street from the Kremlin, and they found bombs in the subway, and other surrounding areas.

Have A Nice Day

[GazB]

I just think it is funny.

First it is "If you don't help us we will go in alone and do it ourselves.. but if we do then you can't help too and you won't benefit either." Then they actually went in... after pretty much declaring the UN useless, and then they found that removing a government is easy, but maintaining law and order in a country with no government, army or police force and everyone unemployed was a problem and started bleeting for UN help. Now they are trying to suggest that missing out on this handout is a good reason for French and German companies to lobby their governments to chang thier policy to support the US. The rediculous thing is that the UN supports the rebuilding of Iraq... they just didn't think George Bush jnr and his British lackey Blair had reason enough to invade Iraq in the first place... and that will never change.
Shaking money in their faces they were never going to get to try to get them to support something they already support is really funny...

What exactly do you pay these guys for... they seem to be idiots.

[hedgehog]

Just wanted to give my opinion on this little discussion. First of all, Germany cannot even issue a Veto since they are not a permanent security member. There is no large German oil company (at least compared to Russia od France (ex ELF from France) that had interests/projects in Iraq. Germany also gave precise reasons before they would consider going to war in Iraq. They didn't just say:" Oh, we don't really feel like war today.." Also, the reason for the US and Britain going to war has not even been justified yet. Where are those missiles that were supposed to be able to launch within 30minutes and reach England? Germans remember how world war 2 started, disinformation by the government( Polish troops attacked Germany.. actually dressed up Germans as Poles), so simply believing someone who said "c'mon, I think this guy has some bad s#$@ in his back yard, let'skick his ass!" would have been repeating history. Also, the Germans dropped plenty of hints to the US of why they could not participate, but the White house didn't pick up on those or decided to ignore them. They increased their efforts elsewhere ie increase troop strengths in ISAF (as well as taking command), Kosovo (to free up American troops), to guard US facilities in Germany (reduce strain on the US reserves), replace US ships in the Mediteranean so they could fight in Iraq, preparing the cargo loads for the C5s in Frankfurt, increasing the NBC troops in Kuwait to help protect the population in case of war, providing ships and planes for monitoring the coast of Africa etc.. If they are so anti American why are they helping so much? Also remember that german troops can only be deployed by parliamentary approval (2/3s I believe, and there are 650 total members or so...I think) and this was not going to go through unless you had concrete proof of imminent danger. I'm sure the US Embassy in Germany would have clued the White house in on this. In the US and Britain you only need one person to authorize military deployment (President , Prime Minister)

I don't really know the details behind Russa or France since I don't speak either of those languages. Anyone have an account of their side, and not just what was shown on CNN or FOX.

I am happy that Hussein is gone and I wish the rebuilding of Iraq all the success with as little loss to the US troops (as well as the other nations) , but having seen how badly it's going in Afghanistan it can seem very doubtful. Everyone (country) should get involved in any way possible. The more people you have working together, the more likely it will be a success. I think a lot of this squabbling could have been avoided if Bush would have just said:" I'm after Hussein. He is destroying his county and his people and needs to be taken out." If the politicians between supposed friends still make stupid statements like the one that started this discussion, it will only further inflame tensions and I am sick of it. They should grow up and deal with the problems instead of picking at old wounds. I was hoping to write the subsequent Canadian position, but I'm tired.

[Argyll]

Like I said ............grown men behaving like petulent kids!!
I seem to recall a lot of countries voted against the war,and did not go along with it,but to single out France and Germany is childish and immature whatever the reasons!!
Ya all think that when Iraq is governed by Iraqi's that the rose will smell sweeter,yeah 1st of the Kurds will within 5 years declare themselves Independant from the State of Iraq,and the Shia factions in the South will still hate the Sunni's who will still be the power in the country,you seriously think you can change a regions history and background and culture overnight,or even in a life time!
Try sorting out the Palestine/Israel mess 1st before trying to change the rest of the Middle East!!!

[Argyll]

Another interesting slant on this,why exclude Germany when the casualties were flown into the US Base in GERMANY,yet the Turks who denied the US the Northern Front,are included,there are also GERMAN troops supporting the US in Afghanistan!
The Saudi's who have more terrorist cells than blood cells,are included,despite the fact that 90% of the 9/11 terrorists were in fact Saudi's...............Jesus H.........your politicians need to grow up,and I thought the kids were only here!!!
All that's going to happen is mud slinging and Sabre rattling,and it's pathetic!!

[aktarian]

Iraq also oposed this war. Does that mean Iraqi companies will be excluded from reconstruction as well? :|

[Argyll]

Another thing Gentlemen lets not kid ourselves on here,what exactly is the US/Coalition getting from Iraq........satisfaction of a job half done in the short term,or a small profit from reintroducing the Iraqi Oil into the equation?
Are we simply to believe that the Coalition gets a big fat zero from their actions in Iraq?Other than a thanks from the Iraqi people for getting rid of Saddam............there is more than one way to skin a cat!!

[Shadow]

The US fought and invaded Germany, Japan and now Iraq.

No, the allied forces did not the US.:P

[farmgirl]

on a related note.....

Canada Protests U.S. Ruling on Iraq Bids

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&ncid=736&e=3&u=/ap/20031210/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_us_military

[He219]

Farmgirl (nice Avatar), I listened to the same article on NPR this morning.

Canada and Russia may not have been specifically mentioned, but are also precluded from bidding on US FINANCED reconstruction as primary bidders.

It is absolutely clear that ALL NATIONS have the opportunity to SUBCONTRACT in Iraq, however, some as Tiered Contractors under prequalified bidders, as clarified in this announcement.

This is nothing new. The Admnistration mentioned before the invasion the reprocussions of losing US FINANCED reconstruction bids for opposing the removal of Saddam.

Even nations like Rwanda and others who may simply have given tacit support or airspace use are included.

:D

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

France and Germany kept out of Iraq reconstruction projects! boy are they lucky give the situation in Iraq a few more years and the French and Germans can look back and laugh. :|

[Argyll]

I can't see why there's such a big deal about this on the surface the US Taxpayer is funding an $18 billion dollar project,which if you look at it this way."You broke it you fix it" POV,considering it was the majority of US bombs that caused most of the damage to the infrastructue of Iraq,for the life of me I can't see why ,if the French want to assist and it comes out of their pockets then why all the Hooha?
Or am I missing the point here in that these contractor will recieve a share of this 18 billion dollars?as to which again I'll say does this mean the US will write off the debts owed by Iraq to these 3 countries,and give Iraq a clean slate and a new cheque book..........or are they simply lining their own pockets with the profits that Iraqi trade and commerce will produce in the years to come?
What happened to the Billions of dollars seized during the war,who has that,and should that money not be used to rebuild Iraq instead of building up interest in some Western Bank?

And just some thing off topic I found out yeterday that an old Army buddy of mine and good friend was shot and wounded outside Baghdad 3-4 weeks ago whilst working as a "contractor",his vest saved his life,he was hit 5 times by an AK,and was rushed to the Mil Hosp in Baghdad where the US personnel there did a wonderful job.......Thank you to those who helped him!!

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

Talk about rubbing salt into the wound, the US wants France and Germany to write off part of the debts that Iraq owes them. :lol:

[He219]

I'm glad your buddy is alright, Argyll ..

I do object to this conclusion:

considering it was the majority of US bombs that caused most of the damage to the infrastructue of Iraq
How can you quantify bombing damage with the state of Iraqi infrastructure neglected for decades due to foreign wars and sanctions, yet alone neglect and sabotage caused by opportunists or insurgents?

Bacilluspolymyxa, in the long run France, Germany and Russia will be known as those nations who opposed the removal of Saddam. Objectors like Canada and others who merely abstained from participation and did not subvert US actions like France did will probably be thought of as indifferent to the plight of Iraqi peoples.

'U-Broke it/U-Fix it'? So there were 'no problems' in Iraq with Saddam?

:roll:

[farmgirl]

What happened to the Billions of dollars seized during the war,who has that,and should that money not be used to rebuild Iraq instead of building up interest in some Western Bank?

And just some thing off topic I found out yeterday that an old Army buddy of mine and good friend was shot and wounded outside Baghdad 3-4 weeks ago whilst working as a "contractor",his vest saved his life,he was hit 5 times by an AK,and was rushed to the Mil Hosp in Baghdad where the US personnel there did a wonderful job.......Thank you to those who helped him!!


I've wondered this myself. Why aren't we using that money? Does anyone know?

Glad to know that your buddy is okay Argyll. I'm guessing (if he continues to do that sort of work) that he'll be wearing that vest at all times! ;)

[Argyll]

Yeah thanks He219

C'mon you saying that in the past 12 years since 91 all the infrastructure damage belonging to the regime was not caused by Allied bombing? The damage caused by the bombings has run into Billions..you can't say that this was due to the way the country was run!

Just who imposed and carried out these sanctions....us the WEST under the auspices of the UN!!So we should carry some of the responsibilities don't you think?

Sure there were problems in Iraq under saddam,but not so much so that his immeditae neighbours did not feel immediately threatened by his existence or his "WMD"......hell even the Isrealis never done a thing about Saddam or his "WMD's"and they were a lot closer than the UK and the US
Thats how much they felt threatened!

As for the 3 amigos's they stood to lose a lot more financially than the rest of the coalition,and it was not in their interests to see a war in Iraq!!,they also never seen the threat that he had against the West like the US/UK.

[Seoulstriker]

What happened to the Billions of dollars seized during the war,who has that,and should that money not be used to rebuild Iraq instead of building up interest in some Western Bank?

And just some thing off topic I found out yeterday that an old Army buddy of mine and good friend was shot and wounded outside Baghdad 3-4 weeks ago whilst working as a "contractor",his vest saved his life,he was hit 5 times by an AK,and was rushed to the Mil Hosp in Baghdad where the US personnel there did a wonderful job.......Thank you to those who helped him!!


I've wondered this myself. Why aren't we using that money? Does anyone know?

that money was taken/stolen by the husseins from the iraqi national banks... money owned by the people of Iraq. i'm sure they were all converted to the new bank note.

[farmgirl]

What happened to the Billions of dollars seized during the war,who has that,and should that money not be used to rebuild Iraq instead of building up interest in some Western Bank?

And just some thing off topic I found out yeterday that an old Army buddy of mine and good friend was shot and wounded outside Baghdad 3-4 weeks ago whilst working as a "contractor",his vest saved his life,he was hit 5 times by an AK,and was rushed to the Mil Hosp in Baghdad where the US personnel there did a wonderful job.......Thank you to those who helped him!!


I've wondered this myself. Why aren't we using that money? Does anyone know?

that money was taken/stolen by the husseins from the iraqi national banks... money owned by the people of Iraq. i'm sure they were all converted to the new bank note.


ahhh I see. Now that you say that... I do remember reading about that conversion. There was a big article with a lot of pictures in the DM Register about one of the reserve units out of Iowa escorting A LOT of money.

[Seoulstriker]

yes, banks keep millions of currency units (what is the iraqi unit?) so that when people want to withdraw their savings, they will be backed by hard cash. husseins just took those reserves for their own use. it's a great thing that they found those boxes or there would be some serious inflation issues as was the case in germany post ww2.

