Canadian officials said the country, which did not sent troops to Iraq, has contributed $225 million thus far.

[HeroOfPellinor]

If this is true then, even though they're kinda namby-pamby about their support, shouldn't Canadian companies get to bid on contracts to rebuild Iraq? Anyway to confirm that they've actually contributed that much?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
If this is true then, even though they're kinda namby-pamby about their support, shouldn't Canadian companies get to bid on contracts to rebuild Iraq? Anyway to confirm that they've actually contributed that much?

Screw them. They didn't want to fight and die in an illegal war they shouldn't reap any of the benefits. 225 million is an insufficient level of butt kissing.

 

[tnitsuj]

Canada has been openly critical of the use of force even if they did contribute money for humanitarian needs. That sort of attitude and open criticism of the US deserves no reward or US taxpayer money.

 

[alchemize]

I think that they should let Canada in. While Russia and France openly opposed us, and even worked directly against us, and spent years reaping wealth from Iraq even with United Nations sanctions, Canada was just acting in their interests. They helped with Afghanistan, as they saw the direct relationship to 9/11. That's worth a lot in my book.

 

[freegeeks]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
If this is true then, even though they're kinda namby-pamby about their support, shouldn't Canadian companies get to bid on contracts to rebuild Iraq? Anyway to confirm that they've actually contributed that much?

Iraq donor list

Canada -- Ottawa has earmarked $225 million

European Union -- The 15-nation block has been criticized for its offer of 200 million euros ($235 million) for 2004. But taking into account its humanitarian aid the total contribution stands at more than 1.4 billion euros ($1.7 billion).

yeah $1,7 billion is peanuts

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: alchemize
I think that they should let Canada in. While Russia and France openly opposed us, and even worked directly against us, and spent years reaping wealth from Iraq even with United Nations sanctions, Canada was just acting in their interests. They helped with Afghanistan, as they saw the direct relationship to 9/11. That's worth a lot in my book.

I think it was against Canada's interests to oppose the war, but there was no other way. The vast majority of people were opposed and most of the politicians agreed.

Anyway, it's a bit spiteful but we won't starve without those contracts, so its fine.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Although this decision seems kind of petty, I don't see why certain countries are whining about it. Did they actually think that they would receive any of the 'rewards' by contributing very little and showing and acting a lot of opposition? Was it not known that you could possibly not receive any of the so called rewards in the beginning?

$225 million IS peanuts in the whole picture. A 15 country group giving a total of only $1.7 billion, which is including humanitarian aid, IS peanuts. That's only an average of $113.3 million from each country and that's including humanitarian aid. How much are the rest of the countries putting in, including humanitarian aid? Not to mention military support and risking the lives of their troops.

In the end, these countries are facing what was to be expected. However, it would have been nice to see the US try to mend some fences here.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Although this decision seems kind of petty, I don't see why certain countries are whining about it. Did they actually think that they would receive any of the 'rewards' by contributing very little and showing and acting a lot of opposition? Was it not known that you could possibly not receive any of the so called rewards in the beginning?

$225 million IS peanuts in the whole picture. A 15 country group giving a total of only $1.7 billion, which is including humanitarian aid, IS peanuts. That's only an average of $113.3 million from each country and that's including humanitarian aid. How much are the rest of the countries putting in, including humanitarian aid? Not to mention military support and risking the lives of their troops.

In the end, these countries are facing what was to be expected. However, it would have been nice to see the US try to mend some fences here.

I don't care if my country(Canada) gets a contract(s) or not, but I gotta know: Is $225 Million less than the contribution of each "Coalition" Member?

 

[charrison]

linkage

OTTAWA -- U.S. President George W. Bush is grateful for help in the war on terrorism and is ''working'' to include Canada in hefty contracts to help rebuild Iraq, he said in a farewell phone call to retiring Prime Minister Jean Chretien.

''He thanked me for what we're doing in Afghanistan and for the offer of money in the reconstruction of Iraq,'' Chretien told a news conference Thursday.

