No doubt that if Canada, France, Germany and Russia etc. had had the balls to send some of their young men to Iraq to help flush out the bomb toting arab terrorists who have killed and maimed two or maybe three hundred American soilders after the main hostilities have ended, maybe an American life or two could have been saved.
As it is, it would be a great insult to the heroic Americian soilders to allow these once-great countries that are now peopled by craven vultures, to dine on the altrustic spoils that have been gained by the blood of the American dead.
They whine because they have never had to defend themselves from harm over the last fifty years. Sadly, they have lived under the umbrella of American protection and generosity and have grown fat and become effete.
The money will not be going to american soldiers. It will be going to big corporations with, no doubt, close ties to the current administration.
The whole “competition” thing would hopefully eliminate this kind of thing:
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.
From all accounts I’ve read on various news sites, the vast majority of skilled workers are not Iraqis and there are not going to be nearly enough Iraqis trained to keep things running properly in terms of electricity, manufacturing, construction, and all the other important requirements for infrastructure.
What does this mean? It means that, even when reconstruction is “done,” foreign workers will be the only ones with the skills to perform a lot of the jobs and the average Iraqi has no shot at getting a meaningful source of income in the areas we’re talking about. This includes Iraqis that previously had skilled jobs at power stations, water and sewer plants, etc. For a long time to come, the workers for many or most of these jobs are going to either be Americans or non-Iraqis working under contracts from American companies. Awfully convenient for those American companies, but bad for everyone else. This is not the way to engender the support of the average Iraqi and seems to be clearly calculated as a money-making venture rather than what it is supposed to be, which should be rebuilding and putting the proper tools in place to allow the Iraqis to support themselves.
A good job and food on the table is a much better endorsement of democracy and would go a long way towards easing fears that this is a longterm power grab by the USA. Unfortunately, everything so far seems to point towards the fact that it is a longterm powerg rab by the USA and the plight of Iraqis is at best an afterthought.
C’mon, gimme a break. This is the country that has refined pork-barrel spending to an art. Many Americans work for the companies that would benefit, many many more own stock in them. Do you seriously think that a national referendum would show that people would rather go towards creating jobs in another country … especially France?
Sorry to have offended your personal sense of gravitas furt. I was just pointing out that the phrase has certain connotations when one is discussing the fate of nations. Henceforth, I’ll try to bear in mind your sensitive yet dignified nature.
Of course, here’s the obligatory link.
If, as EU commissioner for international relations Chris Patten said, “there is a general recognition of the need for the international community to work together for stability and reconstruction in Iraq,” then why did France, Germany, and Russia collectively shoot its middle finger at the US and Iraq at Donors Conference in Madrid last October by sending low-level officials? Why didn’t France and Germany not contribute anything beyond the paltry $235 million given by the EU?
Where was the indignation then?
If “there is a general recognition of the need for the international community to work together for stability and reconstruction in Iraq,” then why won’t the aforementioned nations work to restructure (or forgive) the odious debt (that will be borne by the Iraqi people) as a result of their slimy deals with Saddam? Why is there no anger at these nations for this?
If the excluded nations did much of anything of note to help the reconstruction efforts besides carping, I’d join in with the rest of you in piling on Bush for this decision. But I’m of the opinion that these particular excluded nations haven’t done much to deserve inclusion*. Until they do a little more to help, I don’t think they should be entitled to any of the “spoils.” I don’t agree that it’s the U.S. responsibility to move toward the French/German side.
YMMV, needless to say.
(* - exception being Canada. I think we’re screwing them unfairly, and I call on Bush to amend the directive to include the Canadians.)
That said, I think American companies like Halliburton and Bechtel, etc. have a DUTY to try to subcontract out as many SUBCONTRACTING JOBS/PROJECTS to IRAQIS as possible (even if it means the projects won’t be done as well. I think if such an arrangement exists between the government and Halliburton, Bechtel, etc. as alleged by many anti-warriors, then the government owes it to the American people to put Iraqis to work - this will undoubtedly help stabilize the situation, thus contributing to American security.
And if Halliburton is proven to be price gouging (as alleged in this story, then fuck them HARD with a hot poker, and I’ll call on Bush to get Halliburton out or Iraq or face my wrath in November 2004.
What else can I do?
Sorry, but I believe the U.S. has precious few real allies anymore, and we need to give those nations that took considerable risks to help us get rewarded. If these nations feel like it’s necessary to subcontract out the work to French, German, Russian, Canadian companies, I have no problem with that. But let our real allies get first dibs.
I suppose the EU will go to the WTO and protest, but, according to this BBC analysis, international law (FWIW) is on the US side (or is vague on the matter).
Some of the excluded countries (Russia, especially) are threatening not to restructure (or forgive) the odious debt. To them I say, “Fine, insist on the odious debt being repaid, but then we all know that your claims of indignant outrage are only so much bullshit - you’re as much money-grubbers as you claim we are.”
Tejota:
Well, that depends. Let’s say there was a nation-wide referendum to decide the fate of the $18 billion. If the question on the referendum was:
-“Should companies in those nations that diplomatically opposed the U.S. prior to and during the Iraq war as well as its aftermath be eligible to be awarded reconstruction projects funded by U.S. taxpayer money?” I bet the majority of voters would say "Fuck NO!!