[Argyll]

That answers that one then!!
Thanks for the buddy thing farmgirl :D

[He219]

Yeah thanks He219

C'mon you saying that in the past 12 years since 91 all the infrastructure damage belonging to the regime was not caused by Allied bombing? The damage caused by the bombings has run into Billions..you can't say that this was due to the way the country was run!
Exactly! Operation Northern/Southern watch certainly did not target infrastructure. Responses to hostile fire and targeting included the bombing of CNC hubs and AA sites. In the invasion, Government infrastructure was targeted, not civilian. Remember how a great effort was made not to hurt the ordinary Iraqis by taking out their bridges or bombing the power plants? ;)


Just who imposed and carried out these sanctions....us the WEST under the auspices of the UN!!So we should carry some of the responsibilities don't you think?
Santions were in effect for Saddam's non-compliance of GW1 resolution terms and not intended to destroy infrastructure. Only military and dual-use items were sanctioned. The state of Iraq's infrastructure only worsened with each year of inaction or lack of resolution.

Sure there were problems in Iraq under saddam,but not so much so that his immeditae neighbours did not feel immediately threatened by his existence or his "WMD"......hell even the Isrealis never done a thing about Saddam or his "WMD's"and they were a lot closer than the UK and the US
Thats how much they felt threatened!
Think again. Missing SCUDS, the development of longer range weapons and unaccounted WMDs - do you think Israel felt secure? How about Saudi Arabia or Kuwait?


As for the 3 amigos's they stood to lose a lot more financially than the rest of the coalition,and it was not in their interests to see a war in Iraq!!,they also never seen the threat that he had against the West like the US/UK.
By doing business with Saddam they were also legitimizing Saddams hold on power. Germany is a unique case in that strong post-WWII pacifism was the primary culprit for opposing military action. A show on last night on TV about the Balkans showed how the German gvt. almost fell due to involvement in Kosovo.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

C'mon people - I don't see what all the fuss is about. You have to READ the press release. Non-coalition countries aren't shut out. They're only shut out from US taxpayer funded contracts.

And why exactly should we not reward those who shared the risk with us? This is the real world, not a theoretical utopia. We stated from the beginning that this is how it would play out.

Didn't these people ever hear that fairy tale where the chicken bakes the pie (or some damn thing) -- nobody wants to help -- but then they all want to eat it once it's made? That's how the world works. Even children are taught that.

And farmgirl - isn't that pic from Cool Hand Luke?

[aktarian]

Think again. Missing SCUDS, the development of longer range weapons and unaccounted WMDs - do you think Israel felt secure? How about Saudi Arabia or Kuwait?

Yes, Iraq's neighbours were scared ****less and supported US invasion wholeheartedly. Oh, wait, they didn't. :roll:

[Argyll]

Think again. Missing SCUDS, the development of longer range weapons and unaccounted WMDs - do you think Israel felt secure? How about Saudi Arabia or Kuwait?


The Saudis were playing the US for a fool,with their involvement in AQ,they're ****ting their pants right now!

Ok I take your point there about security,but If the Israeli's felt that threatened ,given their past involvement in Iraq,they would've had teams in there locating these so called sites, as for the missing scuds what I find weird is that knowing he had them as a terror weapon why would he hide them?
Also knowing that he was about to kiss his own ass,and possibly never see his country again,why hide them only never to be found,and just simple rot in their desert graves?
I personaly believe that a lot of the Intel was overhyped to emphasise the case for war!........and yet despit this "Clear and Present danger"/40 mins to launch claim.........**** all has been found!!

As for the bombings during NW and SW many times I heard the words "Command and Control Facility"!,and as for the bath party buildings Regime or not it was still all a part of the infrastructure

[budanski]

Didn't these people ever hear that fairy tale where the chicken bakes the pie (or some damn thing) -- nobody wants to help -- but then they all want to eat it once it's made? That's how the world works. Even children are taught that.


One day as the Little Red Hen was scratching in a field, she found a grain of wheat.

"This wheat should be planted," she said. "Who will plant this grain of wheat?"

"Not I," said the Duck.
"Not I," said the Cat.
"Not I," said the Dog.
"Then I will," said the Little Red Hen. And she did.

Soon the wheat grew to be tall and yellow.

"The wheat is ripe," said the Little Red Hen. "Who will cut the wheat?"

"Not I," said the Duck.
"Not I," said the Cat.
"Not I," said the Dog.
"Then I will," said the Little Red Hen. And she did.

When the wheat was cut, the Little Red Hen said, "Who will thresh the wheat?"

"Not I," said the Duck.
"Not I," said the Cat.
"Not I," said the Dog.
"Then I will," said the Little Red Hen. And she did.

When the wheat was threshed, the Little Red Hen said, "Who will take this wheat to the mill?"

"Not I," said the Duck.
"Not I," said the Cat.
"Not I," said the Dog.
"Then I will," said the Little Red Hen. And she did.

She took the wheat to the mill and had it ground into flour. Then she said,

"Who will make this flour into bread?"

"Not I," said the Duck.
"Not I," said the Cat.
"Not I," said the Dog.
"Then I will," said the Little Red Hen. And she did.

She made and baked the bread. Then she said, "Who will eat this bread?"

"Oh! I will," said the Duck.
"And I will," said the Cat.
"And I will," said the Dog.
"No, No!" said the Little Red Hen. "I will do that." And she did.

============================================

"Not I" said the French

"Not I" said the Germans

"Not I" said the Russians

"Then I will" said the Coalition, and they did.


Yes, Iraq's neighbours were scared ****less and supported US invasion wholeheartedly. Oh, wait, they didn't. :roll:
And for standing up against the evil Americans, Both Turkey and Saudi Arabia have hinted to international terrorists that they should get a free pass. Oh, wait, they arent. :roll: :roll:

[Argyll]

But they have done so right up until a few months ago!!

Hi Buddy........Mrs had the baby yet?

Any way that hen story is a lot of ****e,you know fine animals only talk the minute before xmas day!!!,and there after they keep schtum!

[Kitsune]

Damn...and I thought the dog and the cat would eat the little red hen...

[EvanL]

Theyre not letting Canada bid either. Even though we didnt agree with teh invasion we have still supported it to an extent. When you guys were invading we put double the ships in the gulf to protect against smuggling, and after the war we even flew equiptment in for you guys.
Talk about bush power tripping eh?
Thats just being a ****ing ****. So childish of a leader to act that way. Considering right now the U.S. needs allies the most, especially in Iraq, i think its irresponsible to actt his way.

[Argyll]

I wonder what the reaction would be if these countries decided to pull their troops out of the Stan,and let the big 2 go it alone? Which is definately a possibility,how would that effect the Political,Military,and economics of the US/UK?


I see it as a case of "its my ball" !!!

[budanski]

Hi Buddy........Mrs had the baby yet?
Argyll: Early Christmas present ;)

EvanLloyd: Canada can help itself the most by rebuilding its own decrepit military, rather than another nation. ;) It's Pretty simple: No risk, no Reward. Besides, there is plenty of opportunity for Canada in Afghanistan.

France and Germany should teach the US a lesson by creating their own $20 billion Iraqi reconstruction fund and include the United States in the bidding. That'll show us.

[Royal]

Edited - sorry, Budanski - got the wrong end of the stick :oops:

[citizen-k]

Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's chief spokesman Bela Anda said: "That would not be acceptable for the German government. And it wouldn't be in line with the spirit of looking to the future together and not into the past."



A German said that?!?!? :cantbeli:

[Argyll]

Nah Royal he was talking about the baby his wife is due!!

But yes if other countries decided to say "Fu*K you Uncle sam" and withdrew their support it would tantamount to being a disaster!!!

[budanski]

No problem Royal. I edited it to prevent from further confusion. Heck, I've been guilty of the same before. :D

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

I think its pretty unwise to cut France and Germany out of the loop and have the cheek to send James Baker over to Europe and ask France and Germany to write off a good portion of the money Iraq owes them. Would it not be a better idea to allow France and Germany in on the looting of Iraq it would make life a lot easier in the future when the US might have to call on their asistance in some future conflict.

[Dave the Dawg]

For those actually interested in facts rather than the childish rants of some, I will note just three things (some of which others have mentioned but which too many others nevertheless chose to ignore):

1. The Wolfowitz memo applies only to countries wishing to participate in projects funded through the Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund by Public Law 109-106, i.e., US-taxpayer dollars.

2. The memo does not single out any country as being barred. That is what news reports have been doing in singling out Canada, France, Germany and Russia. The memo does identify those countries currently determined to be eligible. They are: Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bulgaria, Colombia, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Iraq, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Moldova, Mongolia, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Oman, Palau, Panama, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, South Korea, Spain, Thailand, Tonga, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States and Uzbekistan.

3. As noted, this only applies to those projects funded through the IRRF. Not only are non-Coalition members not barred from Iraq reconstruction, companies from at least two such countries have already received contracts. IATA, a Swiss company, has a contract to repair Iraqi air traffic control systems and ESS Support Services, a Cypriot company, has a contract for services at Basra permanent camp.

Regards

[Royal]

ESS Support Services, a Cypriot company, has a contract for services at Basra permanent camp.

ESS are a longstanding MoD contractor, so it's hardly surprising that they're being contracted for what's effectively a British camp.

[farmgirl]

Roll-Out of Controversial Iraq Contracts Delayed

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20031210/pl_nm/iraq_contracts_dc&cid=615&ncid=1480


update.....

[farmgirl]

and another.....

Iraq Contract Decision Reopens Wounds

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&ncid=736&e=1&u=/ap/20031210/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_us_contracts

[Macs.]

"There are no WMD in Iraq," said the Little Blix

"Not there are WMD in Iraq," said Bush.
"Not there are WMD in Iraq," said Blair.

...

"We can't find them" said the military.

...


Did you know that Germany paid 20 Billions for the 1. Gulf War ?
Did you know that the biggest U.S. Military-Bases outside the USA are in Germany ?
Did you know that Germany never said anything, when the USA used Germany to prepared the war in Iraq ?
Do you know where all the injuried US Soldiers are brought to ? Ramstein Airbase, in Germany.
Did you know that German soldiers are protecting U.S.-Bases in Germany, because lots of US Soldiers are gone to Iraq ?

We didn't go to war, because of certain points; but we did/do support the USA.

[citizen-k]

"There are no WMD in Iraq," said the Little Blix

"Not there are WMD in Iraq," said Bush.
"Not there are WMD in Iraq," said Blair.

...

"We can't find them" said the military.

...


Did you know that Germany paid 20 Billions for the 1. Gulf War ?
Did you know that the biggest U.S. Military-Bases outside the USA are in Germany ?
Did you know that Germany never said anything, when the USA used Germany to prepared the war in Iraq ?
Do you know where all the injuried US Soldiers are brought to ? Ramstein Airbase, in Germany.
Did you know that German soldiers are protecting U.S.-Bases in Germany, because lots of US Soldiers are gone to Iraq ?

We didn't go to war, because of certain points; but we did/do support the USA.


Didn't find any WMD? Maybe thats because Germany bought it all back? ;)

[Dave the Dawg]

ESS Support Services, a Cypriot company, has a contract for services at Basra permanent camp.

