Sounds exactly like what the USA has been doing for decades. Not only that but it helped install the dictators in the first place. Where do you want to start? Chile? Argentina? Bolivia? Have you ever heard of Generalissimo Franco? How about China? Need we go on?
Like… like the money lent to the brutal regimes in Brazil, Argentina and most Latin American countries ? We still owe the US and the 1st world a lot of that money. Seems the US isn’t so different from their 1st world buddies is it ? Never mind that the US did support Saddam…
You won’t get any argument from me.
I’ve said before here that I don’t think victims of oppression should be held responsible for debts their dictators incur. Perhaps if enough new democracies renounced these debts nations wouldn’t be so quick to loan dictators money.
This just sounds like total BS.
Sailor: Now, don’t take this wrong. I also agree that this miraculous document is suspicious. But I just wanted to say that the death of Abu Nidal supports the claim, rather than refuting it. It’s absolutely consistent with Saddam’s MO that he might have had Nidal killed precisely because he couldn’t afford any witnesses to the training of Atta.
There has been a lot of speculation as to why Nidal, who has been safely ensconced in Iraq for a long time, would suddenly be assassinated by the regime. If this document turned out to be correct, it would be a perfectly plausible reason.
Wait a minute. I thought the conventional wisdom was that the exclusion of certain countries from the bid list would have a negative effect on those countries who claim Iraq owes them money.
Why are the French now sending out conciliatory trial balloons?
Could it be the prospect of some rather embarrassing revelations about a cozy relationship with a certain dictator now in American custody prodded this signal from our favorite recalcitrant “ally?”
Nah, couldn’t be that, could it?
I doubt it... and I am mystified why anyone would try reconciling with childish Bush Jr... maybe they really care about Iraq ? The french have tried conciliation for months now... with the US playing hard head.Rashak Mani:
[QUOTE]
…maybe they really care about Iraq ? [\QUOTE]
:rolleyes:
Um, sure, Rashak Mani, whatever you say.
As Sam Stone said,
Indeed. And it’s very revealing.
Well do you really think Bush cares about Iraq ? Its not that hard to imagine the also self serving french do the same ?
I find it quite baffling how much natiionalistic propaganda drivel can fit into one post.
That Germany and France had refused to help in reconstruction is nothing but a plain and simple lie. As for Germany and France arming Iraq, the case is moot in Germany, due to a different government in place, and largely dual-use equipment being provided. What you forget, however, is that most of these deals happened because Rumsfeld and Cie pressured European governments, who, during Cold War times, were very receptive to such pressure, to help their good buddy Saddam.
Your claim that the US did not arm Saddam is another blatant lie. There is no benign use for chlostridium botulinum strands that favor a human host over others.
Your claim that the second resolution was torpedoed unilaterally by France is another lie. France specified conditions, and France was not the only permanent member opposed to it.
Try getting a grasp of the real world. I find it baffling that you think you will be applauded for not considering any treaty whatsoever binding.
Could it be that you are willing to believe anything nasty about France, whether it has any basis in fact or not?
Na, couldn’t be that.
OliverH
Based on some of the posts I’ve seen from you, I might ask you the same question about the U.S.
But since you asked, I think France is lovely (I’ve visited there five times). I think by and large the French people are warm and inviting, and the stereotype of the “rude Parisian” is rather unfair, based on my own experiences.
Paris is a little expensive for my tastes, but there’s nothing like the thrill of seeing the Louvre, the Eiffel Tower, the Champs Elysees, etc. And I truly fell in love with the French countryside and its inhabitants - there’s not a more beautiful spot on earth, and includes some of the most gracious people I’ve ever met.
I respectfully ask you not to lump me in with the cretins who yammer about freedom fries and “Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys.”
But we aren’t talking about the French (or German, or Russian) people. This thread is about the behavior of the French, German, and Russian governments, which has run the gamut from “unhelpful” to “disgraceful.” Based on this behavior, I think it was entirely appropriate to exclude companies from these nations to bid on the Iraq reconstruction projects - they haven’t done anything to deserve to be on the list.