But if the question was:
-“Should free market principles and expertise be used as the sole means of deciding which companies - no matter what nation they reside - are eligible to receive U.S. taxpayer money in the form of Iraqi reconstruction projects?” I’d put my money on “Yes.”
ralph124c:
Agree. I’m not thrilled about the diplomacy of the Bush Administration, and I think a similar approach might have been better. Or the directive should have been issued as a joint communique with the ICG.
A member of the ICG warned these excluded countries that their miserliness at the Madrid Conference would not be forgotten (see my previous post for the cite). Spare me the self-righteous indignation, France, Germany, and Russia.
"U.S. awards 30 Canadian soldiers Bronze Star medals for Afghanistan service
By JOHN COTTER
U.S. Ambassador Paul Cellucci presents Charlotte Lynn Smith with a Bronze Star posthumously for her son Pte. Nathan Smith. (CP /Adrian Wyld)
EDMONTON (CP) - Relatives of four Canadian soldiers killed in Afghanistan by an American bomb accepted Bronze Star medals from the United States government Monday during a ceremony before more than 700 troops.
The medal - a simple five-pointed star that hangs from a red, white and blue ribbon - is awarded to mark heroic or meritorious service. For some it will also mark the pain of losing loved ones on that night in April 2002 when a U.S. fighter jet mistakenly bombed Canadian troops during a military exercise. Eight other soldiers were wounded. Marley Leger, the widow of Sgt. Marc Leger, one of the four men who died, said she is proud to accept the posthumous award on behalf of her late husband.
“The Bronze Star to me represents bravery and heroism,” said Leger, 29.
“When you die for your country fighting for what you believe in, that’s the ultimate sacrifice and that’s what the Star represents.”
First off, I got a lot of doubts about a Deputy Secretary of Defense making decisions like this. Especially this one. I fear that Mr. Wolfowitz may not be spending enough time with his family, we should encourage him to do so. Firmly.
But with typical Pentagon dimplomatic aplomb, we let our “allies” know that the reason they couldn’t have contracts to build trolly lines and day care centers was a matter of “security”. Look in your handy dandy international diplomacy phrasebook: it means “we don’t trust you any further than we can throw you”. (Its the entry right after “My hovercraft is full of eels”.)
But the “clarification” was right on its heels. The memo only pertained to contractors! Not sub-contractors. Oh, no, thats very different. Whole different thing. Gotta have security clearance on contractors.
So, theoreticly, if Haliburton has a contract for an intelligence services, it seems likely they will pass all needed security clearances. And if they pass along a subcontract to assemble a database of all Arabic speaking agents of the CIA and Mossad to Putin’s ex-KGB buddies, that’s just peachy.
Then the story changes again, now its about who made what sacrifices for our noble adventure in nation deconstruction. Presumably, the repentence of the Wicked Nations is required.
It would be easier to believe that they are telling me the truth if this story didn’t change so often.
Ironically (to me) I’m over at my parents tonight and my dad is watching the Factor with Bill O, and he is BLASTING Bush and the administration over this issue. And the Republican speaking on the show is sounding like a total idiot.
Basically O’Reilly’s points are similar to the ones stated here…that its kind of hard for us to ask these countries to forgive debt in Iraq when we are slapping them in the face over these contracts. That it does nothing for the real pragmatic reasons that we NEED to bring the US and our ‘allies’ closer together again. That Bush’s foriegn policy is a confused mess atm (man, O’Reilly went OFF on this subject).
I never really watched the Factor before, however I have to say that he did VERY well on this subject, and he might be worth more of my time in future. I was very impressed on how well he layed out his arguements, and how he cut up that 'Pub (didn’t catch his name as I wanted to get this post off) to shreds.
I actually do believe that if this were put to a vote, most Americans would agree with the administration. Certainly as it pertains to France, if not to some of the other countries. I’m guessing that Americans would “cut some slack” for Canada, and say they should be included in the contracts. (I understand that Bush put Canada back on the OK list today.)
But I still disagree with the policy. It doesn’t make sense economically or diplomatically. The only purpose it serves is revenge. Revenge might feel good at the time, but it rarely, if ever, makes sense as a long term strategy.
John Mace, I agree if the decision was made purely out of revenge, than it sucks. I just don’t believe that it was made out of spite.
I believe strongly in the concept of precedent.
If we set a precedent that countries can be allowed to screw us without any risk of harm, then what incentive do countries that took great risks to help us have to help us in the future - especially if it’s politically unpopular (which, given the current global anti-American climate, seems reasonable to assume)?
Reward our real allies, and let’s just admit that countries like France and Germany are no longer our allies in any meaningful sense. I do not wish to be enemies with these nations; we should wish them well and continue to trade with them. But let’s acknowledge that their actions and behaviors indicate they wish to follow their own path, and deal with them accordingly.
The problem, GoHeels, is, how do we go back to the countries we deliberately snubbed and ask them to forgive Iraqi debts? Why SHOULD they do so, or do anything else either. And we need them to do so at this point.
Its a fine line, no doubt. Part of me definitely understands the desire to fuck over those percieved to have fucked over us. However, the pragmatic part of me says…we have to do business with these people in the future, and this would have been a good oppurtunity for us to close the gap somewhat that has grown between us on this whole Iraqi mess.