ESS are a longstanding MoD contractor, so it's hardly surprising that they're being contracted for what's effectively a British camp.
And Cyprus, like Bermuda (where I just recently incorporated a company for a client), is a popular location for offshore holding companies. ESS is a holding company subsidiary of the Compass Group, a UK corporation.

Macs:
Did you know that Germany paid 20 Billions for the 1. Gulf War ? German contributions in cash and kind amounted to approximately US$6.5 billion.
Did you know that the biggest U.S. Military-Bases outside the USA are in Germany? Yes; although many of the bases themselves are physically small, it is the largest network of bases supporting the largest number of troops (outside of operational deployments in Iraq) outside of the US.
Did you know that Germany never said anything, when the USA used Germany to prepared the war in Iraq? "Never said anything" is a bit of a mischaracterization. However, unlike Belgium, Germany never threatened to restrict the movement of US forces through its ports and airspace (a threat Belgium almost immediately caved on, when it was realized that France and Germany would allow such movements). And this contrasts to Austria, which in fact did prohibit such movements on its railways and through its airspace (Austria, though, is a neutral state, while Germany is a formal ally of the US).
Do you know where all the injuried US Soldiers are brought to ? Ramstein Airbase, in Germany. They are brought through Ramstein. They are brought to Landstuhl Army Hospital, on the other side of the Autobahn from the air base, just above Burg Nanstein.
Did you know that German soldiers are protecting U.S.-Bases in Germany, because lots of US Soldiers are gone to Iraq ? Yes, and the help is much appreciated.

[Argyll]

Did you know that Germany never said anything, when the USA used Germany to prepared the war in Iraq? "Never said anything" is a bit of a mischaracterization. However, unlike Belgium, Germany never threatened to restrict the movement of US forces through its ports and airspace (a threat Belgium almost immediately caved on, when it was realized that France and Germany would allow such movements). And this contrasts to Austria, which in fact did prohibit such movements on its railways and through its airspace (Austria, though, is a neutral state, while Germany is a formal ally of the US).



Oh you mean like what Turkey did!!

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

Didn't find any WMD? Maybe thats because Germany bought it all back? ;)

Why are you so down on Germany citizen-k come on they have never done anything bad to Israel, in fact they are pretty nice to you so go easy on them.

[citizen-k]

Didn't find any WMD? Maybe thats because Germany bought it all back? ;)

Why are you so down on Germany citizen-k come on they have never done anything bad to Israel, in fact they are pretty nice to you so go easy on them.

I know they didn't do anything wrong but still - they did sell WMD to Iraq, and I guess that hearing a German guy say "lets forget the past and look at the future" will always make me wonder... Not that I care to look at the future - a free Middle east from WMD in the hands of mental cases.

Don't get me wrong, I don't have anything against Germany as "Germany" - but I do have some bad feelings for those who, from some odd reason, loved and supported Saddam. (France is in 1st place)

[Dave the Dawg]

Did you know that Germany never said anything, when the USA used Germany to prepared the war in Iraq? "Never said anything" is a bit of a mischaracterization. However, unlike Belgium, Germany never threatened to restrict the movement of US forces through its ports and airspace (a threat Belgium almost immediately caved on, when it was realized that France and Germany would allow such movements). And this contrasts to Austria, which in fact did prohibit such movements on its railways and through its airspace (Austria, though, is a neutral state, while Germany is a formal ally of the US).



Oh you mean like what Turkey did!!And of course Ireland, which is a neutral state, nevertheless did allow US use of its ports and airspace.

So you have formal allies - the UK, Denmark, Poland, the Netherlands, Spain, Italy, Japan, Israel, etc. - who supported the US, formal allies - Germany, Greece, France, Canada, Egypt, etc. - who did not support the US but did not actively impede the coalition, and a formal ally - Turkey - which did impede the coalition.

And you have non-allies like Eritrea who supported the coalition, non-allies like Jordan who quietly supported the coalition, non-allies like Ireland who did not impede where they might have, and non-allies who did impede, like Austria.

[Seiyuuki]

Think again. Missing SCUDS, the development of longer range weapons and unaccounted WMDs - do you think Israel felt secure? How about Saudi Arabia or Kuwait?

Yes, Iraq's neighbours were scared ****less and supported US invasion wholeheartedly. Oh, wait, they didn't. :roll:

Kuwait adamantly supported the removal of Saddam and coalition forces were allow to use the airbase in Saudi Arabia.

[aktarian]

Kuwait adamantly supported the removal of Saddam and coalition forces were allow to use the airbase in Saudi Arabia.

What about Iran who fought a bloody 8 year war with Iran? Or Syria? Or Turkey? And Jordan who didn't made it's support public? that's 1 neighbour who supported it, one who quietly supported it, one who gave limited support and 3 who opposed it. yes, Iraq scared the **** out of neighbours.


and non-allies who did impede, like Austria.

Perhaps you should check term "neutrality" in dictionary. While you are at it, add Switzerland and Sweden to list of countries that impeded. :roll:

[Seiyuuki]

So Saddam and his sons should probably have remain in power and continue to build their lavish palaces and rape their women and kill at will because obviously they were supported by many.

There were unsettle differences between the Turks and Kurds and in the end, the coalition forces rather have the Kurds.

It's no surprise that past history have shown lack of commitment from the U.S. when the casulties mount and early estimates shown that the war would cost a the lives of many. Of course countries in such close proximity to Saddam would be cautious in their support, if the coalition forces did not succeed, those that support the war would surely feel the repercussion from Saddam. The Kurds for instance, they were encouraged to rise up against Saddam at the end of Gulf War '91 and we all know what Saddam did to them when the coalition forces were not able to assist them. Obviously, when neighboring countries make their decision to either support the war or not, that scenario was at the forefront of their mindset.

Is the $18 billion Americans' money or are we still trying to get those Yanks to spend their money they way we think it should be spent?

[Argyll]

Germany was not the only one to give the capabilities of WMD to Iraq,the USA,the UK,and France,Russia,China.........the list is endless,and all bought with the good old Yankee Dollar!!!!! :D

The coalition was not able to assist them..........assist,fu*k mate they turned their backs on them after some behind the scenes sick ducking!!
We all know what Saddam did,and yet we did Jack ****!!!Despite having the assets to do so,and I'm willing to bet they still haven't forgotten how they were betrayed!!


Like I asked already $18 Billion as a free gesture,as a token of love,or creamed off the natural resources that Iraq possess?
Pop quiz,how many Iraqi oil companies are actually in the hands of the Iraqi's and not "overseen" by the victors?

[Macs.]

Didn't find any WMD? Maybe thats because Germany bought it all back? ;)

Why are you so down on Germany citizen-k come on they have never done anything bad to Israel, in fact they are pretty nice to you so go easy on them.

I know they didn't do anything wrong but still - they did sell WMD to Iraq, and I guess that hearing a German guy say "lets forget the past and look at the future" will always make me wonder... Not that I care to look at the future - a free Middle east from WMD in the hands of mental cases.

Don't get me wrong, I don't have anything against Germany as "Germany" - but I do have some bad feelings for those who, from some odd reason, loved and supported Saddam. (France is in 1st place)

Germany NEVER sold WMD to Iraq we have strict laws on Weapons-Export, the only EU Country I know wich sold Weapons to Iraq is France.

[Pille1234]

Germany NEVER sold WMD to Iraq we have strict laws on Weapons-Export, the only EU Country I know wich sold Weapons to Iraq is France.


Thats not quite true. I don't know about WMD, but weapons, communication equipment, radar technology and several components (dual use) were sold to iraq till 1991. Some business was illegal though, but most was not.

[He219]

http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp/20031210/thumb.sge.nhe25.101203204402.photo02.default-391x261.jpg
Larger (http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp/20031210/capt.sge.nhc09.101203202611.photo02.default-391x261.jpg)

French President Jacques Chirac (C) and Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin (L). The French government is studying the legality of the US decision to bar countries from competing for reconstruction contracts in Iraq (news - web sites)(AFP/Patrick Kovarik)

http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp/20031210/thumb.sge.nhe25.101203204402.photo01.default-384x269.jpg
Larger (http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp/20031210/capt.sge.nhe25.101203204402.photo01.default-384x269.jpg)

Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov (L) and his German counterpart Joschka Fischer smile after holding bilateral talks in Berlin. Ivanov insisted that reconstruction contracts in Iraq (news - web sites) should be open to all countries(AFP/DDP/Michael Kappeler)

Look at them scramble for US Tax Dollars....

:roll:

[JiJoMacLE45]

It amused me to see the honchos in some of these 'left out' countries bitch & whine about being left out of the Iraqi contracts then say how much they have contributed in Afghanistan and since they do things there they deserve to be included in Iraq.

Well maybe it's just me, but I remember some of those same leaders saying that the war in Afghanistan, which was part of the war on terrorism, was unrelated to our war in Iraq. But now that it's time to stand in line with their hands out and wallets open, they can draw a direct corrolation between the two.

Talk about karma being a kick in the pants.

[aktarian]

Germany NEVER sold WMD to Iraq we have strict laws on Weapons-Export, the only EU Country I know wich sold Weapons to Iraq is France.

UK sold weapons to Iraq (prior to 1990). Also remember that large stocks of new Italian mines found this year?

[Argyll]

The Iraqis basically bought from whoever was selling,they didn't give a toss if it was legit or not,and neither did the seller!!
A lot of stuff came through N Korea and China too

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Germany was not the only one to give the capabilities of WMD to Iraq,the USA,the UK,and France,Russia,China.........the list is endless,and all bought with the good old Yankee Dollar!!!!! :D

The coalition was not able to assist them..........assist,fu*k mate they turned their backs on them after some behind the scenes sick ducking!!
We all know what Saddam did,and yet we did Jack ****!!!Despite having the assets to do so,and I'm willing to bet they still haven't forgotten how they were betrayed!!


Like I asked already $18 Billion as a free gesture,as a token of love,or creamed off the natural resources that Iraq possess?
Pop quiz,how many Iraqi oil companies are actually in the hands of the Iraqi's and not "overseen" by the victors?

And exactly who are the Iraqi oil companies? They were Saddam's guys & I really doubt we'll just hand the shiny new refining & pipeline equipment back to them with a nod & a wink. We're spending our time trying to get the infrastructure back online & repairing the almost daily pipeline sabotage. My engineer unit has had a number of injured by roadside bombs (etc.) in Iraq just doing repair work. Hey - it cost us an a$$load of money to pull this off, I see no problem in the US taxpayer trying to recover some of the operational costs in this way. We're not a candy store.

[Argyll]

Well 2 sheds,are you in Iraq right now?If so stay safe man.

But you need to lighten up cause me persoanlly could not give a toss who owns the refinerys,but there are many who see the main interest in Iraq is the oil,hell I live in Scotland and we have oil,we also have WMD's and a absoloute asshole as a leader,fancy doing us Scots a favour?

as for being a candy store,is this not the impression that you're giving?
If the French were to announce a $1 billion dollar aid package ,in the form of reconstruction ,which is after all helping the Iraqi people here,who I'm pretty sure just want their own country back,would that be an acceptable point?
My opinion irrespective of their views ,if they want to contribute then let them,but lets not ki ourselves on here ,that 18Billion will be recouped and filtered back into the US coffers at some stage!

