|
|
|
|
#1
12-10-2003, 03:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Should the US limit contracts in Iraq to countries that supplied troops?
Should the US limit contracts in Iraq to countries that supplied troops? It seems the US is currently excluding contracts on $18 billion in contracts in Iraq to any country that didn't participate or send troops to Iraq. I suppose there are pros and cons to that, so I thought it would be a good debate for anyone interested.
EU to Study Legality of Iraq Contract Row Quote:
So, what do you think? Is the US right/justified in taking such a stance, or is it a bad move? -XT 
|
| Advertisements | |
|
|
|
|
#3
12-10-2003, 05:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I can certainly understand why the United States would restrict the contracts to those nations who where in support of the coalition - their risk, their reward. And the reconstruction probably will not suffer too much for it.
However, the US should make an effort to include all nations if they are really interested in providing the best help possible for the Iraqi people. And, as so often happens in International Politics, someone refuses to take the high road.
|
|
#4
12-10-2003, 05:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Well, as you certainly can imagine I find it extremely funny that they once again expose themselves with no shame at all for what they are.
Now if someone comes in to say that anybody in the current US government ever heard the word "diplomacy" and understood what it means, I think I'm going to die of laughter. They truly have no brains at all... They even don't make any effort to cover it up and work it out behind the public scene with some hidden threats there and some intrusive bribery elswhere. Cowboyisme in practice at its top level. As for you comment "why should they profit"... One should rather ask: Why should the US companies "profit" from the bloody murdering invasion of a sovereign nation, if it was not because profit was the only thing that was ever in the minds of this so called president and his bunch of bloodthirsty greedy warriors linked to Capitalism with the largest C you can imagine. As always I wonder once again when US'ers are going to wake up and understand that it is not "democracy" but Capitalism that rules their nation. Salaam. A
|
|
#5
12-10-2003, 05:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Some of the nation the US is excluding are nations that have donated money to restructuring. The US is also asking NATO countries to donate troops at the same time that it excludes the same countries from bidding. You might also think about the fact that a lot of the restructuring is supposed to be paid back by the Iraqi ppl. They should have a say in how their future earnings are being invested.
|
|
#7
12-10-2003, 05:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
The US should not exclude any of its approved trading partners from the contract process. Money is fungible, so what the hell difference does it make if, say, a French company makes money in Iraq or in the US? This is silly, bad poitics. If there are legitimate security issues, lets hear about them. Otherwise, contracts should go to the best overall bid, regardless of where the company is based.
|
|
#8
12-10-2003, 05:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
There's a pit thread about this, by the way
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...54#post4335554 It has a shitty title, so would be easy to miss.
|
|
#9
12-10-2003, 06:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I have to say, IMO, this is an incredibly stupid and short sighted thing for the US to do, from what I've read today. It gains us nothing but bad will abroad, and at a time when the US should be making efforts to bridge the gap between our differences...especially with the NATO countries. Whats the point of this? Is it some kind of bid to tempt our 'allies' to send troops to Iraq or something?
Also, whether Canada supported us or not should be compeletly irrelevant, as they are are neighbors for gods sake. We NEED to put our differences aside on this stupid issue. Does anyone want to argue that this IS a good idea? If so, why is it a good idea to do such a thing at this time? Do you think on the domestic politics side this will fly, that it will help Bush in the election somehow?? On the face of it, I think this will definitely hurt the 'Pubs...both the center and the left are not going to be happy campers about this, IMO. -XT
|
|
#10
12-10-2003, 06:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
There is absoloutely no way in hell anyone should be granted a fat contract for Iraq if they didn't join in the hunt! Anybody who ever really wanted to help Iraq in the first place would have supported the violent overthrow and subsequent campaign to "re-orient" the minsd of the citizenry. Now that it's collection time they want a piece? NO WAY!!!!!
[tongue pops out of cheek/] As always I wonder once again when US'ers are going to wake up and understand that it is not "democracy" but Capitalism that rules their nation. Chill out big A. You clearly know enough to operate a personal computer so you don't fool me with impressively grandiose & belligerant crap insinuating that we Yanks Love the Bush-master and think we live in a Democracy. And at any rate, what does our opinion of our government have to do with the nastiness of the current adminstration? We're not supposed to shoot 'em...unless of course GWB gets a second term, then all bets are off.
|
|
#11
12-10-2003, 06:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Salaam. A
|
|
#12
12-10-2003, 06:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mabey the countries exculded should now gives some more thought next time they fuck an "allie" right in the ass
.....speaking of al gore...
|
|
#13
12-10-2003, 06:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
It is rather foolish, provided reconstruction is the serious aim. As the motives of the US administration is yet unclear and anybody's guess (my guess would include peglegs and parrots, that as an aside), I cannot really reach a verdict on whether this is a wise move or not.
|
|
#16
12-10-2003, 07:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I come from a country that sent our leader to address Congress in sympathy over 9/11 and has loads of troops in Iraq. Plus we have a 'special relationship'.
