by excluding Canada, though, you do not explain the ‘basic principle underlying the policy’ Sad that you’re incapable of seeing that.
Basic principle: Nations that supported the US will benefit from US aid. Nations that did not contribute significantly to the war or the rebuilding will not get profits from it. All posters before me seem opposed to this, and I disagreed.
Secondary issue: Which nations are on which list.
Again, I assumed an intelligent reader would be able to deduce the basic thrust of the policy, given that it is the first sentence in the linked article.
Basic principle: Nations that supported the US will benefit from US aid. Nations that did not contribute significantly to the war or the rebuilding will not get profits from it. All posters before me seem opposed to this, and I disagreed.
Secondary issue: Which nations are on which list.
Again, I assumed an intelligent reader would be able to deduce the basic thrust of the policy, given that it is in the first sentence in the linked article.
Wring, I had no trouble understanding furt’s analysis of the situation. I think you are being willfully obtuse here. In general what he wrote applies to the situation, and I’m sure that is the administration’s reasoning in not allowing France, Germany and Russia the contracts. There is an exception to this which he already conceded, Canada. However, to say that this exception makes furt’s post and reasoning pointless is just being contrary for the sake of being contrary.
I’ll try one more time.
the reality of who is ‘on’ or ‘off’ the list establishes what the real criteria is (which is not necessarily what Admin claims is the policy). and, as was demonstrated, the exclusion of Canada defies logic.
I once was part of a negotiation process where one ‘goal’ that was established was the reward of 3 specific people. Problem was, as is here, that there was no legitimate parsing of the particulars to get the list to come out the way that they wanted, so they damn near spelled out who they wanted.
As, I believe, was done here. Canada has supported the US stated goal wrt terrorism. their exclusion belies what you suggest.
Creative - the question was ‘can this policy be defended’. furt attempted to redefine the particulars of the policy, then defend it. and still does. The policy includes all particulars, as spelled out by the administration, otherwise, it’d be a different policy.
No, I defended the principle, and specifically noted my divergence in the particulars.
A: The idea of sending astronauts back to the moon is stupid. Can anyone defend the policy of funding manned space exploration?
B: Yes, I will, though I’ll grant you that the current moon mission is a bad idea.
A: Aha! So you CAN’T support Manned exploration!
B: :rolleyes:
Keeping in mind that, fairly or not, the Admin was disappointed in Canada, and that Canada did not send troops when the Admin thought they could/should, what about this specific list makes you think the policy is different than stated? What is the real plan that you’ve deduced? If it’s all about enriching US companies, why are we dealing in the UK and Australia? They’re not a threat, but Canadian conglomerates are?
except, furt, the policy under question is only this defined set of circumstances, vs. a long standing program of which one particular mission is just one potential.
THis isn’t part of our ‘overall’ foreign policy (witness the shock around the world in reaction - this is a new way of dealing with the issue). This is very specifically who we will allow to bid on very specific contracts, and the justification for said limitation. When the ‘policy’ in question is so very limited, to slice out one segment in order to justify it, really is arguing a different policy.
And this does put the WMD issue and other justifications for the Iraq war, back into the front again IMO. If the administration wanted to drop those issues, the directive shows the administration is in denial that Canada, and other nations, were right regarding Iraq:
http://www.mapleleafweb.com/education/spotlight/issue_20/role.html
Well, that’s one way of looking at it. Here’s the other:
There’s my re-telling of the same facts, as say Fox News might have written it. Gotta be careful with that bias - it’s all about how you choose the emphasize the facts.
As for Canada, and other countries that are not actively resisting the current reconstruction - they should be allowed to bid openly. Canada has already given 180 million dollars, and quietly provided a few key soldiers.
The difference with France, Germany, and Russia is that they seem to still be actively opposing the U.S. They are among the only nations to refuse aid to Iraq. They also appear to have violated the sanctions against Iraq before the war. There should be consequences for that.
My guess is that those other countries were included on the list mainly as political cover. The U.S. can’t be seen as directly targeting three different countries. But if you make it a whole class of countries (those that opposed the war), you can get away with pressuring the countries you want to pressure.
That would also explain the administration ‘fuming’ while admitting that they approved this. They have to appear to be ‘fuming’ for political cover. Can’t rightly say, “The White House welcomed the move from the Pentagon, saying that now they could really stick it to the Russkies.”
