1
   

Pentagon Bars Three Nations From Iraq Bids

 
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2003 07:46 am
au1929 wrote:
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..


Laughing
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2003 08:35 am
Walter Hinteler
Because unlike the hobbit I am proud to be an American.
0 Replies
 
fluffhead237
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2003 08:47 am
It amazes me that there are actually people out there that still support Bush and his administration. It absolutely astonishes me.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2003 08:59 am
Do not be mistaken my statement in no way supports Bush. He too will pass into the dust bin of history. However, the US will prevail as the bastion of liberty.
I should note that the attempted unity of Europe [EU] is IMO Europe trying to emulate the American system and success.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2003 09:33 am
DIPLOMACY

Bush Seeks Help of Allies Barred From Iraq Deals

By DAVID E. SANGER and DOUGLAS JEHL

Published: December 11, 2003

[]WASHINGTON, Dec. 10 — President Bush found himself in the awkward position on Wednesday of calling the leaders of France, Germany and Russia to ask them to forgive Iraq's debts, just a day after the Pentagon said it was excluding those countries and others from $18 billion in American-financed Iraqi reconstruction projects.
White House officials were fuming about the timing and the tone of the Pentagon's directive, even while conceding that they had approved the Pentagon policy of limiting contracts to 63 countries that have given the United States political or military aid in Iraq.
Many countries excluded from the list, including close allies like Canada, reacted angrily on Wednesday to the Pentagon action. They were incensed, in part, by the Pentagon's explanation in a memorandum that the restrictions were required "for the protection of the essential security interests of the United States."
The Russian defense minister, Sergei Ivanov, when asked about the Pentagon decision, responded by ruling out any debt write-off for Iraq.
The Canadian deputy prime minister, John Manley, suggested crisply that "it would be difficult" to add to the $190 million already given for reconstruction in Iraq.

Our erstwhile "Allies"are all crying like stuck pigs at being shut out of contracts for the reconstruction of Iraq. However, since they are being financed by Americas tax dollars I cannot believe that it was not expected or justified.
As to the Iraqi debt to Russia, France, Germany and the rest. Why even address the debt and it's repayment? That is something for the Iraqi government to address some time in the future. Probably the distant future.
I must add that as usual the reason given for the Pentagons action is idiotic. Embarrassed But what can one expect from an administration still looking for WMD's.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/11/international/middleeast/11PREX.html?th
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2003 09:35 am
au1929 wrote:
Walter Hinteler
Because unlike the hobbit I am proud to be an American.


You agree that it is a Stalinistic sentence and are proud of that?

Just wondering Shocked
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2003 09:38 am
Walter That hardly deserves a response. You are smarter than that.
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2003 09:41 am
I think ability to bid is a proper repayment for assistance and support.

For those who made the job even more difficult, and disagreed with the war--why would they want to be part of the reconstruction? They disagreed with the exercise utterly. If they disagreed in principle, wouldn't that situate them squarely against being part of the entire process? Or, do they just want to line up for easy pay-off?

Is there any justification for opposing and trying to stop a war, but bellying up for the plums later?
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2003 10:09 am
Sofia wrote:
Is there any justification for opposing and trying to stop a war, but bellying up for the plums later?


Bush and company didn't say this war was about getting plums. In fact, they denied that would be a part of what was happening.

In any case, Sofia, do you truly not see the difference between opposing a war -- and bidding on work to repair the damage caused by that war?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2003 10:22 am
Now, if they were volunteering to help with the reconstruction by paying for whatever costs caqme up themselves, that would be a great incentive for them to be allowed to help in the reconstruction.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2003 10:22 am
rank
Since the US taxpayer is footing the bill I certainly can. I would also remind you that much of the damage you speak about repairing was not a result of the war but neglect by the previous regime. The oil fields were on their way to being destroyed by that neglect.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2003 10:25 am
au1929 wrote:
I would also remind you that much of the damage you speak about repairing was not a result of the war but neglect by the previous regime.


C'mon, Au, you're not really still trying to sell that baloney!


Quote:
The oil fields were on their way to being destroyed by that neglect.


No war -- no reconstruction.

Repeat that a couple of times.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2003 10:31 am
Sofia wrote:
I think ability to bid is a proper repayment for assistance and support.

For those who made the job even more difficult, and disagreed with the war--why would they want to be part of the reconstruction? They disagreed with the exercise utterly. If they disagreed in principle, wouldn't that situate them squarely against being part of the entire process? Or, do they just want to line up for easy pay-off?

Is there any justification for opposing and trying to stop a war, but bellying up for the plums later?


McG (and others): Canada opposed the war and refused to send soldiers but they also contributed $225 million to the reconstruction of Iraq.

Ah...Wolfowitz' order specifies that only countries who contributed militarily can participate in the spoils.

Soooooo....only if you are willing to donate cannon fodder -- only if you are willing to put your young men and women in the line of fire -- are you allowed to bid on a contract.

Blood for bids. And all this time I thought it was blood for oil. Evil or Very Mad

This shameful arrogance on the part of this administration is getting to the point where it would be difficult to blame the rest of the world if they began calling us the terrorists...
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2003 10:39 am
Canada should have been on the list.

Is Japan on the list?
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2003 10:45 am
frank
Does the truth offend you? The oil fields were in disrepair. And because of that several were on their way to being destroyed.


Quote:
No war -- no reconstruction.

NO doubt however, we are dealing with the reality of the present situation. I could say no screwup in Florida and no Bush. There is a Bush and there is a war.
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2003 10:51 am
Frank Apisa wrote:
Sofia wrote:
Is there any justification for opposing and trying to stop a war, but bellying up for the plums later?


Bush and company didn't say this war was about getting plums. In fact, they denied that would be a part of what was happening.

In any case, Sofia, do you truly not see the difference between opposing a war -- and bidding on work to repair the damage caused by that war?

The difference-- One (going to war) is very difficult, costly and dangerous. One (rebuilding) is a cash cow.
Those, who refuse to do the first do not deserve to do the second.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2003 10:55 am
Sofia wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
Sofia wrote:
Is there any justification for opposing and trying to stop a war, but bellying up for the plums later?


Bush and company didn't say this war was about getting plums. In fact, they denied that would be a part of what was happening.

In any case, Sofia, do you truly not see the difference between opposing a war -- and bidding on work to repair the damage caused by that war?

The difference-- One (going to war) is very difficult, costly and dangerous. One (rebuilding) is a cash cow.
Those, who refuse to do the first do not deserve to do the second.


Perhaps.

But the answer to your question: "Is there any justification for opposing and trying to stop a war, but bellying up for the plums later?"...

...is an unqualified, YES!
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2003 11:53 am
Craven de Kere wrote:
It's just 18 billion and change.


Shocked Confused
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2003 12:10 pm
I stand by that PDiddie. That's a negligible amount so it's not punitive.

Secondly, they are eligible for the 13 billion and change amount that came from international donors.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2003 01:48 pm
I guess I'm so old that I remember when $18 billion was a lot of money. Neutral
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 12/27/2024 at 01:17:59