Unfortunately none of this gets UK companies much of the contract work. I think it almost all went to companies (Halliburton, Bechtel, etc) that funded Bush's election campaign....
__________________
Arnold Winkelried: 'glee, I take my hat off to you.... at first I thought you were kidding with your cite but I looked it up and it was indeed accurate. (Still in awe at the magnificent answer)'
|
|
#17
12-10-2003, 07:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
<Let me don my handy-dandy armor to prepare for the barrage to follow this post
 >I think the pros of the directive outweigh the cons, so I support the decision (as long as the reasoning goes as follows, and was not made out of petty spite): 1. The $18.6 billion is primarily U.S. taxpayer money. If nations that actively worked to OPPOSE the U.S. get dibs on projects funded with U.S. taxpayer money, then, as one of said U.S. taxpayers, I would demand a damn good explanation why my money is helping some French firm get rich (especially if that French firm had previous economic deals with Saddam). 2. If we opened the bidding process to countries that opposed us, what message does that send to those countries that supported us? Let's not forget that nations like the U.K., Bulgaria, Italy, Poland, Hungary, Austalia, etc. took considerable risks to aid the U.S. effort (especially those eastern European countries that aligned against the Paris/Berlin/Brussels/Moscow axis). I think it would be disgraceful to fuck over those countries that actually helped us. If the French/German/Russian governments can derive the anti-American political capital they gained by opposing the war AS WELL AS profit from the reconstruction, then what incentive does any country have for cooperating with us when it's unpopular? The United States ought to be in the business of rewarding its REAL allies, not placating its fake ones. And, if we really want to pursue our strategic imperative and redeploy our force structure toward the main theater of conflict (i.e. bases and troops out of Germany and into eastern Europe), we damn well better make it worth the east European host countries' while. 3. The countries crying foul are shedding crocodile tears, IMHO. France, Germany and Russia basically sneered at the Madrid donor's conference last October by sending low-level officials. They were warned by members of the Governing Council that the paltry $235 million contribution* made by the EU at the donor's conference in Madrid would not be forgotten. And, as individual nations, France, Germany, and Russia haven't sent anything beyond that amount. What the hell have these countries done to aid the situation in Iraq? Offered facilities to train police officers? Big deal. (* - to its credit, if you count humanitarian aid, the amount given by the EU comes to around $1.7 billion dollars ) 4. I do think xtisme is correct about Canada. Canada may not have supported the U.S. in Iraq, but did not exhibit the utter duplicity displayed by some of the aforementioned countries. Plus, Canada is currently donating nearly $200 million to reconstruction. I hope the directive is amended to include Canada, especially since we both have an interest in patrolling our borders. 5. I disagree with this statement by xtisme: Quote:
This is red meat for Bush's core constituency, and the center is probably smirking, too. So what if the left screams about it - that's all the left seems to do, anyway.
|
|
#18
12-10-2003, 07:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
This course of action will serve to maximize the amount of cash that will flow from the pockets of American taxpayers, through Wolfowitz’s hands, and into the pocketses of our largest allied corporations. What’s not to love?  I linked to the white house press briefing on this over in the pit thread, but here it is again. The DoD Iraq Contracts Directive itself is available at the Globalsecurity website.
|
|
#19
12-10-2003, 08:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
GoHeels:
What is so special about this particular amount of money to be spent versus any other money spent by our gov't? The fact is, there is nothing at all different. This is purely a symbolic gesture to stick it to those countries that opposed the war. You cannot logically oppose allowing them to bid for these contracts w/o also opposing allowing them to be on any US governement contracts.
|
|
#20
12-10-2003, 08:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
John Mace, I would respond by saying this money is much more likely to be closely scrutinized by the media and general public than most other forms of federal outlay.
It's hard to deny that there is a sharp political element to this particular money. It materialized when Bush took a sizable political risk (and definitely took a hit in the polls) by asking the American people - in a televised address to the nation on a Sunday night - to give this money their blessing. To pretend it's like any other form of federal spending is a stretch, IMHO. It doesn't compare to a typical lousy Omnibus Farm Bill. Also, I think it's a hard sell to the Iraqi people to extend bids to firms in countries that had favorable financial relationships with Saddam. Countries like France, Russia, and Germany prospered by their relationship with Saddam, and these countries aren't doing a damn thing to restructure the odious debt racked up by Saddam (which will fall on the shoulders of the Iraqis without debt relief by those "peace-loving" countries). I do think Squink has a point about how limiting the bidders introduces inefficiency. Certainly, the funds need to be closely scrutinized and audited to ensure as little corruption as possible, I would agree. But as I said in my previous, the pros that I mentioned above and in my previous post outweigh the cons, for a variety of economic and political reasons.
