1
   

Pentagon Bars Three Nations From Iraq Bids

 
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2003 01:02 pm
cjhsa wrote:
Bush flew into Baghdad and fed the troops. Hillary flew in and cut in line.

Class talks, bullshit walks.



Okay, what's the punchline?

Any posting that has George W. Bush with class has got to be a joke, right?
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2003 01:05 pm
Quote:
Who else have they sold weapons too? Do you have any idea? I know I don't.


I do (have some idea).

But it's all moot. Regardless of whether you think their customers are "bad guys" they are acting within their legal rights and that was the point.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2003 01:06 pm
Frank, you need to get out more often. Try a military board maybe.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2003 01:26 pm
cjhsa wrote:
Frank, you need to get out more often. Try a military board maybe.


Jeez, that's a hell of a punch line.

Ahhhh...but I don't get it?
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2003 10:08 pm
One has to wonder if the folks in the administration have the slightest idea of how international relations actually work. I am especially surprised at Wolfy, who was the chair of the Nitze school at Hopkins! These people seem to be living in dreamland! Again the plan seems to be to create as much enmity towards the US as possible!
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2003 11:01 pm
Don't forget that Canada and China are also on the "no contract" list.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2003 11:08 pm
There is no "no contract" list. The press has been misleading by trying to portray it as a three country ban.

What there is is a list where approved countries are listed. It's a lost of "coalition members" and I believe it includes 63 countries.
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2003 11:12 pm
The "Coalition of the willing" should perhaps be renamed the "Convention of Vultures."
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2003 11:13 pm
Craven de Kere wrote:


Furthermore it serves to reinforce the notion that this war is self-serving by making a petulant announcement that only those in the club will share the spoils of war.

It's sad, because the last thing we need is for more people to think we waged the war for the spoils.

We will remain upside down on this war no matter who gets the contracts. The so called spoils are no way worth the investment.
Craven de Kere wrote:

It's absurd because we continue to be willing to ask those nations for money to help. This move is a feel-good move for the crowd that hates nations that do not agree with us but it's counterproductive to our efforts to convince nations to agree with us.

The stated reason (US security) is laughable. This is the type of move that portrays the US administration as petulant and childish and reflects on all Americans as this is our government.

I for one, do not think this has anything to do with our interests. I think it has more to do with the interests of the hawkish persons in the US administration who think that those who do not agree with us should be punished.

I think it is completely reasonable to not present any rewards to nations who didn't cooperate. I further think it's a reasonable strategy to attempt to get more help in the future. As the world's economic leader, we are not in a position of having to appease others. They must appease us.

And by the way; Kim Jong Il is a savage who starves people to death by the millions, while building weapons he uses to threaten to "turn Seoul into a sea of fire". He is a terrorist who needs to be stopped.
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2003 11:28 pm
Quote:

I think it is completely reasonable to not present any rewards to nations who didn't cooperate.

But, if you recall, the purpose of the war is now supposed to have been liberating the Iraqis, and leading them toward democracy, not plundering their resources. The administration is merely letting the curtains in front of the piracy flag slip. Please remind me how this was war for humanitarian reasons, rather than war for profit?

Quote:
I further think it's a reasonable strategy to attempt to get more help in the future.

Or to induce the rest of the world to isolate us politically and economically.


Quote:
As the world's economic leader, we are not in a position of having to appease others. They must appease us.

What a wonderfully Stalinist sentiment. Yet another reason I hang my head in shame at my citizenship.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2003 11:41 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
We will remain upside down on this war no matter who gets the contracts. The so called spoils are no way worth the investment.


I agree. This doesn't mean that perception doesn't exist and that this move will not reinforce it.

Quote:
I think it is completely reasonable to not present any rewards to nations who didn't cooperate. I further think it's a reasonable strategy to attempt to get more help in the future. As the world's economic leader, we are not in a position of having to appease others. They must appease us.


We'll have to agree to disagree on this as there are several irreconcilable differences between our opinions.

Quote:

And by the way; Kim Jong Il is a savage who starves people to death by the millions, while building weapons he uses to threaten to "turn Seoul into a sea of fire". He is a terrorist who needs to be stopped.