''As for the news in the newspapers stating that Canada would be excluded from economic activities in Iraq, the president assured me that this was not the case, and that he would be taking action,'' Chretien said. ''And so I thanked him.

''We are still good friends.''

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Iraq ought to be able to say who gets the contracts.

Or


Iraq ought to be able to say who gets the contracts.

Or, if you still are having trouble getting it,

Iraq ought to be able to say who gets the contracts.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Iraq ought to be able to say who gets the contracts.

Or


Iraq ought to be able to say who gets the contracts.

Or, if you still are having trouble getting it,

Iraq ought to be able to say who gets the contracts.

And so should the US taxpayer.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Although this decision seems kind of petty, I don't see why certain countries are whining about it. Did they actually think that they would receive any of the 'rewards' by contributing very little and showing and acting a lot of opposition? Was it not known that you could possibly not receive any of the so called rewards in the beginning?

$225 million IS peanuts in the whole picture. A 15 country group giving a total of only $1.7 billion, which is including humanitarian aid, IS peanuts. That's only an average of $113.3 million from each country and that's including humanitarian aid. How much are the rest of the countries putting in, including humanitarian aid? Not to mention military support and risking the lives of their troops.

In the end, these countries are facing what was to be expected. However, it would have been nice to see the US try to mend some fences here.

I don't care if my country(Canada) gets a contract(s) or not, but I gotta know: Is $225 Million less than the contribution of each "Coalition" Member?

This page might add some light.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Although this decision seems kind of petty, I don't see why certain countries are whining about it. Did they actually think that they would receive any of the 'rewards' by contributing very little and showing and acting a lot of opposition? Was it not known that you could possibly not receive any of the so called rewards in the beginning?

$225 million IS peanuts in the whole picture. A 15 country group giving a total of only $1.7 billion, which is including humanitarian aid, IS peanuts. That's only an average of $113.3 million from each country and that's including humanitarian aid. How much are the rest of the countries putting in, including humanitarian aid? Not to mention military support and risking the lives of their troops.

In the end, these countries are facing what was to be expected. However, it would have been nice to see the US try to mend some fences here.

I don't care if my country(Canada) gets a contract(s) or not, but I gotta know: Is $225 Million less than the contribution of each "Coalition" Member?

This page might add some light.

Didn't check out any of the links within that, but this "Note: While the Government of Canada does not support the invasion of Iraq without United Nations approval, Canada has military personnel serving under the U.S. command in Iraq, provides six hi-tech frigate escorts for U.S. & British ships in the Gulf, and numerous other technical services. U.S. Ambassador to Canada, Paul Cellucci, stated that Canada in fact is providing more support that virtually all other members of the "Coalition of the Willing". seems telling and it made me chuckle.

 

[ReiAyanami]

wow, that's like 682 trillion canadian dollars

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
wow, that's like 682 trillion canadian dollars

hehe

 

[Gaard]

What does political support only mean? A thumbs up?

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: charrison
linkage

OTTAWA -- U.S. President George W. Bush is grateful for help in the war on terrorism and is ''working'' to include Canada in hefty contracts to help rebuild Iraq, he said in a farewell phone call to retiring Prime Minister Jean Chretien.

''He thanked me for what we're doing in Afghanistan and for the offer of money in the reconstruction of Iraq,'' Chretien told a news conference Thursday.

''As for the news in the newspapers stating that Canada would be excluded from economic activities in Iraq, the president assured me that this was not the case, and that he would be taking action,'' Chretien said. ''And so I thanked him.

''We are still good friends.''

Ah, thought so. Sounds good.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Good, I didn't think that Canada should be banned from these contracts.

 

[XZeroII]

Wow, 225 million. That bought us what? a few humvees and a little food? We are spending 87 billion. We deserve those contracts.

 

[miguel]

<sarcarm>Wow, 225 million! That's what, half of Canada's GDP?</sarcasm>