|
|
#21
12-10-2003, 08:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
It will take years of DNA testing to identify them. He not only murdered his own “sovereign” people, he waged a bloody, WMD war against Iran. And a pillaging war with Kuwait. He was stopped in Kuwait through a coalition of nations and in the aftermath of that war the United States has kept him at bay through an open ended presence in the region. Not the Saudis, Kuwaitis, Turks, Iranians or any other oil producing nation. The process was open-ended because of a never-ending UN dog-and-pony show. France, Germany and Russia used their votes to ensure an end-date never materialized. Everybody was happy (except the thousands of dead Iraqi insurgents). The people of Europe got their oil, no major Mid-East wars. Life was good. We even managed to wage a couple wars, at the behest of European nations, to stop a slaughter of Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo. Again, life is good. These events followed a US backed revolt in Afghanistan to kick the Russians out and allow self-rule. Then 9/11 happened. The United States was attacked by a religiously motivated group. It was the same group that was trained and armed by the United States to fight the Soviets. The reason for the attack was the presence of troops in Saudi Arabia. The mere presence of troops on “holy” ground was the driving force. These were the same troops who stopped Saddam from crushing a Muslim nation for oil. So who’s the money grubbing murderer for oil? Did the US conquer Iraq? Is the oil flowing to the Capitalist shores of America for free? Saddam was a permanent threat to the region including his own people. The United States was attacked because of its mission to contain him. With all the help the United States has extended to Afghanistan, Kuwait, Bosnia, and Kosovo it would have been nice if the Muslim nations had reciprocated and took care of Saddam. Such was not the case. With that said, if the US were profiting from an invasion of a sovereign nation then it would be inappropriate for the countries that opposed the invasion to profit in the reconstruction.
|
|
#22
12-10-2003, 08:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sorry it's a shitty thread title Revtim. I have never started a political pit thread before, and I thought it was important enough to not want it caught in the quagmire that usualy surrounds Reeder threads.
|
|
#23
12-10-2003, 08:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Here's the list of eligible nations from Wolfowitz's directive:
Code:
Afghanistan Moldava Albania Mongolia Angola Morocco Australia Netherlands Azerbaian New Zealand Bahrain Nicaragua Bulgaria Oman Costa Rica Pelau Czech Republiuc Panama Denmark Phillipines Dominican Republic Poland Egypt Qatar Eritrea Romania Estonia Rwanda Ethiopia Saudi Arabia Georgia Singapore Honduras Slovakia Hungary Solomon Islands Iceland South Korea Iraq Thailand Italy Tonga Jordan Turkey Kazakhstan UAE Kuwait Uganda Latvia Ukraine Lithuania United Kingdom Macedonia United States Marshall Islands Uzbekistan Micronesia It makes for odd reading. Turkey is on it, Israel is not. I wonder what Iceland, Rwanda, and Nicaragua did to get favored status?
|
|
#25
12-10-2003, 09:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Not one penny for the Frogs and the Krauts while Halliburton still stands!
|
|
#26
12-10-2003, 09:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
GoHeels, to me the intervention in Iraq could have been saved as a humanitarian democratic move, by paradoxically giving important responsibilities even to the ones that opposed this operation. It would have stopped many anti-US talking points the opposition in the ME is using to get people against us.
If your best defense for this action, is to say that the countries that supported us “from the beginning” are going to be offended, if we give contracts to the ones that criticized us. It is more offensive that other latecomers will get a piece of the action, since the “coalition” is expanding as the brief mentioned. I noticed that your long post also ignored that there are intelligent ME people will look at this and cry BS. The Canada snub showed once again that the administration does acknowledge Iraq was not related to the war on terror: Quote:
Quote:
However, as this example shows, this administration continues telling half-truths and misleading/lying at the same time. (A recent speech of Bush again implied Iraq as part of the war on terror due to 9/11) And we have a media that is accepting this state of affairs. That would work for Schrödinger's Cat, but I demand more certainty.
|
|
#28
12-10-2003, 09:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
#29
12-10-2003, 10:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
It is called freeloading! When is that a good thing?
|
|
#30
12-10-2003, 10:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
#31
12-10-2003, 11:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Couple a minor points here, Furt. The "ME" referred to consists of several other countries than Iraq. Also, spokesmen don't make "off the cuff" remarks unless they feel a compelling need to spend more time with thier families.
|
|
#32
12-10-2003, 11:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Extremely childish.