I disagree with several elements of this statement. But it does not address the things I said (namely that we have no legal basis to demand denuclearization of NK).
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2003 12:07 am
Craven de Kere wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
And by the way; Kim Jong Il is a savage who starves people to death by the millions, while building weapons he uses to threaten to "turn Seoul into a sea of fire". He is a terrorist who needs to be stopped.


I disagree with several elements of this statement. But it does not address the things I said (namely that we have no legal basis to demand denuclearization of NK).


I posted this to dispute your earlier statement:
Craven de Kere wrote:
In short we are the only nation that has threatened the use of nukes. NK is not in the habit of threatening people with nukes. Since this administration has been in power we have made those threats and they haven't.

Kim Jong Il has repeatedly threatened the use of nuclear weapons against South Korea and even Japan. I don't recall the US threatening anyone with nukes recently.
I suspect we also have an "irreconcilable" difference of opinion on what is, or isn't within our rights when deciding how best to protect ourselves and our allies from potential threats. Probably subject matter for another thread.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2003 12:19 am
You are incorrect Bill, that threat you mention was an old reference to artillery and not nuclear weapons.

In fact when that threat was made NK was vigorously denying their possession of nuclear weapons.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/12/world/main536171.shtml wrote:
(CBS) North Korea denied Sunday ever admitting to U.S. officials that it had a secret nuclear weapons program and said it would unleash a "sea of fire" if the United States challenges the communist country.


Conservative blogs often conflate this threat with the later discovery of a nuclearized pennensula but they do this in error.

And as to the US threat we are a diplomatically advanced nation and will very rarely commit a "we will nuke you" gaffe.

What we did do is move nukes onto the pennensula and we leaked contingency plans for pre-emptive nuclear strikes.

We also publically discussed developing "bunker-buster" nukes to use in a pre-emptive strike on North Korea's arsenal.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2003 12:37 am
Well, c.i. had posed it earlier: it's not just three nations.

And as Steve quoted already, all this is necessary for the protection of the essential security interests of the United States.

Just some minor atmosheric disturbances for the USA on their way to cement their imperalistic position, I think.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2003 01:02 am
Yep, irreconcilable. Out of respect for the author of the thread, I'll refrain from debating this issue further here.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2003 01:35 am
"Musn't let them have the preciousssss..."

Matt Kelley, in Salon, wrote:
The Pentagon policy prevents companies from countries that opposed war from bidding on reconstruction contracts because their governments opposed the American-led war that ousted Saddam Hussein's regime.

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


http://billmon.org/archives/wolfygollum.gif

"False, tricksy hobbits! We ought to wring their filthy little necks!"
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2003 02:54 am
It's just 18 billion and change. This is a PR move more so than it is financial. And it backfired in a big way.

US officials are having to restate and explain this away. Explaining that we don't really consider NATO allies to be a threat to US security.

This administration's hawks make some really odd moves and statements. By odd I mean that they often seem counterproductive to their own goals.
0 Replies
 
katya8
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2003 03:12 am
PDiddie wrote:
"Musn't let them have the preciousssss..."

Matt Kelley, in Salon, wrote:
The Pentagon policy prevents companies from countries that opposed war from bidding on reconstruction contracts because their governments opposed the American-led war that ousted Saddam Hussein's regime.

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


http://billmon.org/archives/wolfygollum.gif

"False, tricksy hobbits! We ought to wring their filthy little necks!"



Look at that, Ma......a genuinely anti-semitic attack.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2003 07:02 am
Hobbit
What a wonderfully Stalinist sentiment. Yet another reason I hang my head in shame at my citizenship.

We finally agree. I too hang my head in shame at YOUR citizenship..
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2003 07:39 am
Well, since you agree and have obviously the same US-citizenship as hobitbob, why aren't you hanging your head in shame as well?

Quote:
Undated-AP -- A conference for companies seeking to take part in the 18-point-six (b) billion dollars in Iraq rebuilding contracts has been delayed.

The meetings were to take place today, but have been pushed back to December 19th.

The delay comes amid a furor over a U-S order barring countries that didn't support the U-S-led war from bidding on the contracts.

A spokesman for the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad declined to comment on whether the delay is linked to the dispute over the Pentagon directive. The spokesman simply mentions scheduling conflicts.

The conference was to have taken place in two locations in the United States. The coalition spokesman says the rescheduled conference will be held just outside Washington at a suburban Virginia hotel.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 12/27/2024 at 01:38:29