US Bars Iraq Contracts for Countries that Opposed War !

CaptnKirk

Lifer
Jul 25, 2002
10,053
0
71
No Suprise - We knew this was coming. (New York Times)

Reward the Coallition of the Billing & punish those who dare to not worship the US Agenda.
This should serve notice to the World where the Bush Administration stands on Unilateralism.
==================================================================
The Pentagon has barred French, German and Russian companies from competing for $18.6 billion in contracts for the reconstruction of Iraq, saying the step "is necessary for the protection of the essential security interests of the United States."

The directive, which was issued by the deputy defense secretary, Paul D. Wolfowitz, represents perhaps the most substantive retaliation to date by the Bush administration against American allies who opposed its decision to go to war in Iraq.

The administration had warned before the war that countries that did not join an American-led coalition would not have a voice in decisions about the rebuilding of Iraq. But the administration had not previously made clear that French, German and Russian companies would be excluded from competing for the lucrative reconstruction contracts, which include the rebuilding of Iraq's infrastructure and equipping its army.

Under the guidelines, which were issued on Friday but became public knowledge today, only companies from the United States, Iraq and 61 other countries designated as "coalition partners" will be allowed to bid on the contracts, which are financed by American taxpayers.

Among the eligible countries are Britain, the closest American ally in Iraq, as well Poland and Italy, which have contributed troops to the American-led security effort. But the list also includes other nations whose support has been less evident, including Turkey, which allowed American aircraft to fly over its territory but barred American forces at the last minute from using its soil as a staging point to invade Iraq from the north in March.

The directive by Mr. Wolfowitz does not spell out a precise argument for why allowing French, German and Russian companies to join in the competition for the contracts would hurt American security interests. But it suggests that the main motivation is to use the contracts as a reward for countries that participate in the American-led coalition and contribute troops to the American-led security effort.

"Every effort must be made to expand international cooperation in Iraq," the directive says, noting that the number of troops provided by non-American countries has increased from 14,000 to 23,700 in recent months, while the number of American troops has declined by about 12,000. "Limiting competition for prime contracts will encourage the expansion of international cooperation in Iraq and in future efforts."

A Republican congressman who recently returned from Iraq said in a telephone interview today that it was a mistake to exclude particular countries from the rebuilding effort.

"It strikes me that we should do whatever we can to draw in the French, the Germans, the Russians and others into the process," said the congressman, Christopher Shays of Connecticut. "I would expect that most of the contracts would go to countries who have done the heavy lifting, but I wouldn't want to see any arbitrary effort to shut anyone out."

In a report that he issued today along with another congressman, Frank R. Wolf, Republican of Virginia, Mr. Shays said, "The administration should redouble efforts to internationalize the rebuilding of Iraq."

Bush administration officials, including Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, warned last spring that France and other countries would have to face the "consequences" of their efforts in the United Nations and other forums to block the American invasion of Iraq.

But until now, the American response has been mostly symbolic, including a notable absence of White House invitations to those countries' leaders to join President Bush for cozy one-on-one sessions at his Texas ranch.

A spokeswoman for the German Embassy in Washington, Martina Nibbeling-Wiessnig, would say only that "German companies and entrepreneurs are already engaged in Iraq as subcontractors." The French and Russian embassies in Washington did not immediately return telephone calls seeking comment.
 

miguel

Senior member
Nov 2, 2001
621
0
0
I don't see a problem. Would France allow the US in if the US absolutely opposed them in what they were doing? I think not. But, of course, I could be wrong.
rolleye.gif
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
There is a price to be paid for dissent. Plus Halliburton stock prices aren't going to rise by themselves people! :p
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Your logic is weak. France, Germany, Russia, hell most of the world was opposed to blowing up Iraq to liberate Iraq. That has scarcely little to do with rebuilding Iraq.
 

miguel

Senior member
Nov 2, 2001
621
0
0
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Your logic is weak. France, Germany, Russia, hell most of the world was opposed to blowing up Iraq to liberate Iraq. That has scarcely little to do with rebuilding Iraq.

Huh? I thought we were talking about awarding contracts. It seems the approved list has the coalition members and non that opposed the US action. I guess I'm a little lost on your point, BBD.
 

Zipp

Senior member
Apr 7, 2001
791
0
0
Your logic is weak. France, Germany, Russia, hell most of the world was opposed to blowing up Iraq to liberate Iraq. That has scarcely little to do with rebuilding Iraq.