[Nite]

Don't get me wrong, I don't have anything against Germany as "Germany" - but I do have some bad feelings for those who, from some odd reason, loved and supported Saddam. (France is in 1st place)
Then you should also have some odd feeling about the US.

[Nite]

while Germany is a formal ally of the US
So Germany is only a formal ally. If that is the case we Germans should really think about withdrawing our Troops from Afghanistan. I dont't think the US will miss their formal ally.

[Seiyuuki]

It's Americans' money, they have the right to pick who they will pay to reconstruct Iraq, just like if it's your money, you can pick who you pay to plan your wedding or party, etc...How hard is that to understand?

Reconstruction is open to all countries, if France said they're going to send a company to build roads or something and they will pay for it, no one would object.

[Argyll]

yeah but the money you make from Iraq ain't yours then is it?
The money that was in Iraq also was not yours either,it belonged to the Iraqi people,and they owed it to other countries,so why not pay them?
How hard is that to understand?
Yah think my bank manager would let me off with not paying my OD?
More like add interest onto it the fooker!

[Whistler]

The money wasn't "made from Iraq" you dolt.

The money belongs to US TAXPAYERS. It comes from the grant that GWB recently secured from congress. That has been said at least 7 times in this thread. Why can't anyone understand that?

It is going to be a long time before any profits are turned and Iraq starts "making money", for anyone.

[rokus2595]

As it has been stated here before, yes, the money is coming from US taxpayers' pockets, but who is benefiting from it??? US, British, Australian etc companies........NOT the iraqi people (THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE A SAY IN THE MATTER), nor the US taxpayer.

[Durandal]

Having got in this conversation late I just wanted to say...ROCK ON.

I still cannot believe these nations are bitching that they are not getting MY tax dollars.

Because that is what they are doing. America, the nation footing the bill...the billions is from the United States, not Poland, not Iraq, not the moon. It comes from the tax payers'. If you want a contract, have your OWN tax payer's foot the bill and then some police forces to Iraq.

That is not asking too much.

The people that played ball get the green. We already said that if you want to deal you can.

Why are you bitching?

Actually have to work for a handout drives you folks nuts!

[Argyll]

Whistler you DOLTI did I say the $18 billion was made from Iraq?

read the post properly before being derogatory !!

I said the money you make from Iraq,and if you'd actulay have read the thread from page 1 then you'd have known what I was getting at!,if you'd have been following this thread you'd have known I was clearly talking about post reconstruction profits!!

You think it will be a long time before Iraq makes money,is it not making money each day,what are the barrels produced almost a million a day now?I don't know you seem to be the expert,at what oh $2 a barrel,I'm no oil expert so I'm guessing here.
But instead of going to the Named 3 asking for them to "forget their debts",perhaps paying them off with money owed to them is a better soloution?

[Whistler]

Rokus,

I don't even know why i'm bothering with people in this tread. How f*cking hard is it to wrap your head around.

These contracts are going to companys who will create programs to help rebuild Iraq, and help the Iraqi people.

The money for these contracts is coming out of the pocket of the US Government, and in turn, the US taxpayer. Therefore, in other words, this is American money and the Americans will decide where it is spent.

If France, Germany, or anyone else has a problem with this, they can make their own monetary contributions, then they can spend it however they want. Otherwise, they can STFU and stop whining... the coalition has enough companies to do the work.

Is that clear enough?

[Seoulstriker]

Rokus,

I don't even know why i'm bothering with people in this tread. How f*cking hard is it to wrap your head around.

These contracts are going to companys who will create programs to help rebuild Iraq, and help the Iraqi people.

The money for these contracts is coming out of the pocket of the US Government, and in turn, the US taxpayer. Therefore, in other words, this is American money and the Americans will decide where it is spent.

If France, Germany, or anyone else has a problem with this, they can make their own monetary contributions, then they can spend it however they want. Otherwise, they can STFU and stop whining... the coalition has enough companies to do the work.

Is that clear enough?

exactly, man! you nailed it! clear and concise, they way i like. :D

:hug: woot woot woot

[Durandal]

As it has been stated here before, yes, the money is coming from US taxpayers' pockets, but who is benefiting from it??? US, British, Australian etc companies........NOT the iraqi people (THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE A SAY IN THE MATTER), nor the US taxpayer.

Before I explode...

Why are the Iraqi people not benfitting?

[Argyll]

How hard is it for you to wrap your head around that these countries are owed money by Iraq,whoever is in charge,or was in charge for whatever they used it on!
paying them their dues maybe a way of getting them to stop whining?
It was the BS that these countries were said to be a threat to National security was way OTT.
Hey I don't care if you spend $500 billion dollars in Iraq,just don't take $1000 Billion back out!!

[Durandal]

Rokus...

Preach on brother! woot

[Durandal]

"Not I" said the French

"Not I" said the Germans

"Not I" said the Russians

"Then I will" said the Coalition, and they did.



France and Germany should teach the US a lesson by creating their own $20 billion Iraqi reconstruction fund and include the United States in the bidding. That'll show us.


*cough* I am still recovering. That was fantastic. :D

[rokus2595]

Before I explode...

Why are the Iraqi people not benfitting?

Why???? one would assume that if there are buildings to be repaired, roads to be paved, hospitals to be built etc etc, one would have a PROCESS where contracts are given according to MERIT (ie COST among others). This isn't happening in iraq....it would be as if the town you live in needs a new railway system, and mexicans will decide who gets to build it in your town, you absolutely have no say in the process.......get it?? I really don't know how to put it more clearly....

[Argyll]

Right as of this time the Iraqi people are generally not benefiting,they are still under occupation,they are still under curfew,and mostly they are still living under fear!
It will not be a quick fix this Reconstruction,but it will go someways to establish Iraq again,but you think that these insurgents are going to sit by and let this happen?
As soon as these Foreign companies start coming in,especially the US ones ,the attacks will increase on soft targets,and they will require protection ,whether it be private,or from the Military which will have to funded from elsewhere,how big and deep do you want your pockets to be?

[Durandal]

How hard is it for you to wrap your head around that these countries are owed money by Iraq,whoever is in charge,or was in charge for whatever they used it on!
paying them their dues maybe a way of getting them to stop whining?
It was the BS that these countries were said to be a threat to National security was way OTT.
Hey I don't care if you spend $500 billion dollars in Iraq,just don't take $1000 Billion back out!!

WTF does that have to do with getting AMERICAN contracts for rebuilding Iraq?

Funny thing is, a good chunk of that money is owed to the defense industries of those nations.

Yopu'll get your money AFTER Iraq is on its feet and can pay it. It certainly wasn't going to pay its tab before, so why get all huffy now?

[rokus2595]

to help rebuild Iraq, and help the Iraqi people.
Question: If it is helping the iraqi people, WHY AREN'T THE IRAQIS WHO DECIDE WHO GETS THE CONTRACTS?


The money for these contracts is coming out of the pocket of the US Government, and in turn, the US taxpayer. Therefore, in other words, this is American money and the Americans will decide where it is spent. Correct, and YOUR money is being wasted by there no being a proper process for awarding contracts in Iraq; they are currently being 'handed out'...how does that help YOU?? it doesn't, it helps the board of directors of that company, it helps the investors of that company..BUT THAT ISN'T YOU..

[Durandal]

Why???? one would assume that if there are buildings to be repaired, roads to be paved, hospitals to be built etc etc, one would have a PROCESS where contracts are given according to MERIT (ie COST among others). This isn't happening in iraq....it would be as if the town you live in needs a new railway system, and mexicans will decide who gets to build it in your town, you absolutely have no say in the process.......get it?? I really don't know how to put it more clearly....

Last time I checked, I did not live in a country that was ruled by an evil dictator, bombed and invaded and needed rebuilding.

Try a better analogy...and read yourself some history. We won the war we decide how it is done. In the end the Iraqis will have a kick ass country.

It worked for Germany and Japan...and the South. :)

[rokus2595]

Why???? one would assume that if there are buildings to be repaired, roads to be paved, hospitals to be built etc etc, one would have a PROCESS where contracts are given according to MERIT (ie COST among others). This isn't happening in iraq....it would be as if the town you live in needs a new railway system, and mexicans will decide who gets to build it in your town, you absolutely have no say in the process.......get it?? I really don't know how to put it more clearly....

Last time I checked, I did not live in a country that was ruled by an evil dictator, bombed and invaded and needed rebuilding.

rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl .. i really don't know what to say...but i sure got a good laugh.....you completely miss the point.. rofl

[Argyll]

did you not read the part about paying them off might just shut them up?

Are you saying that some of that $18B is owed to these 2 anyway?

And there's no point in saying You'll get your money after,as I'm not French or German or Russian so why the hell should I care?
My whole point was that you are not giving out $18 billion dollars and not expecting a return on Capital are you,which means that this deal in the long term has sod all to do with the Iraqi's does it?

As for uraq paying the 3 amigo's off when the can,they no doubt can as Iraq was not totally pennyless was it?There were huge amounts of money recovered!
I also said previously if the French russian and Germans chipped in would it make a difference,the resounding answer was screw em!
which is stupid,if the WEST wants to rebuild Iraq,whoever they are ,and want to contribute then I say let them,as it brings unification back!!

[Seoulstriker]

to help rebuild Iraq, and help the Iraqi people.
Question: If it is helping the iraqi people, WHY AREN'T THE IRAQIS WHO DECIDE WHO GETS THE CONTRACTS?


The money for these contracts is coming out of the pocket of the US Government, and in turn, the US taxpayer. Therefore, in other words, this is American money and the Americans will decide where it is spent. Correct, and YOUR money is being wasted by there no being a proper process for awarding contracts in Iraq; they are currently being 'handed out'...how does that help YOU?? it doesn't, it helps the board of directors of that company, it helps the investors of that company..BUT THAT ISN'T YOU..

oh, ****, man, you have a vendetta against corporations, don't you? you sound strikingly similar to people who don't trust bush just because of the words "bechtel" and "halliburton". hello? they are the largest companies who have been doing this work for years. hello?

why the hell would the iraqis choose the contractors? are you insane?

rush said it best: "we've been saying this for years, now, and we now know it's true: liberalism is a psychotic disorder."

[Argyll]

Durandal wrote

We won the war we decide how it is done
Really I thought there was still a war ongoing,and YOU didn't win it,it was the Coalition which included the UK,Austrailia.Poland and Spain,amongst others!

[rokus2595]

why the hell would the iraqis choose the contractors? are you insane?


BECAUSE IT IS THEIR COUNTRY!!!......why would americans choose what companies do work in the US? Why would Canadians (and not Americans) be the ones to choose what companies do work in Canada???




Comprende?

[Seoulstriker]

why the hell would the iraqis choose the contractors? are you insane?


BECAUSE IT IS THEIR COUNTRY!!!......why would americans choose what companies do work in the US? Why would Canadians (and not Americans) be the ones to choose what companies do work in Canada???




Comprende?

do you think that the iraqis know what companies to choose? do i get to choose which companies work in the US?

[Argyll]

I think the Iraqis don't care as long as there's a MacDonalds drive through in Baghdad!!
Ok gents bedtime for me,sleep well my US bretheren it's as always a pleasure debating with you !

[rokus2595]

do you think that the iraqis know what companies to choose? do i get to choose which companies work in the US?

