# 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:** 5
**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 12, 2003, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-us-limit-contracts-in-iraq-to-countries-that-supplied-troops/218203/81 "2003-12-12T02:20:03Z")
From The Toronto Star: [http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article\_Type1&col=968350116795&c=Article&cid=1071097809404&call\_pageid=968256290204](http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&col=968350116795&c=Article&cid=1071097809404&call_pageid=968256290204) > [@](#): > > Canada has earmarked $10 billion to carry our share of North America’s military defence and security after 9/11. Our troops fought and died in Afghanistan with our U.S. ally. Some 2,000 Canadian soldiers are in Kabul now, leading the force there. > > And Ottawa has budgeted $300 million directly to help rebuild Iraq, at Washington’s request. > > Yet that’s not enough for Bush, it seems. He demanded our moral acquiescence to his unnecessary war and now seeks our participation in an increasingly violent occupation. > > To this, Martin can have only one answer: Canadians won’t be browbeaten, bullied or bought. > > But nor should we react with Bush-style pettiness to this inept insult. > > Deputy Prime Minister John Manley suggests we may reconsider our $300 million aid. That would only hurt Iraqis, who have suffered enough. They don’t need a Canadian betrayal added to their misery. Let’s spend the money as planned. > > That said, Ottawa should feel no compulsion to send troops, police or other personnel to Iraq to help extricate Bush from the quagmire he has encountered there. Our partnership needn’t extend so far. > > And the next contribution Canada makes to Iraq’s rebuilding should be to a duly elected Iraqi government, not to a puppet regime run by people who can’t tell friends from foes. ---
**Author:** ![pantom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/34f0e0/32.png) [@pantom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pantom)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2003, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-us-limit-contracts-in-iraq-to-countries-that-supplied-troops/218203/82 "2003-12-12T02:21:15Z")
The real issue here is international law. Well, Ok, that and basic competence, as in you don’t simultaneously tell someone he ain’t gettin’ any of your future business and say to him at the same time “Could you just sorta forget what I owed ya?” Anyway, our latently talented Prez (long may his retirement last) actually said the following (this goes in the stuff you can’t make up file): > [@](#): > > Asked whether the exclusion of those countries from bidding on construction contracts violates international law, Bush said, “I don’t know what you’re talking about by international law. I better consult my lawyer.” link: [http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/12/11/sprj.irq.contracts/index.html](http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/12/11/sprj.irq.contracts/index.html) Compare & contrast to my new hero, President Grover Cleveland (thank you **gobear** ): > [@](#): > > The considerations that international law is without a court for its enforcement, and that obedience to its commands practically depends upon good faith, instead of upon the mandate of a superior tribunal, only give additional sanction to the law itself and brand any deliberate infraction of it not merely as a wrong **but as a disgrace.** Further comment would be superfluous. (Well, actually I have to note that I agree with everything **theR** posted.) ---
**Author:** ![pantom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/34f0e0/32.png) [@pantom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pantom)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2003, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-us-limit-contracts-in-iraq-to-countries-that-supplied-troops/218203/83 "2003-12-12T02:22:31Z")
Um, link: [http://www.civics-online.org/library/formatted/texts/hawaii\_cleve.html](http://www.civics-online.org/library/formatted/texts/hawaii_cleve.html) ---
**Author:** ![pantom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/34f0e0/32.png) [@pantom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pantom)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2003, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-us-limit-contracts-in-iraq-to-countries-that-supplied-troops/218203/84 "2003-12-12T02:24:28Z")
Actually, to be fair, it’s doubtlessly true that Bush the Unready had no freakin’ idea what international law is. ---
**Author:** ![GoHeels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b3f665/32.png) [@GoHeels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GoHeels)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2003, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-us-limit-contracts-in-iraq-to-countries-that-supplied-troops/218203/85 "2003-12-12T02:24:59Z")
Yes, **xtisme** , we do have to do business with these countries in the future. They also have to do business with us. Two-way street. I’m all for bridging the Trans-Atlantic Gap, but the excluded countries have to do something to earn OUR trust back, as well. If you want to take the TRUE long term view, it’s likely that these countries will eventually benefit from the emergence of a free Iraq. At this point, I don’t see how the excluded countries have done much of anything to really benefit the reconstruction besides offer smug criticism and chronic condescension. Don’t expect me to cry for TotalFinalElf, or for Chiraq and Schroeder. Not to mention, we need to allay eastern European fears of being overlooked in order to gain favor with the EU power center. Considering how those countries aided us when we needed them - as well as how we’re going to need them in the future - I think it’s prudent to take care of them, especially at the expense of our fickle allies. I’m sorry, but I’ve had enough placating of our fake “allies,” thank you. We didn’t get much respect - or help - when we needed them. Why should we go out of our way to help them? ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2003, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-us-limit-contracts-in-iraq-to-countries-that-supplied-troops/218203/86 "2003-12-12T02:27:29Z")