To me, the ball is in these countries’ courts: Let these countries offer some concrete proposals on restructuring (or forgiving) the debt, and then I’ll support their inclusion on the list.
Until then, no way.
Totally off topic but…why “Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys.”?? I understand where ‘surrender monkeys’ comes from (though my own reading of history says this is a bullshit over simplifications), but why ‘cheese eating’?? I mean, don’t MOST Europeans (and Americans too) eat cheese? I thought they were specifically adapted to eating of dairy products (like cheese) and did so frequently. Why would the French be singled out? Or is this some pun in English I’m missing?
-XT
I think I am beginning to get it:
France sticks to something which the USA does not like. Analysis: France is petty and vindictive and does not care shit about the welfare of the Iraqi people.
France does something which the USA does not quite dislike. Analysis: They only did it because they were forced by circumstances and, especially, by the firm stand of the US.
The USA does something which will make cooperation with the French impossible and therefore will harm the reconstruction efforts. Analysis: The French deserve it all and more; it is their just reward for their evil behavior and what if it harms the Iraqis? Who cares about the Iraqis anyway?
Yeah, I think I am getting it.
Of course you might. You might do so to give another demonstration of how your are selectively reading to confirm your opinion rather than assessing facts.
That’s all nice and fine, but I LIVED in the US for over three years. If you really saw my posts, surely you must have noted that my location read ‘Dallas, TX’ until early this year?
The fact that you consider their behavior unhelpful or disgraceful is not a ledger for anything. And last I checked, people don’t need to ‘deserve’ to offer a bid (unless, in some jurisdictions, they violated a law directly related to the offering of bids, such as bribery). Maybe you get your act together on what you want to do: Loot the Iraqi coffers or help the Iraqi people. If it is the latter, then there is no justification whatsoever to exclude anyone on political grounds. If the deal by German or French companies is better, even it is just better for the Iraqis, then that should be the way to go if this is about helping the Iraqis. If it is about economic colonizations by means of locking Iraqi infrastructure to US norms, then, hey, go ahead, but at least say so openly.
Aside from that, I am not sure in what way you find it disgraceful for nations to comply with their constitution, or with the international treaties they signed.
So what you say is that while the US is allowed to reap material profit from something actually claimed to be an act of necessity, and selflessness, others are required to lose money for the sheer fact that they abided by the law.
Precisely what is your justification for that? What price has a human life for you? What you are doing is no more and no less than trading human lives for money, and at the same time peeing on the graves of the German and French soldiers who died in Aghanistan (not quite sure if French soldiers died, but German definitely). What you are saying is that in order for the US to abide by international law, other nations have to violate it, and violate their most fundamental principles.
I ask you again: What is disgraceful about abiding by the law? Why do people have to violate it to qualify for an invitation to bid that allegedly is solely in the interest of the Iraqi people?
Once the US has rebuilt all the infrastructure it has destroyed, a lot of which was built by German NGOs just prior to the war, you might be able to point at others. As long as people die in Iraq due to a lack of that very same infrastructure, as long as Germans are teaching Iraqis how to get by with what they have and filter the water from rivers the water of which are so contaminated with bacteria even their own sheep refuse to drink it, it is your attitude that is disgraceful. Because it belies the claims of acting in the interest of the Iraqis, and demonstrates the sheer desire for material profit.
You don’t care that US companies are ripping off both the taxpayer, by charging exaggerated prices, and the Iraqis, by doing shoddy work, such as ‘renovating’ a school by simply painting everything, only to have a kid fall down from the balcony a few days later because the railing gave way (as reported by either German ‘Die Zeit’ or Swiss ‘Neue Zuricher Zeitung’, I forgot which one.
Do you really care about the Iraqis? Or do you care about how much Bechtel brings home from this endeavour?
Oliver:
And once again, I might say the same thing about you. YMMV.
I thought your location was Germany, but my apologies for not noticing your Dallas location. Nevertheless, I’m not sure what that has to do with my positive feelings about France and its people.