Come on....yes, the iraqis would know what companies to choose from...they did that before the war, and are quite capable of doing it now....

Anyway...got to go as well...but it has been fun fun fun.... :D

later guys

[Seoulstriker]

do you think that the iraqis know what companies to choose? do i get to choose which companies work in the US?

Come on....yes, the iraqis would know what companies to choose from...they did that before the war, and are quite capable of doing it now....

Anyway...got to go as well...but it has been fun fun fun.... :D

later guys

basically, you think that the iraqis will choose french, german, and russian companies...

[Durandal]

Durandal wrote

We won the war we decide how it is done
Really I thought there was still a war ongoing,and YOU didn't win it,it was the Coalition which included the UK,Austrailia.Poland and Spain,amongst others!

Look up the definition of "WE".

You even quoted it...

[Seoulstriker]

Durandal wrote

We won the war we decide how it is done
Really I thought there was still a war ongoing,and YOU didn't win it,it was the Coalition which included the UK,Austrailia.Poland and Spain,amongst others!

Look up the definition of "WE".

You even quoted it...

heh. :)

[Seiyuuki]

Can someone provide the exact details, methods, procedures, etc...as to the process for handling out contracts in Iraq right now?

[Durandal]

:D

[Argyll]

Yep have a good one all!

D
I was being pedantic when you said WE won the war,it was just they it was implied,as there is no other mention of Money coming from the like of us here in the UK,as far as I'm aware there has been a hell of a chunk of our money too been set aside for reconstruction,but I can't remember how much!

Yes Saddam says build me a magnificent palace with money i stole from you ,and make sure you got a torture room ok :lol:

[He219]

My whole point was that you are not giving out $18 billion dollars and not expecting a return on Capital are you,which means that this deal in the long term has sod all to do with the Iraqi's does it?
Sorry to rain on your parade Argyll, but for the months of wrangling on Capitol Hill about granting those reconstruction funds - the final verdict was that they were to be - GRANTS!! There were those that wanted partial repayment with Iraq's future oil revenues, namely the Democrats. ;)

The single greatest profit the US can gain is by investing in the security and future prosperity of Iraq, as the Marshall plan did for Europe.


As for uraq paying the 3 amigo's off when the can,they no doubt can as Iraq was not totally pennyless was it?There were huge amounts of money recovered!
Iraq owes $125 Billion in foreign debt and most international donors have pledged loans instead of grants (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38276-2003Dec5.html)

A total of $950 million -- $850 million in U.S. currency and another $100 million in euros -- were found by U.S.-led coalition troops in 191 boxes hidden in government palaces throughout Baghdad, U.S. Treasury officials said. (http://www.newstribune.com/stories/051603/wor_0516030930.asp)

9/11 families won a judgment in May to $104 million Iraq cash held in U.S. with the aid of evidence that Iraq was involved in the attacks. (http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20030923-061710-6896r.htm)

In quiet but tense negotiations, the United States has been trying to have Syria return some $250 million in Iraqi funds, but has so far been rebuffed. (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/3D880534-19AC-4BB6-ADA4-BB4015F85328.htm)

http://www.theage.com.au/ffxImage/urlpicture_id_1070081590729_2003/11/29/30IRAQ,0.jpg
Winning the war with Saddam's cash (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/11/29/1070081590409.html)

Most of Iraqi oil profits went to enrich Saddam, and not the Iraqi infrastructure or people. The funds recovered are being used to pay Iraqi civil servants. The cash that has been taken from Saddam's palaces and other places in Iraq was authenticated and put back into circulation in Iraq.


]...whoever they are ,and want to contribute then I say let them,as it brings unification back[/color]!!
:cantbeli: Hello!! No-body is being excluded from participating!!!

[Argyll]

some interesting stuff there HE 219 thanks!

[Seoulstriker]

My whole point was that you are not giving out $18 billion dollars and not expecting a return on Capital are you,which means that this deal in the long term has sod all to do with the Iraqi's does it?
Sorry to rain on your parade Argyll, but for the months of wrangling on Capitol Hill about granting those reconstruction funds - the final verdict was that they were to be - GRANTS!! There were those that wanted partial repayment with Iraq's future oil revenues, namely the Democrats. ;)

The single greatest profit the US can gain is by investing in the security and future prosperity of Iraq, as the Marshall plan did for Europe.


As for uraq paying the 3 amigo's off when the can,they no doubt can as Iraq was not totally pennyless was it?There were huge amounts of money recovered!
Iraq owes $125 Billion in foreign debt and most international donors have pledged loans instead of grants (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38276-2003Dec5.html)

A total of $950 million -- $850 million in U.S. currency and another $100 million in euros -- were found by U.S.-led coalition troops in 191 boxes hidden in government palaces throughout Baghdad, U.S. Treasury officials said. (http://www.newstribune.com/stories/051603/wor_0516030930.asp)

9/11 families won a judgment in May to $104 million Iraq cash held in U.S. with the aid of evidence that Iraq was involved in the attacks. (http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20030923-061710-6896r.htm)

In quiet but tense negotiations, the United States has been trying to have Syria return some $250 million in Iraqi funds, but has so far been rebuffed. (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/3D880534-19AC-4BB6-ADA4-BB4015F85328.htm)

http://www.theage.com.au/ffxImage/urlpicture_id_1070081590729_2003/11/29/30IRAQ,0.jpg
Winning the war with Saddam's cash (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/11/29/1070081590409.html)

Most of Iraqi oil profits went to enrich Saddam, and not the Iraqi infrastructure or people. The funds recovered are being used to pay Iraqi civil servants. The cash that has been taken from Saddam's palaces and other places in Iraq was authenticated and put back into circulation in Iraq.


]...whoever they are ,and want to contribute then I say let them,as it brings unification back[/color]!!
:cantbeli: Hello!! No-body is being excluded from participating!!!

Trogdor strikes again!!! woot woot woot woot

[DPGLAW]

I think that France, Germany, Russia, etc. deserve to be "punished" (not allowing them to bid on Iraq contracts) because they made the process of removing Saddam even more difficult than it had to be. In addition, and more importantly, they did not sacrafice anything in Iraq as we and the British and our other Allies did in liberating Iraq, our soldiers have given their lives in defense/promotion of freedom, while all theey did was cry like a bunch of babies.

In the case of Russia, most of the weapons being used against our troops as well as a $40 billion oil contract they had with iraq, which supported the evil regime of S. Hussein are the only things they care about. Not only should they not be able to get contracts in Iraq, but they should also be considered an enemy since they have no qualms with arming our enemies.

If these countries don't like our governments decisions, too ****ing bad, they should of thought of that before they decided not to support us. let's see how these ****ers feel when some raghead knocks downs one of their buildings. Too add to this, the French (god they are worthless) also armed Iraq (i.e. missles), which have helped kill our troops.

They now just don't want to pay the price for their actions. Hopefully this will teach a lesson to those who need it. After all money talks and apparently it has hit home this time

[NcDeuce]

woot

[Seoulstriker]

I think that France, Germany, Russia, etc. deserve to be "punished" (not allowing them to bid on Iraq contracts) because they made the process of removing Saddam even more difficult than it had to be. In addition, and more importantly, they did not sacrafice anything in Iraq as we and the British and our other Allies did in liberating Iraq, our soldiers have given their lives in defense/promotion of freedom, while all theey did was cry like a bunch of babies.

In the case of Russia, most of the weapons being used against our troops as well as a $40 billion oil contract they had with iraq, which supported the evil regime of S. Hussein are the only things they care about. Not only should they not be able to get contracts in Iraq, but they should also be considered an enemy since they have no qualms with arming our enemies.

If these countries don't like our governments decisions, too f*** bad, they should of thought of that before they decided not to support us. let's see how these f*** feel when some raghead knocks downs one of their buildings. Too add to this, the French (god they are worthless) also armed Iraq (i.e. missles), which have helped kill our troops.

They now just don't want to pay the price for their actions. Hopefully this will teach a lesson to those who need it. After all money talks and apparently it has hit home this time

exactly, man!!! you nailed it! woot woot woot woot

:hug:

[Durandal]

Yeah baby!

[Whistler]

How hard is it for you to wrap your head around that these countries are owed money by Iraq,whoever is in charge,or was in charge for whatever they used it on!
paying them their dues maybe a way of getting them to stop whining?
It was the BS that these countries were said to be a threat to National security was way OTT.
Hey I don't care if you spend $500 billion dollars in Iraq,just don't take $1000 Billion back out!!

Maybe those countries should have thought about that before doing business with a dictator. It isn't such a good idea... every once and a while they get toppled you know ;).

Debts? Too bad so sad. I'm sure the new Iraqis and their Govt have "pay back Saddam's debts" at the top of their todo list for after they get control back :roll: .

[Dave the Dawg]

Can someone provide the exact details, methods, procedures, etc...as to the process for handling out contracts in Iraq right now?
Yes, someone certainly could. But entirely too many people would rather bitch based on their half-assed understanding of the facts than actually do any research.

Start here: http://www.cpa-iraq.org/
Then here: http://www.rebuilding-iraq.net/
Then here: http://www.export.gov/iraq/
Here: www.arnet.gov/far
Here: www.acq.osd.mil/dp/dars
And here: http://www.baghdadbusinesscenter.org/
And here: http://kirkuk-business-center.org/



while Germany is a formal ally of the US
So Germany is only a formal ally. If that is the case we Germans should really think about withdrawing our Troops from Afghanistan. I dont't think the US will miss their formal ally.
I'm trying to decide if you are a dumbass, a ****-stirrer or just lacking in facility in the English language. Where does the word "only" appear in the sentence of mine you quoted?



and non-allies who did impede, like Austria.
Perhaps you should check term "neutrality" in dictionary. While you are at it, add Switzerland and Sweden to list of countries that impeded. :roll:
I am not sure what your point is supposed to be. If your implication is that somehow Austria was precluded from allowing overflights by virtue of its declared policy of neutrality, then you are wrong, and the cited example of Ireland is the most illustrative refutation. If you merely mean, "why didn't I single out Sweden and Switzerland as well?", then the response is twofold. First, the list was never intended to be an exhaustive catolog of who stood where. Note that less than 1/10th of the world's nations are there. Second, Austria is far more relevant than either Sweden and Switzerland in that there never was any plan to ask either for transit or overflight rights, whereas transiting Austria to move equipment to bases in Hungary and then on was a potential scenario.

[aktarian]

I am not sure what your point is supposed to be. If your implication is that somehow Austria was precluded from allowing overflights by virtue of its declared policy of neutrality, then you are wrong, and the cited example of Ireland is the most illustrative refutation.

Austria is neutral country, as laid down in 1955. They are forced to be neutral. Ireland, however, is neutral by choice. If Austria allows basing of foreign troops on their soil it's violation of their founding document, if Ireland allows it's reversal of their decision.



If you merely mean, "why didn't I single out Sweden and Switzerland as well?", then the response is twofold. First, the list was never intended to be an exhaustive catolog of who stood where. Note that less than 1/10th of the world's nations are there.

You singled out Austria as soembody who used neutrality as "excuse" not to help. I pointed that Swiss and Swedes used same excuse.