\*\* > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by glee \* > > 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… \*\* I’m not sure what you’re basing your statement on but as far as I’m concerned, I would award 90% of the money to GB. The only true friend to step up to the plate from day 1. Tony Blair’s political ideology is closer to Clinton’s than Bush’s so I never accepted the hype that they were bunkmates. * * * \*\* [QUOTE] \*Originally posted by Bouncer \* Is it possible that Bush et al… will use this as a negotiating tool re: the forgiving of debt? That is, is it possible they “created” a leverage point out of thin air for this purpose, since they had to think it likely that Russian/German/French companies would likely pick up at least some of the subcontracts anyways?\*\* Yes it is possible. It might explain the sudden desire to Kerry President Bush in the ass over steel tariffs. * * * \*\* [QUOTE] \*Originally posted by KidCharlemagne \* I’m not a Bushite but I’ll take a shot at this anyway. I believe a significant reason for the French, German, and Russian opposition to the Iraqi war was their interest in protecting existing or potential development/trade deals. Not only would I want to deny them deals out of principal but I would also want future deals to be given to those countries who have the motivation and capacity to protect them with force.\*\* Exactly. France has billions of dollars on the books with no dictator to back them up. I believe the Kurds said they would not do business with France if they weren’t going to help the war effort. Maybe it’s only so much talk but it expresses a sentiment. * * * \*\* [QUOTE] \*Originally posted by Apos \* 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?\*\* The “larger groups” you refer to are the citizens who protested (in their own country) against the war. These would be the same wage earners receiving American tax dollars from the contracts. **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.** If you want to inject cost effectiveness into the argument then it is FAR more effective to pay yourself to do a job than it is to pay your neighbor. Particularly if your neighbor already has a trade imbalance with you that’s in their favor. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2003, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-us-limit-contracts-in-iraq-to-countries-that-supplied-troops/218203/87 "2003-12-12T02:41:46Z")
Because we still need them, IMO. Again, my thought is, if you ASK someone to do something (like forgive Iraqi debt), you don’t then turn around and slap them on the face…not until AFTER they refuse. And lets be honest…thats exactly what this is. 18 billion dollars in CONTRACTS is not that big a deal. This COULD have all been handled quietly, but simply weighting bids from companies in countries that helped out higher than companies in countries that that didn’t. The acceptance process is obscure enough that no one would every have known. Instead, at the same time we go to these folks to ask them to forgive debt in Iraq (as well as for money and troops), we deliberatly slap them. To me, this is just not a smart play. I, too, am disappointed in what these countries have done. I suppose you do have a good case for anger there. Certainly this is a two sided street here, and if America isn’t really doing its part to bridge the gap, neither is Europe (the countries that opposed the war I mean). However, in the grand scheme of things, this 18 billion isn’t really THAT much. Why not try, one last time, to bridge the gap between us with this? It would be a good gesture on our part. If after doing that, Europe still refused to pony up real money in the rebuilding effort, if they still refused to committ troops to assist, if they still refused to forgive Iraqi debt…well, then I’d be with you. Fuck em. But I think that WE should make this gesture and THEN see what happens. After all, this thing is likely to drag on now for years of rebuilding…if the Europeans don’t want to play ball with us after we make the effort to bridge the gap, then they can suck wind after that for all I care. However, if we don’t make that effort, they are justified in continueing to give us the finger when we ask them to help out. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Milum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ea666f/32.png) [@Milum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Milum)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2003, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-us-limit-contracts-in-iraq-to-countries-that-supplied-troops/218203/88 "2003-12-12T02:42:20Z")
\*\* Mathus\*\* > [@](#): > > 'nuff said, you ignorant blowhard. Maybe not, goodbuddy, we will deside when enough is said… in Iraq and in foreign affairs in general. By the way, if you Canadians can ever see fit to stymie your holier-than-thou manner we might see fit to make Canada our 51st state. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2003, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-us-limit-contracts-in-iraq-to-countries-that-supplied-troops/218203/89 "2003-12-12T02:50:13Z")
And you know, I bet he wonders why everybody seems to dislike us so much. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2003, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-us-limit-contracts-in-iraq-to-countries-that-supplied-troops/218203/90 "2003-12-12T03:02:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by theR \* > \*\*This isn’t even the correct question to be asking at this point. Before you ask whether it’s right to exclude non-coalition countries, you need to ask why so few Iraqis are involved in rebuilding their own country. It’s fairly obvious to me, though many will disagree, that the US companies are more interested in making money than actually helping Iraq rebuild and leaving them in a situation in which they can eventually maintain their own infrastructure. > \*\* It is interesting that Halliburton is charging twice as much as would the Iraqi operators to deliver fuel to US forces. According to a “source” on CNN, a Halliburton rep said that the added cost is because of the need for “security.” Curious. Our military is providing security. In order for them to do this fuel is required. In order to get that fuel to those providing security, Halliburton says it has to spend a lot of extra money on security. Who’s on first? ---
