Germany: "Iraq contract decisions must conform to international law," Bush: "International law? I better call my lawyer"

[glenn1]

Story link

 

[CADsortaGUY]

U.S. officials said the decision applied only to the $18.6 billion in reconstruction funds approved by the U.S. Congress last month.

They said $13 billion in international aid pledged at a recent donors conference in Madrid was eligible for broader international participation.

Companies from countries not directly involved in Iraq's postwar reconstruction can also act as subcontractors if selected by those eligible to seek contracts under the U.S. fund.

CkG

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The Iraqis ought to determine who gets the contracts.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
The Iraqis ought to determine who gets the contracts.

When they are spending their dime, they can.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

U.S. officials said the decision applied only to the $18.6 billion in reconstruction funds approved by the U.S. Congress last month.

They said $13 billion in international aid pledged at a recent donors conference in Madrid was eligible for broader international participation.

Companies from countries not directly involved in Iraq's postwar reconstruction can also act as subcontractors if selected by those eligible to seek contracts under the U.S. fund.

CkG

Ok that sounds like a good idea. So lets say some french company would bid 5 billion to do something and halliburton bids 8 billion for the same job. Then Halliburton then turns around and has the french people do it for 5 and pocket the 3 billion sounds like a good plan for the US companys.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
The Iraqis ought to determine who gets the contracts.

When they are spending their dime, they can.

Then we should not have gone in there to begin with. It's our money. Big deal. Bush decided to run their lives for them. I suppose next we want democracy as long as they vote as we tell them.

We owe them for our actions, and too bad if that means things we do not like.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
The Iraqis ought to determine who gets the contracts.

When they are spending their dime, they can.

Then we should not have gone in there to begin with. It's our money. Big deal. Bush decided to run their lives for them. I suppose next we want democracy as long as they vote as we tell them.

We owe them for our actions, and too bad if that means things we do not like.

Ok. Since there is yet to be a fully functioning national goverment in Iraq, who in iraq should control the money if were to gift them 18 billion?

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Actually the US government did spend Iraqi reserves in the UN Oil for Food Program and we currently control the proceeds from Iraqi oil exports . . . meager as they may be.

What Bush meant to say, "yeah, I would know something about that but my daddy couldn't get me past admissions at UT-Austin.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
The Iraqis ought to determine who gets the contracts.

When they are spending their dime, they can.

Then we should not have gone in there to begin with. It's our money. Big deal. Bush decided to run their lives for them. I suppose next we want democracy as long as they vote as we tell them.

We owe them for our actions, and too bad if that means things we do not like.

Ok. Since there is yet to be a fully functioning national goverment in Iraq, who in iraq should control the money if were to gift them 18 billion?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
The Iraqis ought to determine who gets the contracts.

When they are spending their dime, they can.

Then we should not have gone in there to begin with. It's our money. Big deal. Bush decided to run their lives for them. I suppose next we want democracy as long as they vote as we tell them.

We owe them for our actions, and too bad if that means things we do not like.

Ok. Since there is yet to be a fully functioning national goverment in Iraq, who in iraq should control the money if were to gift them 18 billion?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
The Iraqis ought to determine who gets the contracts.

When they are spending their dime, they can.

Then we should not have gone in there to begin with. It's our money. Big deal. Bush decided to run their lives for them. I suppose next we want democracy as long as they vote as we tell them.

We owe them for our actions, and too bad if that means things we do not like.

Ok. Since there is yet to be a fully functioning national goverment in Iraq, who in iraq should control the money if were to gift them 18 billion?

Glad you asked.

Those who are elected to form a Constitutional Convention. The only restriction I would agree to is that the US may veto a deal ONLY to prevent graft, and misuse of funds.

Oh, dont have a Constitutional Convention? Maybe we should have one.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
The Iraqis ought to determine who gets the contracts.

When they are spending their dime, they can.

Then we should not have gone in there to begin with. It's our money. Big deal. Bush decided to run their lives for them. I suppose next we want democracy as long as they vote as we tell them.

We owe them for our actions, and too bad if that means things we do not like.

Ok. Since there is yet to be a fully functioning national goverment in Iraq, who in iraq should control the money if were to gift them 18 billion?

Glad you asked.

Those who are elected to form a Constitutional Convention. The only restriction I would agree to is that the US may veto a deal ONLY to prevent graft, and misuse of funds.

Oh, dont have a Constitutional Convention? Maybe we should have one.

They are still working that out and that may take some time.

Meanwhile I suppose you dont want us to do any reconstruction while they get things together?

So in the several years it is going to take a new goverment in place, who should spend the 18 billion dollars?

Or are you going to realize there is not a simple solution to this either?

 

[josphII]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
The Iraqis ought to determine who gets the contracts.

When they are spending their dime, they can.

Then we should not have gone in there to begin with. It's our money. Big deal. Bush decided to run their lives for them. I suppose next we want democracy as long as they vote as we tell them.

We owe them for our actions, and too bad if that means things we do not like.

we owe them for our actions?? they owe us for our actions is more like it.