Second, Austria is far more relevant than either Sweden and Switzerland in that there never was any plan to ask either for transit or overflight rights, whereas transiting Austria to move equipment to bases in Hungary and then on was a potential scenario.

US should consider that Austria is neutral by force,a s IIRC Us was one of signatories of treaty.

[Seiyuuki]

Thanx Dave the Dawg for the info.

[Royal]

Maybe those countries should have thought about that before doing business with a dictator. It isn't such a good idea... every once and a while they get toppled you know ;).

The US, UK and France along with China and Russia were the biggest arms suppliers to the Ba'athist regime.


In the case of Russia, most of the weapons being used against our troops as well as a $40 billion oil contract they had with iraq, which supported the evil regime of S. Hussein are the only things they care about.

Although the majority of Iraqi AFV's were of Soviet origin, most of their communications equipment was of western origin (US and UK included), small arms and ammunition came from China and the Former Yugoslavia, anti-ship missiles came from China etc, etc.

[stephane from Paris]

Well well well!!!!
first i thinks it's normal that "who broke,will pay"!! It's normal that US taxes will go to US firms.
Official point of view here is : "NO COMMENTS" so as you see we don't cry and here this debat just took little articles in newspapers and TV!
No debats , we don't care!
Since a few months arabs countries like Saudi, UAE... asked frenchs companies to do business since these countries views USA like new colonialist! So we have enought business to do in future years!!

Notice that US government is striking economics laws that he always wanted to promote, and it's funny to see that when like me you don't like the big whole market!
If we have a look on that affair we could ask:
-why all the contracts goes to companies who have direct link with Bush gang?? No other companies in a so big country???? Isn't it strange that US taxers (including democrats electors) pays for business who will go to Companies that will help Bush reelected campaign?
-Why USA want that Irak's state oil companies will be private???? Is it because it will be far easier to control private companies than states ones if the future government isn't friendly??? Is it the interrests of Irak that oil money will go to Irak's private companies rather than in its own ones????

You says: we give blood, we had all the risks it's normal to have the gain!
First for freedom fighter it's a strange point of view , second a part is incorrect: The bad idea to invade Irak will increase the risk of terrorism for all western countries and specially France England Germany the 3 ones where there's an important muslim minority!
After Operation Enduring Freedom, terrorists loose most of their power and capabilities, after OIF they win the rise of a muslim nationalism that integrists are on the way to use!!! It's easy for them now to says: "christians and their jews allieds wants to control muslims, they want our oil, they kills our brothers in Chenya, Afghanistan, Irak, Palestinia, sooner in Iran or Syria".
Most of you don't care about that since you have just 1% of muslims, and you are cool in your little house! You'll see the problem on TV or internet, when we see it just in front of our home.

Btw how Bush will practise if the future iraki's government will be s'hiat (the majority)??? At this time they are waiting but normally they will be the leaders! If they want a Irak like Iran their close friend???

Bush did a mistake for western interrests but now there isn't any choise, he must stay on the place and hopes that integrists don't win the after war!
sadly i'm affraid that they are the actual winner, and that the future years will be far more dangerous that they could be before OIF!

Regards
stephane
ps: nobody spoke about Taïwan who could give another bad news for peace!

[GODDARD]

while all you people are bitching about iraq look what Mugabe of Zimbabwe is doing he is worse than Bush he killed innocent people then took there farms they got nothing or a bullet their choice and they had to get out of the country. :backhand: thats my feeling to Mugabe.

before i forget at least bush was willing to stand against everybody to rectify what he thought was just. President Bush when you want another war come down to southern africa, Zimbabwe is waiting with open arms to be helped not like those fools up there that don`t respect you.

LM Goddard
SOUTH AFRICA

[Durandal]

I just read the Synopsis on the Major Reconstruction Projects put out by the CPA-PMO (found it through David's links supplied...yes, I actually read through a big chunk of them). There is CLEARLY a bid program. Of course, some of the requirements would prevent a small buiness from doing it, but the task is a little big fo "Joe's Paving Company".

There is a process, it just does not involve anybody that does not play ball with the United States. It does involve Iraqis.

So we can quit arguing whether the Iraqis are involved, because they are. Add to that that they will form a bulk of the labor on a good chunk of these projects and any rational person can see the benefits.

[Apogee]

One of the CNN correspondants said it best last night after Larry King, "As the old adage goes, 'To the winner, goes the spoils' Did the French and Germans REALLY expect to get US contracts after they refused to help in the war? Did anyone really expect them to get those contracts?"

[Durandal]

ps: nobody spoke about Taïwan who could give another bad news for peace!

Yeah I started a thread here actually... http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?p=94351#94351

Bush can piss me off sometimes. We should NEVER be dealing with that regime, China is quite literally screwing the world and the giving it the finger. Yet for some reason we shake hands and do a little dance.

Time to use all those crops we send them from America as a leverage. Do as we say or 100 MILLION of your people will need to find elsewhere.

[Kingpin]

One of the CNN correspondants said it best last night after Larry King, "As the old adage goes, 'To the winner, goes the spoils' Did the French and Germans REALLY expect to get US contracts after they refused to help in the war? Did anyone really expect them to get those contracts?"

If Iraq going to become independent it 's not Administration problem with which countries Iraqis want have bussiness. It's about reconstruction. Anyway both occupied and occupier should decide who will help.

But there isn't only reconstruction issues. There a lot of different contracts not connected with reconstruction itself. Oil contracts isn't connected with reconstrucion in any possible way. So i don't see why US can prevent from execution of those contracts. Same about different car and equipment supplies.

[Apogee]

I agree with ya King P on that. But I just don't see the US paying Germany or France for the contracts its offering, thats all.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

As further evidence of how off-kilter some people's perceptions of this topic are - did you know that Alcatel is building a wireless network in central Iraq? You can't get much more French than Alcatel.

As with most deals of this magnitude, the devil is in the details:

1) There is all kinds of work to be done in Iraq, and ANY nation is welcome to finance their own reconstrution project and award contracts to whoever the #$%^ they want.
2) As for US awarded contracts (those funded by US taxpayers), we as a nation have decided to only award those to those nations who have helped with the war and/or are willing to contribute troops to the reconstruction.
3) Even at that, US companies ARE allowed to subcontract work from non-coalition countries. That's what's going on with Alcatel.
3) Iraq does have a massive debt to repay. The only way that will happen is if it gets back on its feet. And that means oil production.

Iraq's debt is owed primarily to those nations it did most of its business with. The debt was not being repaid. To hear some people talk here, you'd think they want the US taxpayers to just directly repay this debt. What nonsense - why the hell should we pay for military equipment that we just had to go to war to defeat?

So if the 3 amigos want the debt repaid what can they do? Hmmmm...let me take a wild stab at it. How about assuming some of the risk by committing troops to the occupation so that your contractors making $50/hr + perdiem don't get blown up? Oh, wait you want US to do that FOR you? And here's an idea - the next time you want to loan a bunch of money to somebody, do an f-ing risk assesment. Saddam was a bad credit risk. The 3 Amigos made a very bad business decision and now they're paying for it.

It really appears that some don't understand the relationship between risk & reward. Most US taxes are paid by the wealthy & by corporations. So if we're spending their money in Iraq, it only seems appropriate to give them the first shot at making some money back.

[GazB]

In the case of Russia, most of the weapons being used against our troops as well as a $40 billion oil contract they had with iraq, which supported the evil regime of S. Hussein are the only things they care about. Not only should they not be able to get contracts in Iraq, but they should also be considered an enemy

So if it is an enemy then I guess one way to recoup lost money would be to sell Al qada some ebola in a test tube? Or perhaps some of those backpack nukes they made
The US government supported saddams evil regime too. In fact when Saddam killed 5000 Kurds the American state department initially blamed the Iranians for it. When it was revealed that Saddam did it no action was taken against him.

"Maybe those countries should have thought about that before doing business with a dictator. It isn't such a good idea... every once and a while they get toppled you know"

America should know that... how many dictators have you trained? Saddam, noriega, the Shah of Iran, where haven't you dabbled?
If the dictator losing power means all deals and debts are forgotten then Russia must be debt free then, and not bound by any cold war treaty. The reality is something else.

"Although the majority of Iraqi AFV's were of Soviet origin"

Actually Soviet origin is not strictly true... Soviet design, but most were made in Iraq and many tanks were bought from China. (the pre T-72s)

"while all you people are bitching about iraq look what Mugabe of Zimbabwe is doing he is worse than Bush he killed innocent people then took there farms they got nothing or a bullet their choice and they had to get out of the country."

Just a more extreme version of affirmative action.

"President Bush when you want another war come down to southern africa, Zimbabwe is waiting with open arms to be helped not like those fools up there that don`t respect you. "

There isn't any oil in Zimbabwe... I doubt he could find it on a map.

"So we can quit arguing whether the Iraqis are involved, because they are."

Of course they will be used as labourers (targets). The point is they aren't even trusted to decide who gets the contracts and who doesn't. Apparantly they are children who can't run a country on their own. The fact there were cities in Iraq (Babylon) when Europe was full of hunter gatherers seems to have been ignored.

"Yet for some reason we shake hands and do a little dance. "

That is just corporate America drooling at 1.5 billion potential coke drinking jean wearing consumers.

Will be interesting in 10 years time. The Shia majority that was screwed by the US in 91 (ie told to rise up and then left hanging out to dry because bush snr feared if they won that they'd join with Iranian Shia and Saudi Shia and cause more unrest in the region) should have had their revenge on the baathist's. The Kurds will most likely have at least demanded if not already gotten autonomy and attacked both Iran and Turkey for the rest of their country. Turkey being a NATO country could demand assistance as per the NATO agreement, but it would be a guerilla war and not easy to tidy up. A bit like Yugoslavia with Tito gone... should be interesting.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

One of the CNN correspondants said it best last night after Larry King, "As the old adage goes, 'To the winner, goes the spoils' Did the French and Germans REALLY expect to get US contracts after they refused to help in the war? Did anyone really expect them to get those contracts?"

If Iraq going to become independent it 's not Administration problem with which countries Iraqis want have bussiness. It's about reconstruction. Anyway both occupied and occupier should decide who will help.

But there isn't only reconstruction issues. There a lot of different contracts not connected with reconstruction itself. Oil contracts isn't connected with reconstrucion in any possible way. So i don't see why US can prevent from execution of those contracts. Same about different car and equipment supplies.

The reconstruction is ALL ABOUT oil production. What else does Iraq export or make money on? Sand? Torture devices? Gold plated AKs? All power and influence in Iraq flow from its oil. Once that's back online, Iraq can finance it's own reconstruction & award contracts to whoever they want. It's the linchpin of the entire reconstruction effort. That's why the insurgents are so hell-bent on destroying the oil infrastructure. They know that once the Iraqis have the oil, money and prosperity, there will be no place for their fundamentalist Koran thumping. It will be over for them.

[stephane from Paris]

Insurgent wants that US forces leave their country! they thinks that if the situation become too much hard (no oil money=rise of anti US), Bush will have problems with his electors and if he isn't reelected they could see the withdraw. They use same tactics than Russians against Napoleon: the burning land!!
If you thinks that money will garanty the democracy in Irak, have a look on Iran and Saudi Arabia. These 2 country makes tons of money with oil but they are radicals islamits countries! Very very far from democracy!
My father worked a few month in Saudi in the 80's, i hope for Iraki's people and specialy women that Irak will not go in the same way!
btw Saudi's gave money to tons of islamists groups (most of the money was to promote hard reading of the Coran, and terrorists supports).