Poppycock. I read this predicted months ago, and any shock in Paris is for the cameras. Yet’s it’s new; it’s also very clear. The countries on the list to recieve US contracts are countries the US has deemed to have been helpful in Iraq. This was known to have been a possibility a long time ago.
No one, to my knowledge, has claimed that they were left off for any other reason; they reject the principle of the thing. Canada OTOH has said that they should be on the list because they were, in fact, as helpful as they could be; implicitly, they also understand that this is the principle, and they are arguing that the application is faulty.
Given that the Admin has already said that they will talk with any nations with concerns and that the list will change, I fail to see how my position of support for the policy while reserving judgement on specific names is so very different.
Actually, Sam, the way they’ve sold it is that there is no “shit list.” There is the happy list, with UK and Australia et al. and that’s it. Everyone else is excluded. So we’re not (negatively) targeting anyone; we’re (postively) targeting our freinds. And we’ve implied the list can/will grow.
From the whitehouse briefing:
I can’t quite parse this, but it seems like he is saying that they will not reconsider it, but perhaps something will change in the future. Does this mean they can get on the list later for the crumbs after the administration has finished handing out the table scraps that were left over after Haliburton and Betchel are done feeding.
While I was pretty ticked off by this myself, I can’t say I’m at all surprised. And the reasoning is pretty familiar too. “National security”, aka “because we feel like it”.
You see this here (“for the protection of the essential security interests of the United States.”), saw it last week when Cellucci pissed us off saying the U.S. isn’t going to stop deporting our citizens to random places, saw it a couple of months ago when we were looking at decriminalizing pot possession on very small scale…
I’ve found it odd that U.S. presidents the world likes (Clinton was well respected around the world), the U.S. dislikes (mostly for a consensual sex thing everyone thought was overblown… ahem), whereas certain others the U.S. public likes the rest of the world thinks are kinda jerky.
Now furt… so what your saying is that if people feel the Iraq Invasion is wrong they shouldn’t oppose it if they want to get a share in the booty ? That money is more important.
Like I said in the other thread… is this in the best interest of fixing the situation in Iraq ? Is this in the best interest of Iraqis ? NO.
A few things that stick out in my mind about this…
As I mentionned in the GD thread on the subject - I can certainly understand the US position on this. Their risk, their reward. I think it is petty and spiteful and doesn’t really serve the interest of the Iraqi people, but it’s the their ball and they can play with it as they like.
However, tell the US to be up front about it. These countries can’t bid because of “Security Concerns”? Yet are eligible for subcontracts? Security not an issue at the sub-contractor level? Huh? Do us a favour and just stick your tongue out at the ineligibles instead.
“Security Concerns”. Bah.
And, as a cynical note - do you honestly believe that should the bidding be open to everybody, the awarding of the contacts would not be skewed towards companies from the US anyways?
Apparently the “security concerns” bit is in there to satisfy our obligations to the WTO. The Bushies had to lie about it, or get slapped with a lawsuit over restraint of trade. Of course the EU understands this, and is contemplating taking the matter to court anyway.
So I guess I am wondering who is in charge.
The other thing that seems to be a problem is that if they used the security reason to stay legal with the WTO but then the bait and switch reason they give to us is the our dollars and our lives thingy. ( Somehow the 180 million Canada has given and the 40 Billion they want Russia to forgive and the 80 billion they want the EU to forgeve don’t count… but I digress)
As the French love to talk about being a “counterweight to the US hegemon,” I don’t think “security concerns” regarding the French are that hard to find. Of course, I’m not expecting French landing craft off Daytona Beach any time soon. What any of that has to do with, say, a French construction firm… Beats me.
As selfish as it looks for the US to exclude the French, or others that made big money off Saddams regime, for the French to come in with hand outstretched after refusing to provide but meager assistance is beyond the pale. They are the ones trying to cash in, yet the US is the bad guy. Whatever.
Every time I hear a Democratic candidate talk about how they are going to “engage our allies,” I laugh. Recently Hillary stealthily went to the right of the Bush Administration on the war. Brilliant! That proves that at least one Democrat has a working knowledge of modern history and the basic rules of political debate.