Fine. And I’m sure you’d have no problem if say, Halliburton or Bechtel or whoever had the expertise and capability to deliver the best work for the Iraqi people. What would your stance be then?
Now who’s doing the selective reading, Oliver?
What I said was that the excluded countries are more than a little hypocritical whining about being excluded from the “spoils” when they insist on making the Iraqi people bear the brunt of the debt - debt that occurred as a result of deals with Saddam that propped up his dictatorship. If Germany, France, and Russia were to restructure (or forgive) this debt, I’d have no problem including them on the eligible countries list. I also think America should immediately forgive the debt Iraq owes it.
Do I think America has clean hands with the concept of odious debt? Of course not, and I think sailor was right when he mentioned some of the crap we did in Latin America and South America. I’m a strong believer in the morality and enlightened self-interest of debt forgiveness.
Personally, what I would like to see is Iraqi firms (and Iraqi workers) getting a disproportionate share of the projects they are capable of performing (even if that means the job is not quite up to Western standards), so that the charges of American “profiteering” are not so palpable.
I am extremely grateful for France and Germany’s contribution in Afghanistan. I have a buddy of mine who came back from Afghanistan a while back who said he doubted the effort over there would be nearly as effective without the French and German troops.
But let there be no doubt that these nations - just like the U.S. - are there ultimately for their self-interest, not because they have an abiding love for the Afghan people. Your attempt to hijack the moral high ground - and characterize me as someone who “pees” on the efforts of these guys - is ridiculous and offensive.
Please. I don’t object to nations who supposedly are America’s “allies” not supporting the war in Iraq. Every nation has to think very carefully, determine its interests, before submitting itself to military action. If you read this entire thread, you may have noticed that I wrote:
But as we know, that’s not what happened. France did everything it could - pressure foreign governments, court world opinion, isolate the U.S., embarrass Colin Powell, prevent air defenses from being stationed in Turkey, etc. to stop the war. France didn’t just object to the war; they schemed and lied to America’s face.
My position is that considering the behavior of France prior to and during the war, it’s pretty clear France is not an ally of the U.S. Not an enemy, but certainly not an ally. And I think the U.S. should acknowledge this reality and deal with France accordingly.
Before you state this as though it’s a fact, you’re going to have to show me a credible cite proving that the current state of the Iraqi infrastructure was due to American military actions, and not to the neglect of the Saddam regime, or the UN sanctions. Until you do, I reject the validity of this sentence.
And you might be able to point your self-righteous finger at the U.S. when those nations holding debt - and who were the primary arms suppliers to Saddam - and who preferred the “Butcher of Baghdad” remain in power - start helping Iraq, at least more than you have.
The contributions at Madrid from France and Germany were insulting and showed that these nations don’t give a crap about the Iraqi people. Members of the IGC who were in Madrid indicated that French and German miserliness wouldn’t be forgotten (see my previous cite).
a) See my remark above that objects to Canada being left off the list
b) See my remark above that calls for Iraqi firms (and workers) to get the disproportionate share of the projects
c) See my remark earlier in the thread calling Halliburton to task for alleged price gouging.
Whatever. Until France and Germany and Russia forgive the odious debt, they have no right to claim moral superiority.
pantom,
I suspect that there are no Iraqi corporations as Prime contractors for a few specific reasons. I don’t claim that these are all the reasons, but they are the ones that pop into my head.
-
Defense and Government contracting is a very complicated machine. It’s not so much politics as much as it is the regulations put in place to protect the taxpayer. You can’t simply “give” a Prime contract to a foreign corporation that is being funded by US taxpayer dollars. It just doesn’t work that way. There are a lot of hoops that have to be jumped through, and the contracts have to be audited by the US Government. That’s difficult if the Prime doesn’t have their HQ in the US.
