Are you saying that France and Germany rejected the war on Iraq because they didn’t believe that Iraq had WMDs? Might you instead want to say that they believed that there was a diplomatic solution? Even that would have been difficult when, at best, Saddam was bluffing.
Hector,
Only one topic?
The fact is, the Franco-U.S. relationship hasn’t been all that warm for quite a while. To be fair, both countries have played the “villain” in the off-and-on discord.
-Maybe the current discord began in 1958, when de Gaulle met Dulles. Dulles recommended bolstering NATO’s power by setting up a regional defense system based on US nukes stationed in Europe. De Gaulle would not allow U.S. nukes to be based on French territory unless France had total control over them (which the U.S. rejected).
-France’s withdrawal from NATO and its integrated command structure in 1966.
-De Gaulle’s criticism of the international monetary system, which made the dollar a reserve currency and gave the US considerable power (because the U.S. could ignore normal rules on deficits).
-France’s huge role in the rise of the EU, designed to build a European super-state as a counter-balance to US power. This idea of the EU gave rise to the euro as a competitor to the dollar.
-France’s refusal to grant flyover rights to the US during the bombing of Libya in 1986.
Not an ally of the U.S. Not an enemy, but definitely not an ally. It’s high time that America acknowledge this and deal with France accordingly.
The U.S. should continue to trade with France, but recognize that its interests conflict with France’s, and recognize that the two nations have quite different philosophical outlooks.
Y’know, I keep hearing about how this is bad timing because we’re simultaneously asking for debt relief, and I keep thinking that’s why it’s good timing.
The elected Kurd leaders have already said that they will not forget who opposed ousting Saddam, and I sort of suspect that when an Iraqi government emerges, they won’t either. France and freinds have had chances to show they wanted to help Iraq, and they keep snorting at it. Simultaneously, they are insisting of prompt repayment of every dime Saddam owed them.
For now, the US is asking that the debt be restructured, as happens all the time, and they are refusing even that. At some point, though, that debt will be an issue for the Iraqis to deal with, and I keep thinking about a fable involving greed.
Hentor the Barbarian, you seem to be saying that France (and Germany?) opposed the US war in Iraq because they knew that Iraq and SH didn’t have WMD. IS that what you are saying?? I want to make sure I have it right before I respond.
-XT
The USA was saying Iraq was clearly a present and imminent threat to the USA and the USA therefore had the right to take pre-emptive aggressive military action. France and Germany were not convinced that Iraq was a clear and present danger and did not support the pre-emptive military action. France and Germany turned out to be right and the US government turned out to be wrong.
Then, after the fact, when the US government needs or asks for the cooperation of France and Germany, they say those countries should not be petty and vindictive and let bygones be bygones and lend a hand in Iraq (but under terms and conditions set by the USA who is not ready to let those countries have a say in how things re done).
But the US government does not feel this is being petty and vindictive but only giving France and Germany what they deserve.
I see. In other words, the same people are still screwing things up. The fact is that the USA has destabilized Iraq and it will probably go from bad to worse. The only thing preventing Iraq from sliding into total chaos and civil war is US presence which, in fact, is taking sides against the Sunnites in that war. There is no way to fix this now. Iraqis are killing Americans so that the Americans will go away and leave the Iraqis to kill each other. I am afraid there is no way to fix this.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by David Simmons *
**
And this price drop has all occurred since they took on the Iraq contract and as a result of it? **
No, their stock started falling in the middle of 2001. Since they have a long history of over-billing the government I’m sure they’ll make it up somewhere. The GAO is already on their back so who knows.
**If these Iraq contracts are such a loser, maybe GW and Rummy should award them all to businesses in countries that didn’t support the war. **
To my knowledge, there are no restrictions on subcontracts so that is likely to happen. The usually political course would be to accept open bidding and then quietly filter out the less favored bidders. Bush took the opposite tact. He slammed the door publicly to make a point. He is well aware that the money can and will go to those countries through subcontractors. The international companies that supported Iraq’s infrastructure will probably be retained for their expertise. But that’s just my wag on the situation, feel free to throw a conspiracy or two in.
furt: go back and read carefully what theR posted. Saddam’s laws, which really are pretty standard stuff, from what I understand tried to be reasonably protectionist concerning foreign products and foreign workers. Nothing that remarkable, really.
The Bush Administration, through Bremer and the CPA-I, overturned all of this and made Iraq into a huge free trade zone. As it was obviously easily possible to continue to do business under the existing Iraqi law, this was a clear violation of the mandate to follow the country’s existing law where possible. But this overturning of existing Iraqi law then makes possible the edict by US authorities, acting on their own authority, to award contracts as they see fit.
Now, in real life, this is what would have happened anyway. If anyone in France or Germany thought they had any realistic chance at getting any contracts in Iraq, they were living in a dream world. However, what Bush did here was to very publicly chastise these countries.
This exposes the already blatant violation of international law that went on previously, a violation that, given the native Iraqi feeling towards the French and the Germans that others have cited, would have been merely academic anyway as far as these countries were concerned.
As theR pointed out, however, it was hardly academic to the future of Iraq.
Let me put it this way: the Iraqis built this country on their own, and they are perfectly capable of rebuilding it on their own as well. But this Administration, made up as it is of scum who wouldn’t know what fair competition was if it walked up to them naked and slapped them in the face with a gauntlet, is determined to milk Iraq for all it’s worth, and they’re determined to do it regardless of whether it kills Iraq’s future or not.