[radon]

I find it also strange they ask for contracts. But for the people who decide there is something more important than honor, they have countries to run. So maybe they try even if there is only a minimal chance of success. Maybe they are showing theyr finger in this way. Or maye they are delusional? who knows, they must have reasons

[He219]

http://a1112.g.akamai.net/7/1112/492/03312000/news.lycos.com/news/ot_getImage.asp?op=thumb&id=487922
Larger (http://a1112.g.akamai.net/7/1112/492/03312000/news.lycos.com/news/ot_getImage.asp?op=img&id=487922)

German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer gestures (for access to $18.5 Billion Dollars in US-Iraq reconstruction financing)

O.k. - Let's just say that to heal the rift with the Anti-US axis ;) .. (w.r.t. pro-active military action to remove any threat posed by Saddam and the Baathist regieme in Iraq on it's people and onto the world) ...

... would US financed reconstruction contract awards to those objecting nations negate objections to the removal of Saddam?

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Insurgent wants that US forces leave their country! they thinks that if the situation become too much hard (no oil money=rise of anti US), Bush will have problems with his electors and if he isn't reelected they could see the withdraw. They use same tactics than Russians against Napoleon: the burning land!!
If you thinks that money will garanty the democracy in Irak, have a look on Iran and Saudi Arabia. These 2 country makes tons of money with oil but they are radicals islamits countries! Very very far from democracy!
My father worked a few month in Saudi in the 80's, i hope for Iraki's people and specialy women that Irak will not go in the same way!
btw Saudi's gave money to tons of islamists groups (most of the money was to promote hard reading of the Coran, and terrorists supports).

The insurgents are taking a page from the German Werwolf units in post WWII occupied Germany. Same tactics (destruction of infrastructure & opportunistic attacks) and goals (hoping the natives will become enraged at how long it takes to establish normalcy & trying to get the occupying force to retaliate against the population). Nothing new there...

[Argyll]

I know these pipelines are pretty long,anyone got more info on the distance they go?
Sure as hell is a long part to protect!This is prolly where the PMC may come in ?

[Seoulstriker]

http://a1112.g.akamai.net/7/1112/492/03312000/news.lycos.com/news/ot_getImage.asp?op=thumb&id=487922
Larger (http://a1112.g.akamai.net/7/1112/492/03312000/news.lycos.com/news/ot_getImage.asp?op=img&id=487922)

German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer gestures (for access to $18.5 Billion Dollars in US-Iraq reconstruction financing)


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

:D :D :D :D :D

excellent, He219!!! woot woot woot

[Burning Angel]

The problem with the US decision is that in the excitement of helping "the willing" they forgot about WTO and the idea of free trade.

There was a purpose in writing a deal that opened up state contracts to international competition. Its tit for tat, the EU market is open to US and the US is open to EU. Everybody wins - the prices becomes lower. Since the EU countries total economy soon (with the new countries) is larger than the US economy I can't see how the action benefits the US in the long run. Even if the US can find a clause giving then right (Iraq is not a member of WTO etc..) it is a bad statement they make. Other nations can be creative with their foreign aid as well - but is that something we want? Isn't the development of the worlds economy more important?

And I cant really see how the bid limiting are good for the US in the short run either. Fewer bidders means higher prices -> less for the money -> more expensive rebuilding. Someone are wasting money.

[Seoulstriker]

The problem with the US decision is that in the excitement of helping "the willing" they forgot about WTO and the idea of free trade.

There was a purpose in writing a deal that opened up state contracts to international competition. Its tit for tat, the EU market is open to US and the US is open to EU. Everybody wins - the prices becomes lower. Since the EU countries total economy soon (with the new countries) is larger than the US economy I can't see how the action benefits the US in the long run. Even if the US can find a clause giving then right (Iraq is not a member of WTO etc..) it is a bad statement they make. Other nations can be creative with their foreign aid as well - but is that something we want? Isn't the development of the worlds economy more important?

And I cant really see how the bid limiting are good for the US in the short run either. Fewer bidders means higher prices -> less for the money -> more expensive rebuilding. Someone are wasting money.

the bidding process has nothing to do with the WTO. if the US doesn't want to purchase the services of certain countries, it doesn't have to do that. free trade has more to do with limiting the products that are imported by tariffs or quotas.

about foreign aid: the US gives more foreign aid than all of the countries of the world combined (right?).

[duck]

Dissent from the neocon thinkers.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/481yjxxw.asp

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.

[Seoulstriker]

dissent from the neocon thinkers

did you know that neocon means 'jew'?

[duck]

Prejudice.

[Argyll]

A neoconservative

[2Sheds_Jackson]

The problem with the US decision is that in the excitement of helping "the willing" they forgot about WTO and the idea of free trade.

There was a purpose in writing a deal that opened up state contracts to international competition. Its tit for tat, the EU market is open to US and the US is open to EU. Everybody wins - the prices becomes lower. Since the EU countries total economy soon (with the new countries) is larger than the US economy I can't see how the action benefits the US in the long run. Even if the US can find a clause giving then right (Iraq is not a member of WTO etc..) it is a bad statement they make. Other nations can be creative with their foreign aid as well - but is that something we want? Isn't the development of the worlds economy more important?

And I cant really see how the bid limiting are good for the US in the short run either. Fewer bidders means higher prices -> less for the money -> more expensive rebuilding. Someone are wasting money.

You make some valid points (overall economic good etc.) but you have to remember that the US governments's job is to promote & grow the US economy - nobody else's. I don't think WTO provisions are applicable at all. I think the statement they are making is entirely appropriate: actions (or in this case INactions) have consequences. The 3 amigos blocked action at the UN. It delayed and gave Saddam more and more and more time to get ready (causing more US dead). And hell, France outright lied to our secretary of state! I can't imagine that we're all supposed to just wink at each other and say to the US and Iraqi war dead that the inaction at the UN meant nothing.

[Burning Angel]

The problem with the US decision is that in the excitement of helping "the willing" they forgot about WTO and the idea of free trade.

There was a purpose in writing a deal that opened up state contracts to international competition. Its tit for tat, the EU market is open to US and the US is open to EU. Everybody wins - the prices becomes lower. Since the EU countries total economy soon (with the new countries) is larger than the US economy I can't see how the action benefits the US in the long run. Even if the US can find a clause giving then right (Iraq is not a member of WTO etc..) it is a bad statement they make. Other nations can be creative with their foreign aid as well - but is that something we want? Isn't the development of the worlds economy more important?

And I cant really see how the bid limiting are good for the US in the short run either. Fewer bidders means higher prices -> less for the money -> more expensive rebuilding. Someone are wasting money.

the bidding process has nothing to do with the WTO. if the US doesn't want to purchase the services of certain countries, it doesn't have to do that. free trade has more to do with limiting the products that are imported by tariffs or quotas.

about foreign aid: the US gives more foreign aid than all of the countries of the world combined (right?).

All goverment bidding except defense contracts and related stuff are included into WTO treaties since 1996 (at least the US-EU one). There was a story on forbes.com on that earlier today. US are one of the strongest supporter of including services into the free trade treaties.

About foreign aid: I only found some OECD figures that I believe is quite representative although I think there are other aid channels as well (like the US Iraq aid, and the EU afghanistan aid)

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/43/56/2507734.pdf

The EU combined gives almonst three times as much in real numbers 29 to 13 billion US$ and more than three times as much in comparison to the size of the economy 0.34% to 0.11% of GDI. Only Sweden, Denmark and Luxembourg reach the UN goal of 0.7% of GDI.

In defence of the US there is the fact that their credible military presence around the world (Taiwan and in S.Korea for example) are worth a lot to the stability of the world economy.

[Burning Angel]

The problem with the US decision is that in the excitement of helping "the willing" they forgot about WTO and the idea of free trade.

There was a purpose in writing a deal that opened up state contracts to international competition. Its tit for tat, the EU market is open to US and the US is open to EU. Everybody wins - the prices becomes lower. Since the EU countries total economy soon (with the new countries) is larger than the US economy I can't see how the action benefits the US in the long run. Even if the US can find a clause giving then right (Iraq is not a member of WTO etc..) it is a bad statement they make. Other nations can be creative with their foreign aid as well - but is that something we want? Isn't the development of the worlds economy more important?

And I cant really see how the bid limiting are good for the US in the short run either. Fewer bidders means higher prices -> less for the money -> more expensive rebuilding. Someone are wasting money.

You make some valid points (overall economic good etc.) but you have to remember that the US governments's job is to promote & grow the US economy - nobody else's. I don't think WTO provisions are applicable at all. I think the statement they are making is entirely appropriate: actions (or in this case INactions) have consequences. The 3 amigos blocked action at the UN. It delayed and gave Saddam more and more and more time to get ready (causing more US dead). And hell, France outright lied to our secretary of state! I can't imagine that we're all supposed to just wink at each other and say to the US and Iraqi war dead that the inaction at the UN meant nothing.

The reason behind free trade is that is for everybodys good - by supporting it your own economy benefits as well. If WTO treaties are applicable will probably show in the next few weeks. I sincerly hope EU gives US a free one and let the matter drop.

About the oppostion to the war I understand the US disappointment - but really - the case to go to war wasn't very solid. (Arguments changed over time, weren't consistent, student essays were cited etc.) If you want to sell a war to europe (bad experiences you know :-/) you need to have a very solid case and you need to be (very) patient. The problem as I see - the US were in a hurry - you can't have the troops in Kuwait indefinetly (Saddam was smart enough to be most cooporative when US had most troops deployed there) - and the diplomatic support weren't taken cared of in advance. When the time begun to run out, the hurried process antagonized big parts of Europe. The rest is history.

(About giving Saddam time to prepare: Are you sure? With the massive opposition in UN I am inclined to think that he never saw it coming. Especially with the 4th stuck in ships outside Turkey.)

[Seoulstriker]

A neoconservative


here is the definition:


neocon

Trendy buzzword used by leftist retards(yea, I know the term "leftist retard" is redundant, but I'm just trying to have some detail here folks) to describe Jewish conservatives who used to be liberal, but swayed to the right when they saw the Democrats swaying towards Karl Marx.

Liberals can't admit they hate Jews, so they just call them NeoCons instead. They might as well just say hymie, or kike.

[NcDeuce]

This situation shouldn't be surprising at all.

[16 OBr SpN]

Here is what I think should be Russia's position:

1) **** those contracts!
2) Get our 8 billions back!

I hope Putin won't be that stupid to forgive the Iraqi debt.

Regards,
16 OBr SpN

[duck]

I dont' mean "Jewish" by using "neocon". Rather Straussian idealists stressing the free market and personal freedom.

[He219]

You Sir, may call me a true Conservative, not a Neo-Conservative. I have been called Reactionary many a time, but never Pseudo or Neo...

;)

Say, what the heck has Free Trade got to do with Government Contracting. The US requires materials on all Federal Projects to be of US origin. If you have a problem with that, start there. The Global Consumer Trade is separate from Federal Contracting.