-
You run into security concerns in general and of course there are more concerns in Iraq in that dept than normal, both physical security and protection from fraud, waste & abuse. Depending on the contracting involved, the foreign nationals may be around sensitive or even classified areas. These people all have to be screened before they can work, which means the Prime has to be “rated” at a certain classification level. Difficult to do with any foreign company, and as a practical matter impossible to do with an Iraqi company in such a short period of time. In a few years, maybe, in a few months? No.
-
One thing that really isn’t being mentioned is that it’s basically against the regulations and criteria as they’re set up to make ANY foreign company a Prime IF there is an American company with the same expertise. That’s one of the things that makes Wolfowitz’s memo humorous to those of us on the inside of the contracts process. There was nary a hope in hell of them ever being the Prime anyways, especially not on anything military or defense related. It’s not to say that it CAN’T happen, just that the likelyhood was really pretty low. At the end of the day the US wants an American corporation who can be held criminally/civilly liable in an American court. And of course you have to be bonded, you have to be insured, you have to have done similar work of the same scope in the past few years, blah blah blah 700 more criteria that lock out a lot of companies. Especially non-US ones.
In truth, a lot of the work, especially labor, ** will ** be done by Iraqis. The Prime will take their slice for admining the whole thing and keeping the paperwork in order. But the bulk of the money will flow through them and onto various Iraqi companies. It gets political because in this instance, you want to reward co-operating tribes and groups (but not too much, and not too obviously). Do I think any Tikrit or Sunni Triangle based companies with ties to troublemaking Imams will see a lot of work? Probably not. OTOH, they can’t afford to feed the tribal and regional rivalries too much.
It’s a complex issue as you can see. In broad terms it sounds like Bush is making some dramatic move to reward allies and punish those who aren’t. But in truth, they’re simply using something that was mostly inevitable anyways as a political hammer. The real money is down in the weeds We know it, the French know it, the Brits know it and the Germans too. What we’re ** really ** trying to influence (in my view) is all the subcontracts, by using them as a carrot versus debt rescheduling or relief.
Regards,
-Bouncer-
My stance is that bids should be compared, not assumptions be made.
This is hypocritical as long as Iraqi oil is used to fill the coffers of US companies. Not to mention that the condition to be included explicitly has NOT been restructuring the debts, but rather providing human shields for US soldiers incompetent in dealing with a civilian population.
The US has the OBLIGATION to restore infrastructure at least to pre-war levels, and no right whatsoever to use Iraqi funds for that.
Look, it might be incomprehensible for you, but Germany has an army that is actually pretty small, and deliberately so. It is already now stretched thin across the planet, not the least with the specific intent to relieve US troops so Bush can fight his private little wars wherever he wants to fight them. Germany was, until very recently, patrolling the Horn of Africa.
Plus, the German army is to no small degree composed of young guys doing their pretty short military service. These guys are only sent abroad voluntarily, and can barely be fully trained in the time they do.
As such, Germany has a limited number of men available to fulfill military tasks. And to support a decision which amounts to demanding more men IS scoffing at what has already been done.
That is complete and utter hogwash, sorry. The US blackmailed countries into supporting them, and you have problems with France trying to convince that their position is more reasonable?
France EMBARASSED Colin Powell? Let me tell you this: Nothing embarassed Colin Powell more than the speech he gave in the security council. There is little more embarassing than to lie to the world. It is pretty ridiculous to claim the French schemed and lied to America’s face when it is the US who has been unmasked as having advocated a position that was founded on NOTHING but lies.
My position is that a criminal calling the cop dishonest is about the most ridiculous position one could adopt.
You seriously want to claim that US military action did not destroy any infrastructure?
Infrastructure destroyed due to UN sanctions? You gonna have to explain that. Given that plenty of organisations were working to build up Iraqi infrastructure prior to the war, it is somewhat weird that you would claim that UN sanctions destroyed it, when, in fact, while the sanctions were in place, their state was improving.
YOU are making the far-fetched claim. I merely need to point to AIPN and other organisations working on the Iraqi power- and water-distribution systems prior to the war. Organisations that now have cut down their operations, because thanks to the US, they have to fear for their lives.