 

[LunarRay]

How about a quid pro quo... They forgive the debt owed by Iraq (now us - under international law) and we'll let them bid on the contracts. We're all for the cheapest getting the work.. here at least..

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
How about a quid pro quo... They forgive the debt owed by Iraq (now us - under international law) and we'll let them bid on the contracts. We're all for the cheapest getting the work.. here at least..

I beleive that is the deal that is being offered.
It does appears that certain countries are only interested in the contracts...

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: LunarRay
How about a quid pro quo... They forgive the debt owed by Iraq (now us - under international law) and we'll let them bid on the contracts. We're all for the cheapest getting the work.. here at least..

I beleive that is the deal that is being offered.
It does appears that certain countries are only interested in the contracts...

I'd have to agree with them.. I think they didn't push the illegal invasion issue at the UN so they must feel we should be somewhat grateful to them.. I get the feeling that if they do get excluded they will move the Euro denominated oil issue again.. A friend back from the M. E. said that was floated around.. just to "see who said what"..

 

[dpm]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

U.S. officials said the decision applied only to the $18.6 billion in reconstruction funds approved by the U.S. Congress last month. They said $13 billion in international aid pledged at a recent donors conference in Madrid was eligible for broader international participation.

CkG

You've got to love that quote - the US saying to the world "the $18.6 billion that we put up only goes to us, but, if you play really, really nice, then we might let some of your companies have a piece of that $13 billion that you countries donated"

 

[dpm]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: LunarRay How about a quid pro quo... They forgive the debt owed by Iraq (now us - under international law) and we'll let them bid on the contracts. We're all for the cheapest getting the work.. here at least..

I beleive that is the deal that is being offered. It does appears that certain countries are only interested in the contracts...

It would seem like a good idea - it would get done what needs to be done, and start to smooth over some of the bigger rifts in international relations recently. Sadly, the article makes it sound like that is out of the question;

" "If these countries want to participate in helping the world become more secure, by enabling Iraq to emerge as a free and peaceful country, one way to contribute is through debt restructuring," Bush said.

But helping reduce Iraq's estimated $120 billion foreign debt will not mean those nations can compete for the $18.6 billion, he said. "

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: dpm

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

U.S. officials said the decision applied only to the $18.6 billion in reconstruction funds approved by the U.S. Congress last month. They said $13 billion in international aid pledged at a recent donors conference in Madrid was eligible for broader international participation.

CkG

You've got to love that quote - the US saying to the world "the $18.6 billion that we put up only goes to us, but, if you play really, really nice, then we might let some of your companies have a piece of that $13 billion that you countries donated"

It doesn't say that at all. It says that $18.6 billion goes to the coalition countries and that the rest of the money can go to whoever. And it's not like the countries in question donated this $13 billion - this has been given from multiple countries and organizations. Your statements are extremely misleading.

I think it's fair to say 'The $18.6 billion that we're paying, which is significantly more than you are paying, will go to us and other countries. The other money, which you have contributed to a little, is fair game.'

Anyways, I personally don't think that they should have done this...it would have been much better to at least try to mend some fences.

 

[HOWITIS]

bwahahaha, screw the frogs. pwned

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

U.S. officials said the decision applied only to the $18.6 billion in reconstruction funds approved by the U.S. Congress last month.

They said $13 billion in international aid pledged at a recent donors conference in Madrid was eligible for broader international participation.

Companies from countries not directly involved in Iraq's postwar reconstruction can also act as subcontractors if selected by those eligible to seek contracts under the U.S. fund.

CkG

Ok that sounds like a good idea. So lets say some french company would bid 5 billion to do something and halliburton bids 8 billion for the same job. Then Halliburton then turns around and has the french people do it for 5 and pocket the 3 billion sounds like a good plan for the US companys.

Ok, let's pretend a big green dragon comes flying down from the mountains and offers to rebuild Iraq for free with his magic powers. Equally fantastic, in the "fantasy" sense of the word, scenario.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

U.S. officials said the decision applied only to the $18.6 billion in reconstruction funds approved by the U.S. Congress last month.

They said $13 billion in international aid pledged at a recent donors conference in Madrid was eligible for broader international participation.

Companies from countries not directly involved in Iraq's postwar reconstruction can also act as subcontractors if selected by those eligible to seek contracts under the U.S. fund.

CkG

Ok that sounds like a good idea. So lets say some french company would bid 5 billion to do something and halliburton bids 8 billion for the same job. Then Halliburton then turns around and has the french people do it for 5 and pocket the 3 billion sounds like a good plan for the US companys.

Ok, let's pretend a big green dragon comes flying down from the mountains and offers to rebuild Iraq for free with his magic powers. Equally fantastic, in the "fantasy" sense of the word, scenario.

AndrewR's solution

 

[kage69]

we owe them for our actions?? they owe us for our actions is more like it.

Damn straight!

 

[dudleydocker]

This is just for the FIRST rebuilding contracts. I'm sure the entire process will cost more than $18.7 billion. Also, all the whiners can still be subs on this first round of contracts. Seems like an appropriate response to our "allies" who were so there for us......

 

[colonel]

It sound so nice when the president speaks about "taxpayer money" when all the money from the contracts is going through one American company.