Of course France,Germany and Russia opposed the war. With all the money that Iraq owed them along with other countries,they knew they wouldn't see a penny of it if Saddamed was removed.
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
well then good luck getting more and more support for helping rebuilding iraq
 

ReiAyanami

Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2002
4,466
0
0
just let halliburton do all the work. rebuild what lockheed and raytheon have destroyed
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
I don't think it's a problem when US taxpayer is paying for it. It would be a problem if it was from Iraqi oil revenue, unless Iraqi people had a voice in the decision.
I think Russians can't do much about it, but Germans and French can pull their forces out of Afghanistan in retaliation, which would force US to spread its troops even thinner.
I do think burning bridges with Russia, France, and Germany is a mistake. In the real WoT relating to Al Qaeda, Russia is US' most natural partner with its problems in Chechnya.
The damage done to that relationship because of this Iraq fiasco will be detrimental to the US security long term. Russia reached out to the US after 9/11 only to be slapped on the hand by Dubya.

 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Czar
well then good luck getting more and more support for helping rebuilding iraq

We are paying for it, so it is our pick. If they want to spend some reconstruction dollars in iraq, they can pick their contractor as well.
 

syzygy

Diamond Member
Feb 5, 2001
3,038
0
76
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Czar
well then good luck getting more and more support for helping rebuilding iraq

We are paying for it, so it is our pick. If they want to spend some reconstruction dollars in iraq, they can pick their contractor as well.

the article mentioned three particular countries whose reasons for opposing the war amounted to nothing more than the
usual u.n. politiking. there are 61 countries who have been included in the bidding process, iraq being one, and the only
refuge left to liberals is to cry for the exclusion of a mere three, a most deserving three.

these three partners-in-crime are also among the most notorious suppliers of wmd and wmd-related materiel to iraq and
voiced the greatest support for watering down u.n. resolutions even when iraq was failing to comply in full due to the
perceived humanitarian situation which was in large part created by saddam and cronies.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
just let halliburton do all the work. rebuild what lockheed and raytheon have destroyed

:DYou forgot order 39 which allows 100% US corporate ownership of any state assests/businesses to be swept up at firesale prices.

Trifecta baby.
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
71
Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
just let halliburton do all the work. rebuild what lockheed and raytheon have destroyed

You mean saddamn and his insurgents have destroyed right?
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Not surprising, considering that Iraq is just a giant milking machine attached to the American taxpayers for the benefit of selected corporate interests...
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Originally posted by: Mrburns2007
I think Al queda should get the contracts :)

Wouldn't be the first time the US subsidized these thugs. I hear Bin Laden is good at construction though.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
Originally posted by: SuperTool
I don't think it's a problem when US taxpayer is paying for it. It would be a problem if it was from Iraqi oil revenue, unless Iraqi people had a voice in the decision.
I think Russians can't do much about it, but Germans and French can pull their forces out of Afghanistan in retaliation, which would force US to spread its troops even thinner.
I do think burning bridges with Russia, France, and Germany is a mistake. In the real WoT relating to Al Qaeda, Russia is US' most natural partner with its problems in Chechnya.
The damage done to that relationship because of this Iraq fiasco will be detrimental to the US security long term. Russia reached out to the US after 9/11 only to be slapped on the hand by Dubya.

Yeah everyone, Supertool is right. We should reward the three countries that did the most damage to the UN by doling out Iraqi contracts to 'em. Ingenious.
 

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
0
76
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: SuperTool
I don't think it's a problem when US taxpayer is paying for it. It would be a problem if it was from Iraqi oil revenue, unless Iraqi people had a voice in the decision.
I think Russians can't do much about it, but Germans and French can pull their forces out of Afghanistan in retaliation, which would force US to spread its troops even thinner.
I do think burning bridges with Russia, France, and Germany is a mistake. In the real WoT relating to Al Qaeda, Russia is US' most natural partner with its problems in Chechnya.
The damage done to that relationship because of this Iraq fiasco will be detrimental to the US security long term. Russia reached out to the US after 9/11 only to be slapped on the hand by Dubya.

Yeah everyone, Supertool is right. We should reward the three countries that did the most damage to the UN by doling out Iraqi contracts to 'em. Ingenious.

Still shooting at the messengers despite the fact that they were correct all along regarding the Bushies' "evidence" for WMD.