Why don't you first look at European Governmental subsidy of the Airbus Consortium that alone totaled $13.5 billion by 1990; Do you consider that Free Trade compared to a company like Boeing that operates without direct Governmental subsidy and oversight? Now look at the Eurofighter European Social Welfare Project ..

You cry about third Worl Debt Relief, but when it comes to Iraq's upwards of $400 Billion in Debt, you look for $18.5 Billion in US reconstruction financing. Even with the Oil Industry repaired, it would require decades just to repay the interest, yet alone $16,000 per Iraqi citizen to repay Saddam's debt to the world.

Enough said!

[GazB]

"I hope Putin won't be that stupid to forgive the Iraqi debt. "

One of the reasons for Russias financial problems today is the loans dressed up as aid it accepted in the early 90s. It wasn't forgiven.

"Do you consider that Free Trade compared to a company like Boeing that operates without direct Governmental subsidy and oversight? Now look at the Eurofighter European Social Welfare Project .. "

How about using the spy network Echelon so boeing could underbid Airbus for contracts, or Steel and Beef tarrifs. If you owned a company and it needed some cash to stop from going under you can either do nothing and lose your investment or pump a little cash into it and then restructure it so that it can survive without future cash injections.

"about foreign aid: the US gives more foreign aid than all of the countries of the world combined (right?)."

With more strings attached than a parachute has. That is just hire a Bitch money. By sending cheap food like grain to countries like India you are actually doing Indian farmers out of income... they can't compete with heavily subsidised western farmers and their even more heavily subsidised unneeded excess production. For the cost of the operations in Somalia you could have landed so much grain that noone would go hungry, but instead you decide on a bit of nation building instead. The British did that too a few centuries ago... they stopped because it made them unpopular. You haven't learned their lesson yet.

[Durandal]

In defence of the US there is the fact that their credible military presence around the world (Taiwan and in S.Korea for example) are worth a lot to the stability of the world economy.

All too true.

Whole economies shudder at the thought of the United States taking their troops home.

[Burning Angel]

Say, what the heck has Free Trade got to do with Government Contracting. The US requires materials on all Federal Projects to be of US origin. If you have a problem with that, start there. The Global Consumer Trade is separate from Federal Contracting.


A lot!

Here is a summary: http://www.forbes.com/business/newswire/2003/12/11/rtr1177848.html


The United States, France and Germany are among some 25 state signatories to the World Trade Organisation's Agreement on Government Procurement, which came into force on January 1, 1996. Russia is not a member of the WTO.

The accord sets out to make government procurement more transparent so that it does not protect domestic products or suppliers, or discriminate against foreign competitors.

The preamble to the agreement states that government procurement:

"...should not be prepared, adopted or applied to foreign or domestic products and services and to foreign or domestic suppliers so as to afford protection to domestic products or services or domestic suppliers and should not discriminate among foreign products or services or among foreign suppliers."



But there are circumstances under which signatory countries can set aside the WTO agreement. They are:

-- When it considers it "necessary for the protection of its essential security interests relating to the procurement of arms, ammunition or war materials, or to procurement indispensable for national security or for national defence purposes".

-- When it is "necessary to protect public morals, order or safety, human, animal or plant life or health or intellectual property; or relating to the products or services of handicapped persons, of philanthropic institutions or of prison labour".

[He219]

Great info. Burning Angel!

Thanks.

:D

[Durandal]

But there are circumstances under which signatory countries can set aside the WTO agreement. They are:

-- When it considers it "necessary for the protection of its essential security interests relating to the procurement of arms, ammunition or war materials, or to procurement indispensable for national security or for national defence purposes".

-- When it is "necessary to protect public morals, order or safety, human, animal or plant life or health or intellectual property; or relating to the products or services of handicapped persons, of philanthropic institutions or of prison labour".

Personally, I hate the WTO. It also gives foreign nations rights to dictate policies within the actual borders of a nation, which is not the topic here obviously.

The last two issues that you quote are however very key since I think we can all agree that they ARE covered in Iraq. So, the WTO has no leg to stand on.

Ultimately, there WILL be foreign companies of non-Coalition nations involved in the rebuilding. Fighting over such a small number of contracts is silly. If in fact, these contracts are vital to these other nations, then they were vital enough to participate in the conflict. If the conflict was LESS important than the contracts, then these nations have some serious economic issues. I know this has been said on this thread, but if some of these nations want to help chip in a couple Billion dollars for their (and their 'allies') companies, then I think the United States AND the Iraqis would only be two happy. Oh, and provide the security force to defend their contractors.

[ShotOver]

You guys may see it as childish and immature... but it's simply fair.

Why should the countrys that did jack **** to help the coalition take Iraq, get building and repair contracts so they can get money?

America and the other coalition members should have totall priority to the contracts, since it was their men and women who faught and died for that country.

[wholagun]

You guys may see it as childish and immature... but it's simply fair.

Why should the countrys that did jack **** to help the coalition take Iraq, get building and repair contracts so they can get money?

America and the other coalition members should have totall priority to the contracts, since it was their men and women who faught and died for that country.

I don't want to say crap cause both Poland and Canada will have chances to comepete for contracts, but, keep in mind who's paying for Poland's military deployment? Polish taxpayers? I don't think so, US is paying 75% or something like that for our deployment. However it does cost less to deploy our and other troops then US troops, and we saved coutless US lives by putting our troops in the line of fire and taking out US troops. But, think keep in mind that your paying for our deployment and others as well. Some food for though.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

"I hope Putin won't be that stupid to forgive the Iraqi debt. "

One of the reasons for Russias financial problems today is the loans dressed up as aid it accepted in the early 90s. It wasn't forgiven.

"Do you consider that Free Trade compared to a company like Boeing that operates without direct Governmental subsidy and oversight? Now look at the Eurofighter European Social Welfare Project .. "

How about using the spy network Echelon so boeing could underbid Airbus for contracts, or Steel and Beef tarrifs. If you owned a company and it needed some cash to stop from going under you can either do nothing and lose your investment or pump a little cash into it and then restructure it so that it can survive without future cash injections.

"about foreign aid: the US gives more foreign aid than all of the countries of the world combined (right?)."

With more strings attached than a parachute has. That is just hire a Bitch money. By sending cheap food like grain to countries like India you are actually doing Indian farmers out of income... they can't compete with heavily subsidised western farmers and their even more heavily subsidised unneeded excess production. For the cost of the operations in Somalia you could have landed so much grain that noone would go hungry, but instead you decide on a bit of nation building instead. The British did that too a few centuries ago... they stopped because it made them unpopular. You haven't learned their lesson yet.

Are you saying that EU companies never engage in corporate espionage? Of course they do. So what's that got to do with anything? And I'm not sure where you were going with the investment & restructuring comment. All companies can do this on both sides of the Atlantic, so I don't see how that's relevant.

About the foreign aid - while I'm not sure the US gives more aid than the rest of the world combined (anybody have that info?) - nobody is forcing other nations to accept it. If there are strings attached & they don't like it, they're free to say "no thanks".

Driving Indian farmers out of income? Hell, if they could grow grain we wouldn't need to send them any.

I think your Somalia statement is way off. The entire point of that operation was that hunger was being used as a weapon. There was NO shortage of food. The problem was distribution. The various warlords were hoarding what food there was, and all aid that arrived. So in order to feed the people, the warlords had to be brought into line. It may have appeared to be "nation building" as there was no coherent nation there - but I bet you'd be complaining even louder if we had done nothing.

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

http://www.danzigercartoons.com/img/2003/dancart1859.jpg

[Dave the Dawg]

But there are circumstances under which signatory countries can set aside the WTO agreement. They are:

-- When it considers it "necessary for the protection of its essential security interests relating to the procurement of arms, ammunition or war materials, or to procurement indispensable for national security or for national defence purposes".


Read the Wolfowitz memorandum. It is precisely because the Deputy Secretary determined that encouraging participation in the Coalition is in our national security interests that eligibility for these procurement contracts were restricted to Iraqis and to Coalition partners. Thus, it falls within both the exception under the WTO Agreement and within the exceptions under 41 U.S. Code section 253(c)(7).

[pinkeye]

A neoconservative


here is the definition:


neocon

Trendy buzzword used by leftist retards(yea, I know the term "leftist retard" is redundant, but I'm just trying to have some detail here folks) to describe Jewish conservatives who used to be liberal, but swayed to the right when they saw the Democrats swaying towards Karl Marx.

Liberals can't admit they hate Jews, so they just call them NeoCons instead. They might as well just say hymie, or kike.


seoulstriker, crackpot right-wing kook of the year. kudos to you, sir, for the many laughs...

[Seoulstriker]

A neoconservative


here is the definition:


neocon

Trendy buzzword used by leftist retards(yea, I know the term "leftist retard" is redundant, but I'm just trying to have some detail here folks) to describe Jewish conservatives who used to be liberal, but swayed to the right when they saw the Democrats swaying towards Karl Marx.

Liberals can't admit they hate Jews, so they just call them NeoCons instead. They might as well just say hymie, or kike.


seoulstriker, crackpot right-wing kook of the year. kudos to you, sir, for the many laughs...

pinkeye, where do you live? you sound like you're from Germany during the 1930s. :roll:

pinkeye the anti-semite. :bash:

[Burning Angel]

There were some questions about the size of foreign aid. Let me quote one of my earlier posts in this thread. This is the OECD statistics for net development assitance in 2002.


http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/43/56/2507734.pdf

The EU combined gives almonst three times as much in real numbers 29 to 13 billion US$ and more than three times as much in comparison to the size of the economy 0.34% to 0.11% of GDI. Only Sweden, Denmark and Luxembourg reach the UN goal of 0.7% of GDI.

[Durandal]

The EU combined gives almonst three times as much in real numbers 29 to 13 billion US$ and more than three times as much in comparison to the size of the economy 0.34% to 0.11% of GDI. Only Sweden, Denmark and Luxembourg reach the UN goal of 0.7% of GDI.

Not too sure how this is relevant to the current discussion.

[tooms]

currently the recontruction will be financed by americans
but futur oil contracts will be decided by futur iraqi government
and americans won't choose the countries which can deal
so germans, french and russian will can compet
and if they refuse, dont forget iraq has got VERY BIG debts to france and russia. i don't think wolfowitz will can do something against that fact

[EvanL]

A neoconservative


here is the definition:


neocon

Trendy buzzword used by leftist retards(yea, I know the term "leftist retard" is redundant, but I'm just trying to have some detail here folks) to describe Jewish conservatives who used to be liberal, but swayed to the right when they saw the Democrats swaying towards Karl Marx.

Liberals can't admit they hate Jews, so they just call them NeoCons instead. They might as well just say hymie, or kike.


seoulstriker, crackpot right-wing kook of the year. kudos to you, sir, for the many laughs...

pinkeye, where do you live? you sound like you're from Germany during the 1930s. :roll:

pinkeye the anti-semite. :bash:

Seoulstriker you are the biggest ****ing loser on this board. You have more stars than hood does and he owns this site. Have you ever seen the outdoors? Or another person for that matter? i suggest you shut the **** up. You bash liberals but not for the same reasons i do it. You dont even know half the **** you say. you only say it cus u think it sounds cool.
Now stop being such a stupid little ponce, and get a ****ing life you fat assed loser.