**Author:** ![Hyperelastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Hyperelastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hyperelastic)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2003, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-us-limit-contracts-in-iraq-to-countries-that-supplied-troops/218203/91 "2003-12-12T03:04:35Z")
[Bush’s own business experience](http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/2675) taught him that investment, both public and private, is a plum to be awarded to favored cronies. Why would anyone be surprised at his latest antics? To the victor go the spoils. Just ask Halliburton and Bechtel. ---
**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 12, 2003, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-us-limit-contracts-in-iraq-to-countries-that-supplied-troops/218203/92 "2003-12-12T03:29:18Z")
**GoHeels** , if you believe in precedent, why ignore that Canada and other nations were right regarding the sorry evidence of WMD or the level of involvement of Iraq in the war on terror? It seems many are forgetting that a friend can be a pain some times: _It is one of the severest tests of friendship to tell your friend his faults. So to love a man that you cannot bear to see a stain upon him, and to speak painful truth through loving words, that is friendship. -Henry Ward Beecher:_ A good ally, like a good friend, will on occasion tell you a dumb move was folly, if the foolish friend then found the hard way those friends were right all along, going against them is something all right, but I would not call it friendship nor diplomacy. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2003, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-us-limit-contracts-in-iraq-to-countries-that-supplied-troops/218203/93 "2003-12-12T03:37:05Z")
> [@](#): > > Q The President did say – quote – “It’s very simple. Our people risk their lives. Coalition friendly folks risk their lives. And therefore, the contracting is going to reflect that.” > > MR. McCLELLAN: It does reflect that. It’s a nice way to – it’s also a nice way to honor the sacrifices and contributions – > > Q **It also includes a number of countries that did not risk lives.** > > MR. McCLELLAN: – and the contributions that are being made by coalition forces, and that are being made by the Iraqi people. The Iraqi people – Iraqi companies are eligible for these contracts. They’ve been very involved and they’re already receiving contracts to do more and more of the reconstruction work. > > Q **The list of countries eligible for primary contracts also includes a number of countries that did not risk lives in Iraq.** > > MR. McCLELLAN: They were part of the effort from the beginning. There were a variety of ways that people could signal their support or help in our efforts in Iraq. > > Q How do you define “from the beginning”? Because you keep repeating that. I mean, Canada is an example that actually lost troops in Afghanistan, contributed money in Iraq – [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/12/20031211-4.html](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/12/20031211-4.html) Has _anyone_ come across and adequate explanation for who’s on the list and who’s not? ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2003, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-us-limit-contracts-in-iraq-to-countries-that-supplied-troops/218203/94 "2003-12-12T03:45:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by David Simmons \* > \*\*It is interesting that Halliburton is charging twice as much as would the Iraqi operators to deliver fuel to US forces. According to a “source” on CNN, a Halliburton rep said that the added cost is because of the need for “security.” > > Curious. > > Our military is providing security. In order for them to do this fuel is required. In order to get that fuel to those providing security, Halliburton says it has to spend a lot of extra money on security. > > Who’s on first? \*\* HA HA HA, That’s funny. How much does your company charge to drive a gasoline tanker through a war zone? If you think you’re car insurance is high, think again. Look at the DHL plane that was hit by a missle in Bagdad to get an idea of what a tanker would look like. If you think Halliburton is making a ton of money then buy their stock. It would be a great time to do it because Halliburton’s stock is falling in a market that just topped 10,000 points in the DOW. Today it closed at $24.69. In 2000, Dick Cheney sold his shares of Halliburton when it was at $53 (not all his share options sold for that amount). ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2003, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-us-limit-contracts-in-iraq-to-countries-that-supplied-troops/218203/95 "2003-12-12T04:18:26Z")
Time to unleash my brilliant idea (again). Patriotic Republican Non-profits! How better to crush the lies and calumny about our “motives” than by our patriotic corporations, who’s every breath is devoted to the well-being of our nation, undertaking such daunting tasks on a cost-only basis! At the very least, shouldn’t we also rebuke those corporations who have shown a lack of zeal for our noble endeavor? Didn’t Sen. Wellstone propose something very much like that, forbidding defense contracts for those who duck thier taxes? Wonder what happened to that idea, you’d think those patriotic Republicans would be feverishly positive over such a suggestion. Our own house in order. And all that. ---