 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
Originally posted by: GrGr
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: SuperTool
I don't think it's a problem when US taxpayer is paying for it. It would be a problem if it was from Iraqi oil revenue, unless Iraqi people had a voice in the decision.
I think Russians can't do much about it, but Germans and French can pull their forces out of Afghanistan in retaliation, which would force US to spread its troops even thinner.
I do think burning bridges with Russia, France, and Germany is a mistake. In the real WoT relating to Al Qaeda, Russia is US' most natural partner with its problems in Chechnya.
The damage done to that relationship because of this Iraq fiasco will be detrimental to the US security long term. Russia reached out to the US after 9/11 only to be slapped on the hand by Dubya.

Yeah everyone, Supertool is right. We should reward the three countries that did the most damage to the UN by doling out Iraqi contracts to 'em. Ingenious.

Still shooting at the messengers despite the fact that they were correct all along regarding the Bushies' "evidence" for WMD.


Please Sire, explain to me how they were right.

fact is, these three countries supported Iraq's WMD for the longest. And they fought hard to try to get rid of the sanctions prematurely, so that they could profit from iraqi intransigence.
 

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
0
76
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: GrGr
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: SuperTool
I don't think it's a problem when US taxpayer is paying for it. It would be a problem if it was from Iraqi oil revenue, unless Iraqi people had a voice in the decision.
I think Russians can't do much about it, but Germans and French can pull their forces out of Afghanistan in retaliation, which would force US to spread its troops even thinner.
I do think burning bridges with Russia, France, and Germany is a mistake. In the real WoT relating to Al Qaeda, Russia is US' most natural partner with its problems in Chechnya.
The damage done to that relationship because of this Iraq fiasco will be detrimental to the US security long term. Russia reached out to the US after 9/11 only to be slapped on the hand by Dubya.

Yeah everyone, Supertool is right. We should reward the three countries that did the most damage to the UN by doling out Iraqi contracts to 'em. Ingenious.

Still shooting at the messengers despite the fact that they were correct all along regarding the Bushies' "evidence" for WMD.


Please Sire, explain to me how they were right.

fact is, these three countries supported Iraq's WMD for the longest. And they fought hard to get rid of the sanctions prematurely, so that they could profit from iraqi intransigence.

What WMD's?

"He [Saddam Hussein] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to use conventional power against his neighbors." Colin Powell, Cairo Egypt, February 24th, 2001

Prematurely? You mean while the 500,000 kids were still alive?




 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
Originally posted by: GrGr
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: GrGr
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: SuperTool
I don't think it's a problem when US taxpayer is paying for it. It would be a problem if it was from Iraqi oil revenue, unless Iraqi people had a voice in the decision.
I think Russians can't do much about it, but Germans and French can pull their forces out of Afghanistan in retaliation, which would force US to spread its troops even thinner.
I do think burning bridges with Russia, France, and Germany is a mistake. In the real WoT relating to Al Qaeda, Russia is US' most natural partner with its problems in Chechnya.
The damage done to that relationship because of this Iraq fiasco will be detrimental to the US security long term. Russia reached out to the US after 9/11 only to be slapped on the hand by Dubya.

Yeah everyone, Supertool is right. We should reward the three countries that did the most damage to the UN by doling out Iraqi contracts to 'em. Ingenious.

Still shooting at the messengers despite the fact that they were correct all along regarding the Bushies' "evidence" for WMD.


Please Sire, explain to me how they were right.

fact is, these three countries supported Iraq's WMD for the longest. And they fought hard to get rid of the sanctions prematurely, so that they could profit from iraqi intransigence.

What WMD's?

"He [Saddam Hussein] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to use conventional power against his neighbors." Colin Powell, Cairo Egypt, February 24th, 2001

Prematurely? You mean while the 500,000 kids were still alive?


You didn't answer my question.

As for those kids, are you blaming the United States, United Nations, or Saddam Hussein?
 

B00ne

Platinum Member
May 21, 2001
2,168
1
0
It's US taxpayers money, so it is their choice how to spend it. If by this policy they exclude possibly better options - even better.

The only thing funny about the deal is that while we were opposed to the operation we provided more help than most of the "coalition partners". Under this light, I think our government should have refused everything. Instead of having a big mouth and participating behind the back...
 

freegeeks

Diamond Member
May 7, 2001
5,460
1
81
Originally posted by: B00ne
It's US taxpayers money, so it is their choice how to spend it. If by this policy they exclude possibly better options - even better.

The only thing funny about the deal is that while we were opposed to the operation we provided more help than most of the "coalition partners". Under this light, I think our government should have refused everything. Instead of having a big mouth and participating behind the back...

LOL so true