First of all, what do firms of a particular nationality necessarily have to do with the policies of their country? This isn't racism per se, but it's exactly the same impulse (generalizing punishments to larger groups based on non-relevant factors) of nationality and race, and just as detestable. Why is a blanket policy based on nationality reasonable? Second of all, what kind of free market principle is this? I don't remember industrial nationalism being a major tenet of the Chicago school. Free and open bids are the best way to make sure that taxpayer dollars are spent as effectively as possible. It's no secret who this policy gives an advantage too: coincidentally some of the same people who have already been accused of agregious waste of their pork dollars. Quote:
|
|
#33
12-10-2003, 11:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Quote:
http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/no-saddam-qaeda.htm
|
|
#35
12-11-2003, 12:01 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Yeah, it gives an advantage to those that DESERVE IT.
|
|
#36
12-11-2003, 12:01 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
It's a bold move. I'm not sure I agree with it, by by god it's bold. The easy way out would've been to include everybody. Of course at some point we'd be hearing about how some French/German/Russian company won a billion dollar contract using US taxpayer funds to rebuild Iraq. And that'd be a crapstorm right there.
Couple of points though.. 1) This doesn't apply to sub-contracts, simply the Prime contracts. Since 70+ % of the prime is subcontracted out it really only means about 30% (or less) is off limits. 2) It doesn't apply AT ALL to contracts deriving from the 13 billion dollar fund pledged by the International Doners conference. 3) ANY country CAN become eligible for this bidding by becoming involved on the ground with troops. 4) It ONLY applies to the AMERICAN TAXPAYER portion of the funds being used to rebuild Iraq. Really, it's partly a political snub, a way of telling certain countries that they didn't put in any effort, so they don't get any rewards (at least not directly). It's also to avoid one of those countries being able to scarf up contracts that they did NOTHING to create and in fact actively opposed and using it as a leverage point. Finally, it's a way of ensuring that those who DID and DO participate get a fair share of the work. They took the risk with the US, they get the reward of doing so. Bold. Still not sure I agree with it, but bold. So.. can someone give me a reasonable argument as to why France/Germany/Russia should get American Taxpayer dollars as profit? Regards, -Bouncer-
|
|
#37
12-11-2003, 12:04 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Luci, I don't think Joe Saudi, Jane Iran or Elmo Lebanon care either. And I meant off-the-cuff as "impromptu." They're prepared, and alert, but they will occasionally say things that if you squint hard enough can say what you want them to say.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
#38
12-11-2003, 12:30 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bold move? Prepared? I would called dumb and ill-equipped:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/11/in...partner=GOOGLE Quote:
|
|
#39
12-11-2003, 12:34 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#40
12-11-2003, 12:45 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#41
12-11-2003, 01:00 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In one of the news releases I read (I think it was off the BBC website) they said that the list isn't set in stone. Countries could still gain eligibility by commiting troops to Iraq. Seems to me like it's more of a plan to get other countries involved in the peacekeeping efforts and maybe lift the burden a bit from the US military.
Even if they didn't support the war, they can tell themselves, "Hey, send a few troops now that most of the really dirty work is done, help make sure the US doesn't screw things up over there, and maybe get some killer paychecks out of it." IMH-but probably naive-O, it doesn't seem like a terrible plan.
|
|
#42
12-11-2003, 01:07 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
As I noted in the Pit thread, even as is, it allows for subcontractors from those countries ... that can be a pretty big loophole. The admin can say truthfully say the policy hasn't changed, but still let in whoever comes around on the issue.
I think you're right; this is not vindictive payback as much as a tool for gaining current and future help. Not that payback isn't part of it. Or that I mind.
|
|
#43
12-11-2003, 01:35 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
If that is so, I would call it subornment.
|
|
#44
12-11-2003, 01:47 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
If that indeed is that case, how could you justify not allowing these companies to bid for said contracts? It's not supposed to be for the benefit of the USA, remember? it's Iraq that needs reconstructing, and those doing the reconstructing should be chosen based on their capabilities, not on their nationality. Why should Iraq get second best?
|
|
#45
12-11-2003, 01:48 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
We could sell them some oil - oh hang on.... 
__________________
"Anyone that opposes us, we'll crush. As a matter of fact anybody that doesn't support us we'll crush..." (Attrib Tex Colson, Nixon campaign aide)
|
|
#46
12-11-2003, 02:55 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Loopholes are by definition "legal" workarounds. But there is no legal issue here. It's a loophole in US policy, which enables them to change their mind without saying they changed their mind. It's how diplomacy works.
|
|
#47
12-11-2003, 02:57 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
#48
12-11-2003, 03:02 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
If there's some specific part or task that's only made or best done by France, that's subcontract stuff.
|
|
#49
12-11-2003, 06:21 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
From the CNN newsclip:
Quote:
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
