# Should the US limit contracts in Iraq to countries that supplied troops? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 10, 2003, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-us-limit-contracts-in-iraq-to-countries-that-supplied-troops/218203 "2003-12-10T21:31:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2003, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-us-limit-contracts-in-iraq-to-countries-that-supplied-troops/218203/21 "2003-12-11T02:50:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Aldebaran \* > \*\*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 \*\* Am I to understand that you acknowledge the right of Saddam to rule by force, and that, in itself, makes Iraq a sovereign nation? His own people tried to rise up against him at least twice. 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. ---
**Author:** ![furlibusea](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/aca169/32.png) [@furlibusea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furlibusea)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2003, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-us-limit-contracts-in-iraq-to-countries-that-supplied-troops/218203/22 "2003-12-11T02:52:39Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2003, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-us-limit-contracts-in-iraq-to-countries-that-supplied-troops/218203/23 "2003-12-11T02:56:41Z")
Here’s the list of eligible nations from Wolfowitz’s directive: ```auto 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? ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2003, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-us-limit-contracts-in-iraq-to-countries-that-supplied-troops/218203/24 "2003-12-11T02:58:22Z")
It happens, **furlibusea** , not a huge deal. But, you are welcome to email a moderator if you want to change the title to something more descriptive, which will draw in more people who are interested in the topic. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2003, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-us-limit-contracts-in-iraq-to-countries-that-supplied-troops/218203/25 "2003-12-11T03:04:05Z")
Not one penny for the Frogs and the Krauts while Halliburton still stands! ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2003, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-us-limit-contracts-in-iraq-to-countries-that-supplied-troops/218203/26 "2003-12-11T03:13:11Z")
**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: > [@](#): > > Q In the case of Canada, Canada contributed troops to Afghanistan, lost troops in Afghanistan in an accident by U.S. troops, which politically made it very difficult for them to contribute to Iraq. And they’re being punished for not being able to provide – > > MR. McCLELLAN: In the war on terrorism, there are a lot of countries participating in those efforts, and we appreciate that. > > There is a very large coalition of countries across the world that are fighting the war on terrorism and making sacrifices. There were – there was a decision made by coalition forces on Iraq and there are a number of countries that have been helping from the beginning. This cannot be remarked enough: for this administration the beginning of the Iraq war is not considered a continuation to the war on terror! All sacrifices Canada gave to us in Afghanistan are invalid to be considered in the Iraq case! I bet this concession that Iraq began something else will whoosh over the “liberal media”. > [@](#): > > There are a number of countries that have been sacrificing on the ground in defense of freedom and in an effort to build a better and safer world. And we’re talking just about the U.S. taxpayer funding here, which is a significant amount of money from the U.S. taxpayers. As an American taxpayer, I gave a better reply to this on the pit, so I still think this is childish behavior for a supposedly grown up administration. 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. ---
**Author:** ![China\_Guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/779978/32.png) [@China\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/China_Guy)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2003, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-us-limit-contracts-in-iraq-to-countries-that-supplied-troops/218203/27 "2003-12-11T03:13:46Z")
This is colonialism and imperialism, not nation building. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2003, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-us-limit-contracts-in-iraq-to-countries-that-supplied-troops/218203/28 "2003-12-11T03:23:58Z")
> [@](#): > > Goheels wrote: > 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. The distinction exists only in the eye of the beholder. It’s tax money raised like any other tax money-- from the American people. It comes out of the same Treasury. > [@](#): > > 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). Perhaps we could let the Iraqi people decide that themselves. ---
**Author:** ![Blown\_Injected](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a87d85/32.png) [@Blown\_Injected](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blown_Injected)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2003, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-us-limit-contracts-in-iraq-to-countries-that-supplied-troops/218203/29 "2003-12-11T04:39:57Z")
It is called freeloading! When is that a good thing? ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2003, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-us-limit-contracts-in-iraq-to-countries-that-supplied-troops/218203/30 "2003-12-11T04:53:05Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by GIGObuster \* > \*\* It would have stopped many anti-US talking points the opposition in the ME is using to get people against us._\* Puhleeze. Like Joe Iraqi cares which multinational fixes the sewer system. \*\* > [@](#): > > The Canada snub showed once again that the administration does acknowledge Iraq was not related to the war on terror:\*\* Double puhleeze. Find that said explicitly anywhere. You’re puting one one off-the-cuff comment by a spokesman over numerous policy statements and prepared speeches? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2003, 5:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-us-limit-contracts-in-iraq-to-countries-that-supplied-troops/218203/31 "2003-12-11T05:04:00Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2003, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-us-limit-contracts-in-iraq-to-countries-that-supplied-troops/218203/32 "2003-12-11T05:07:55Z")