You might have a point if your statements were true. Unfortunately, they are little more than propaganda. They are in complete ignorance of actual positions held. No one would have preferred Saddam to remain in power. Arms were not supplied with the sanction of the current German government, which, in fact, has been prosecuting even deals by foreign subsidiaries selling products that theoretically could be altered to have a military use but are solidly in the civilian sector. As for primary arms suppliers, you conveniently neglect that it was Rumsfeld who was shopping in Europe for Saddam, and that it was the US which sponsored his bioweapons program.
It is pretty silly to cite members of the IGC at a point where every word they say is practically proofread by the US, their sovereing power is nil, and they exist merely by the grace of the US. Several of the members of the IGC are soundly rejected by the Iraqi public.
But hey, I assume bombing kids is an expressing for caring about the locals nowadays?
Whatever. It is obvious that you think that the US is the only nation whose interests are relevant to any extent, and that no other nation, not even the Iraqis, have a right to see their interests met. Forgiving the debt has precious little real world effect. If Iraqi infrastructure were actually working and the country could sell its oil at a regular rate, and if the profits would not be used to fill the coffers of campaign contributors of US politicians, they could repay the debt in a breeze. As such, forgiving the debt would be nothing but a gesture. Fact is that far from all of the money was used for military means, or the private enjoyment of Saddam. But obviously, while the US is entitled to profit from its rebuilding Iraq, no one else is.
How is the US reaping a material profit? The money that’s going to be spent for these contracts was US money in the first place. If Bill Gates goes to the store and buys a copy of Windows XP, it’s not like he just made himself richer by doing so. Maybe it’s cutting his losses by a bit, but the result is still a net loss in cash.
Maybe I’m misunderstanding something here, but it’s not like the US is dipping money out of Iraq’s treasury to finance this. It’s using its own cash right? The end result is still going to be less cash in the US government’s coffers, no matter who it uses.
Oliver:
Show me proof that Iraqi oil is being used to fill the coffers of US companies (a disinterested cite would be nice, not something from A.N.S.W.E.R., DemocraticUnderground, or MoveOn). As it stands now, since the infrastructure used to extract and export oil is decrepit, Iraqi oil isn’t really filling ANYBODY’S coffers right now. Hopefully, this will change as the infrastructure improves.
As far as comparing actual soldiers to human shields, I think you might get an argument from those Polish soldiers (who, unlike human shields, actually carry guns) currently serving.
Considering that the U.S. is sending around $18 billion of its OWN MONEY to finance the reconstruction (~ $87 billion in all), this charge of using Iraqi funds (what Iraqi funds are you talking about, anyway?) is ludicrous.
Of course we have the obligation to restore infrastructure to pre-war levels. I think the U.S. is going to go above and beyond that, though.
Look, Oliver, as I said earlier in this thread (if you had bothered reading it), I’m resigned to the fact that Germany and France won’t be sending troops. I’m confident the Pentagon has accepted this, as well.
I also think American politicians campaigning against Bush are being disingenuous when they say they want to “internationalize” the occupation. As you said, Germany is stretched thin with its own commitments, and it’s pretty much politically impossible – considering the anti-war stance of their populations – for Germany and France and Russia to send actual troops.
As I also said earlier in my response to you, I GREATLY APPRECIATE the contribution of troops from Germany and France in Afghanistan. That may be incomprehensible to YOU, but I do. Thank you very much, hugs and kisses to our good friends, the wonderful French and Germans, OK?
FRENCH AND GERMAN TROOPS IN IRAQ ARE NOT THE ISSUE, and I never said their non-presence in Iraq is what I hold against these nations. Once again, Oliver, I would direct you to my objection to Canada being left off the list of eligible countries, despite the fact it has no troops in Iraq.
But I don’t think you really care. I think you’re just being deliberately obtuse.
I prefer to view France’s stance as consistent with its policy of trying to “counterbalance” the U.S. (examples of which I listed in my response to Hector the Barbarian).