**Author:** ![Bouncer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/9d8465/32.png) [@Bouncer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bouncer)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2003, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-us-limit-contracts-in-iraq-to-countries-that-supplied-troops/218203/96 "2003-12-12T04:29:29Z")
“Furthermore, the fact is, the U.S. better start kissing eastern European countries’ asses ASAP (subscription required, but you can read the opening paragraph). Some of these countries are grumbling that they haven’t gotten the recognition (read “spoils”) they deserve. If putting them on the “A” list is what’s needed (at the expense of Paris/Berlin/Moscow), I’m fine with that.” -GoHeels You’re thinking backwards (no offense). These countries are desperate FOR a US military base in their territory. We’re not having to provide inducements, they’re basically begging us to come there. You have to remember that a US military base is a miniture economy that costs the host nation very little, provides quite a few local jobs and cash injections into the economy. It’s worth anywhere from an average of 100 million dollars a year on up for a decent sized base. They need lots of infrastructure and support and they pay for it. Then they move their familes there. Then they start buying on the economy. Germany is very quietly upset as all hell that US bases there are closing as the US presence there is worth over 3 billion dollars a year to their economy (down from 10B a year in 1985). Rammestein AFB by itself generates a billion euro a year for the local economy. Granted, it’s not a budget buster for Germany but 2 billion + is a slice out of anyone’s economy, especially when things are shaky enough to begin with and it has a ripple effect throught the region. More to the point, that’s now money that will end up in Poland, or Romania or Bulgaria or other former eastern bloc and African nations where it will have a lot of impact. The dollar buys more there (in terms of labor etc) and they have smaller economies to begin with. As well, the start up costs will provide a large cash infusion into the local economies as a whole lot of local infrastructure is needed to support a military base. It also provides instant stability and credibility for the governments that are becoming NATO members. If you’re a small African country you have got to know that having a few thousand US troops in country keeps all your neighbors from getting stupid about some border dispute. It also, and this is important, gives these smaller countries more ears in Washington to talk to. That is very important to them. Finally, as always, a US military presence means the local country can afford to spend less on their own defense. It is precisely that 50 years of US defense umbrella which allowed so many european countries to spend far less than they should have on their own militaries and create the social welfare states that exist now. We’ve been paying to provide protection for them. Hell, Iceland \*\* protested \*\* the US withdrawing it’s fighter squadron from Keflavik. When a DoD official visited Sao Tome and Principe last year, the Sao Tome government claimed that the country had an agreement with the United States to build a port in the country just off of that visit. Make no mistake, these countries are courting the US military presence, not the other way around. Regards, -Bouncer- ---
**Author:** ![Bouncer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/9d8465/32.png) [@Bouncer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bouncer)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2003, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-us-limit-contracts-in-iraq-to-countries-that-supplied-troops/218203/97 "2003-12-12T04:32:20Z")
Squink, I’d be willing to bet that the list mirrors closely “The Coalition of The Willing” list. 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 12, 2003, 7:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-us-limit-contracts-in-iraq-to-countries-that-supplied-troops/218203/98 "2003-12-12T07:29:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by pantom \* > **The real issue here is international law.** OK. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3307641.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3307641.stm) ---
**Author:** ![notquitekarpov](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/71c47a/32.png) [@notquitekarpov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/notquitekarpov)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2003, 7:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-us-limit-contracts-in-iraq-to-countries-that-supplied-troops/218203/99 "2003-12-12T07:47:38Z")
Bouncer. You are talking total bullshit. USD3 bn to the Germans - a rounding error. Don’t make me crack up laughing! Maybe the Central Asians are sucking up but you really do not know what you are talking about if you think US bases are a real draw back in Europe. Sao Tome? Iceland? I’m cracking up! Find some real evidence that countries that matter, the French or the Germans - or the Spanish or British or Italians (last three ‘willing members’) have been or will be influenced by such irrelevances as US bases and come back when you have. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2003, 7:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-us-limit-contracts-in-iraq-to-countries-that-supplied-troops/218203/100 "2003-12-12T07:52:55Z")
Guys, the Canada thing is false. [Canada not excluded from Iraq business](http://canada.com/national/story.asp?id=8F6C1ABD-80EB-4D25-93BE-16647612DC78) > [@](#): > > OTTAWA – U.S. President George W. Bush is grateful for help in the war on terrorism and is ‘‘working’’ to include Canada in hefty contracts to help rebuild Iraq, he said in a farewell phone call to retiring Prime Minister Jean Chretien. > > ‘‘He thanked me for what we’re doing in Afghanistan and for the offer of money in the reconstruction of Iraq,’’ Chretien told a news conference Thursday. > > ‘‘As for the news in the newspapers stating that Canada would be excluded from economic activities in Iraq, the president assured me that this was not the case, and that he would be taking action,’’ Chretien said. ''And so I thanked him. > > ‘‘We are still good friends.’’ [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-us-limit-contracts-in-iraq-to-countries-that-supplied-troops/218203.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-us-limit-contracts-in-iraq-to-countries-that-supplied-troops/218203.md?page=6)