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. > [@](#): > > 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. Which translates to: not much scrutiny at all, not much interest by the American pubic, and, of course, as little requirements for public disclosure as possible. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2003, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-us-limit-contracts-in-iraq-to-countries-that-supplied-troops/218203/33 "2003-12-11T05:16:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by furt \* > **Puhleeze. Like Joe Iraqi cares which multinational fixes the sewer system.** I am not talking about Joe Iraqi, but the future, supposedly independent, rulers of Iraq, and obviously the current and future leaders of the opposition and surrounding countries. > [@](#): > > \*\*Double puhleeze. Find that said explicitly anywhere. You’re puting one one off-the-cuff comment by a spokesman over numerous policy statements and prepared speeches? \*\* IMO the war on terror was supposed to be focused on the perpetrators of 9/11, and other criminals planning to do attacks on the US, Iraq was at best a third level target. [http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/no-saddam-qaeda.htm](http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/no-saddam-qaeda.htm) ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2003, 5:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-us-limit-contracts-in-iraq-to-countries-that-supplied-troops/218203/34 "2003-12-11T05:37:34Z")
WHOOPS, I left **Colombia** and **Spain** off the list of favored countries. They are included. ---
**Author:** ![Blown\_Injected](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a87d85/32.png) [@Blown\_Injected](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blown_Injected)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2003, 6:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-us-limit-contracts-in-iraq-to-countries-that-supplied-troops/218203/35 "2003-12-11T06:01:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Apos \* > \*\*Extremely childish. > > It’s no secret who this policy gives an advantage too: . \*\* What is childish is the lesson most children have learned by the time they have watched half a season of the Andy Griffith Show: You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Yeah, it gives an advantage to those that DESERVE IT. ---
**Author:** ![Bouncer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/9d8465/32.png) [@Bouncer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bouncer)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2003, 6:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-us-limit-contracts-in-iraq-to-countries-that-supplied-troops/218203/36 "2003-12-11T06:01:54Z")
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- ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2003, 6:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-us-limit-contracts-in-iraq-to-countries-that-supplied-troops/218203/37 "2003-12-11T06:04:25Z")
**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. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by GIGObuster \* > \*\*I am not talking about Joe Iraqi, but the future, supposedly independent, rulers of Iraq, and obviously the current and future leaders of the opposition and surrounding countries. \*\* Fine. I fail to see how anyone in the ME is going to change their impression of the US becuase TotalFinaElf gets shut out of oil deals. If anything, I’d think they’d be pissed at the countries/nations that 1) actively traded with Saddam and 2) opposed the war that led to his ouster. I linked to an article in the pit thread where one of the GC members said just that. > [@](#): > > \*\*IMO the war on terror was supposed to be focused on the perpetrators of 9/11, \*\* Fine. My point was that that the admin has always said Iraq is part of WOT, and nothing has changed because of one badly phrased sentence. Whether you accept their claims is another issue. But trying to find “what they really mean” by parsing out every sentence is silly. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Apos_ > First of all, what do firms of a particular nationality necessarily have to do with the policies of their country? … Why is a blanket policy based on nationality reasonable? Because corporations are citizens of their nations and influence the government. Is it the equivalent of racism for a nation to give its citizens more rights than non-citizens? As an American, if I were to try to do business in a European country, I will often find it a more difficult and complicated process than if I were from another European nation. Should I be personally offended because Sweden has closer ties with France than they do with the my country, thus making my life harder? Are they racist? More to the point, am I not more likely to tell my government that we should we should pursue closer ties with Sweden? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2003, 6:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-us-limit-contracts-in-iraq-to-countries-that-supplied-troops/218203/38 "2003-12-11T06:30:35Z")
Bold move? Prepared? I would called dumb and ill-equipped: > **[A REGION INFLAMED: DIPLOMACY; BUSH SEEKS HELP OF ALLIES BARRED FROM IRAQ...](https://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/11/world/a-region-inflamed-diplomacy-bush-seeks-help-of-allies-barred-from-iraq-deals.html)** > > Pres Bush calls leaders of France, Germany and Russia to ask them to forgive Iraq's debts, just day after Pentagon excludes those countries and others from $18 billion in American-financed Iraqi reconstruction projects; policy of limiting contracts... > [@](#): > > President Bush found himself in the awkward position on Wednesday of calling the leaders of France, Germany and Russia to ask them to forgive Iraq’s debts, just a day after the Pentagon excluded those countries and others from $18 billion in American-financed Iraqi reconstruction projects. > > White House officials were fuming about the timing and the tone of the Pentagon’s directive, even while conceding that they had approved the Pentagon policy of limiting contracts to 63 countries that have given the United States political or military aid in Iraq. Thanks to **elucidator** for posting the news on the Pit! ---
**Author:** ![Urban\_Ranger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Urban\_Ranger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Urban_Ranger)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2003, 6:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-us-limit-contracts-in-iraq-to-countries-that-supplied-troops/218203/39 "2003-12-11T06:34:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Matchka \* > There is absoloutely no way in hell anyone should be granted a fat contract for Iraq if they didn’t join in the hunt! Does the US own Iraq? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2003, 6:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-us-limit-contracts-in-iraq-to-countries-that-supplied-troops/218203/40 "2003-12-11T06:45:40Z")
[Hey you! Stop asking questions!](http://www.cafeshops.com/warposter.3035315?zoom=yes#zoom) 🙂 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-us-limit-contracts-in-iraq-to-countries-that-supplied-troops/218203.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-us-limit-contracts-in-iraq-to-countries-that-supplied-troops/218203.md?page=3)