I suppose you can argue that the U.S. blackmailed countries into supporting them, and I can argue that France actively worked to keep Saddam in power.
As far as what Colin Powell said, I’ll reserve judgment for now. Considering the story in London Telegraph that Sam Stone proffered, and that the U.S. now has the opportunity to potentially uncover a treasure trove of information from Saddam, I’ll wait and see, thank you very much.
And my position is that the “cop” was dirty, considering that the “cop” had a fundamental economic stake in keeping the “mob boss” in power.
Again, I never said this. What I did say was that the current state of the Iraqi infrastructure had much more to do with a) the deliberate neglect of the Saddam-led Baathist regime to upgrade the infrastructure and b) the result of UN sanctions than with the U.S. military action.
Furthermore, I challenged you to actually show me proof (in the form of a credible cite) that the decrepit state of Iraq’s infrastructure was solely the result of U.S. military action before I would accept the premise of this sentence you wrote:
Of course, you didn’t produce this proof, which isn’t surprising.
Ask and ye shall receive:
Yeah, tell the 500,000 kids who died due to UN sanctions that their state was improving. It is the height of absurdity to claim that the sanctions didn’t hurt the overall state of Iraq. Do I excuse American complicity in the imposition of UN sanctions? – NO! Do I excuse French, German, and Russian complicity in the sanctions? – NO! The whole damn world - and Saddam Hussein - is to blame.
Could have fooled me. France, Germany and Russia seemed to try awfully hard to prevent the war that was the sole means of deposing him. If you can think of another way to get rid of him (and his sons, and the Baath Party), I’m all ears.
Considering that Ayad Allawi (the member of the IGC who uttered the remarks against the French and Germans at Madrid) has argued against…
a) disbanding the Iraqi army (advice ignored by Bremer and the CPA)
b) charged that the current insurgency was created by the CPA (“our own creation of the problem, changing Iraqis to be against us.”)
…to call him a puppet is mind-numbingly stupid. You’re the one who’s displaying ignoranceConsidering that Ayad Allawi (the member of the IGC who uttered the remarks against the French and Germans at Madrid) has argued against…
a) disbanding the Iraqi army (advice ignored by Bremer and the CPA)
b) charged that the current insurgency was created by the CPA (“our own creation of the problem, changing Iraqis to be against us.”)
…to call him a puppet is mind-numbingly stupid, sir. You’re the one who’s displaying ignorance.
Well, I do admit that my first allegiance is to the interests of the U.S., its REAL allies, and the welfare of the Iraqi citizens. The nations excluded from the list (with the exception of Canada), I’m not as concerned about, frankly. I don’t see why I should. I’m not German or French or Russian. Besides, what does this matter? It’s obvious to me that you put much relevance in U.S. interests, either. I don’t hold that against you.
Bullshit. Total bullshit.
Forgiving the debt frees up resources that can be spent on improving the infrastructure, which benefits the entire population. It encourages investment, which creates jobs for a country with a 70% unemployment rate (not to mention that when people are employed, it’s a lot less likely that they’ll be planting IEDs along the roads, or driving trucks loaded with C-4 into buildings, or robbing people).
Proof of this charge would be nice, but I’ve learned not to expect proof from you.
Well, not the countries that preferred Iraq’s people stay in bondage and repression, no. If they forgive (or greatly restructure) the debt, I think they should be included. Simple as that.
As far as who should profit, I repeat: I believe the Iraqis should get first dibs and the maximum amount of money and jobs they are capable of performing. Second comes the US and its allies who spent blood and treasure liberating the Iraqis.
Well, whaddaya know?
If this is true, then America should now amend the directive to include companies from France and Germany.
Furthermore, America ought to set an example and forgive - or seriously restructure - the debt owed to it by Iraq.
Good work, Jim Baker, and sincere thanks to France and Germany.
Will those of you who chortled about how this drives the international community away now retract your criticism? Maybe playing hard ball - combined with the capture of Saddam and the diplomacy of Baker - had something to do with this reconciliation.