It’s not about rebuilding the country, as someone else pointed out; it’s about imperialism, colonialism, and war profiteering. And then glazing it over with a false veneer of patriotism.
The Iraqi people, in the meantime, get to watch all this and beg for crumbs from the table of the US, instead of fully participating in and profiting from the rebuilding of their own country. Disgusting.
No. Out of curiousity, what did I say that you interpreted that way?
You believe that Iraq is perfectly capable of rebuilding infrastructure without a fricking government? Rethink that. Do you believe that the US is denying France, Germany, and Russia rebuilding contracts because we want them for ourselves? Since you believe that France et al. weren’t going to get contracts anyway, doesn’t it make more sense that the reason the US made it “official” was to send a statement about the consequences of crossing us? If you think it’s all about profiteering then what is this:
Go back to the “Who REALLY killed Kennedy?” History Channel specials where conspiracy theories at least have an audience.
I wonder what are you watching then KidCharlemagne, the telephone industry only helped the Republicans slightly better than the democrats, I think Bush is not only punishing foreigners, he is teaching a “lesson” to the American contributors too.
Ah, why I love debating the anti-Bush crowd. Reasonable, thoughtful points up until …
Right off the rails. Even better than talking to my right-wing uncle about Clinton.
Sorry, I am not well versed enough in trade law to debate the legal ins and outs intelligently. Most of what I read seems to indicate that the lawyers still aren’t sure, either.
The last bit seems a bit nonsensical, though. Seeing as how Iraqi companies are pemitted to bid on any and all contracts, its hard to see how this keeps them “fully participating in and profiting from the rebuilding of their own country.” If anything, Iraqi companies would benefit from decreased competition, wouldn’t they?
Ah, but the Bushistas will sneakily lock them out and give all the good stuff to American companies! Aha! Except … if they were going to do it that way, why not subtly lock out France and Germany the same way? Unless the public slap in the face of alleged “allies” who have actively worked against us, and the public rewarding of true partners, was the whole point of this?
Please be sure to include in your response the following words:
Halliburton
cronies
bloodsucking
rape
unelected
fascist
zymurgy
hippocampus
(the last two are just to make it challenging)
When did anyone say anything about how much money was given by a particular industry to a particular party???
But let me get this right: If the contracts go to American companies, that’s bad.
If they don’t, that’s bad too.
Getting the picture now.
furt, don’t be silly. When was the last time you saw an Iraqi company building a bridge anywhere near you? Let me spell it out for you: pitted against a world-class company like Bechtel, no Iraqi is going to have a chance.
Having turned Iraq into a free trade zone, what this means in practice is that an entirely local Iraqi company has to somehow bid on an equal basis against a Bechtel. You don’t honestly believe they’d win, do you?
Putting bidding on an “equal” basis is a cool way to keep the prime contractors American, or maybe, maybe British. Somewhere down the line there will be Iraqi subcontractors. Somewhere. Maybe.
And as for my hyperbole, tell me how it would feel to be conquered and then frozen out of your own economy. Bitter wouldn’t begin to describe how you’d feel.
I kind of thought you were making a joke but furt is making me reconsider. Have I been whooshed on second glance here?
Phantom, how do you think small business’s compete for government contracts in the US? Do you think all contracts go to the Bechtel’s, the Honeywell’s, the EG&G’s?? Basically the government sets aside a percentage of ALL contracts that are for small business, 8A/minority owned, etc. These contracts can ONLY be competed on by those kinds of businesses, though they can partner with larger firms if they want too…but the prime contractor MUST be in that category.
So…how will Iraqi companies compete for contracts? They will go after the contracts specifically set aside for them, thats how. Thats how MY company gets contracts with the government (minority 8A, small business). Sometimes a company like Bechtel (well, for me like Honeywell or EG&G) will actually partner with a small business, and enhance their ability to win contracts.
Its how the system works. Iraqi companies won’t be left out in the cold…if for no other reason than politics.
-XT
So pantom, what exactly are you prescribing then? We should let France and Germany beat out the non-existing Iraqi construction companies instead? The Iraqi’s don’t have the capacity to rebuild nor would they want to spearhead the project at this point. Most of the large Iraqi construction companies were state-owned and the “command and control” structure has since been dissolved. The mom-and-pop companies can’t handle the administration of such big jobs so Bechtel isn’t stealing business from them. To the contrary, Bechtel will be funneling subcontracting business their way and transfering technologies to boot. Iraqi’s will get all the business that they’re capable of managing.
How can the US be milking the Iraqis when the US is the one paying for the reconstruction of these projects? If anyone is going to get milked from having the bidding process restricted it’s the US taxpayer - we may end up paying more than necessary for the same job. You are so blinded by your desire to see conspiracy it’s just outright scary. Rather than just ranting about imperialism and greed, why don’t you explain what you think should be done?
As I noted in the other thread: what does punishing French firms have to do directly with punishing France? French and German firms did not necessarily oppose the war. American firms did not anymore spend their money or the blood of their people to liberate Iraq than firms in countries on the list. So why should firms be treated differently depending on where they happen to be incorporated?
Further: what about French and German firms that employ Americans? Doesn’t this mean that we are shutting out some American factory workers just as much as the companies that employ them?
xtisme, if you have any evidence that any set-asides are being put in place for Iraqi companies, present it. I haven’t read of anything like this.
Kid Charlemagne, the rationale for invading was to get rid of the WMDs. But we didn’t do just that; we took apart the entire Iraqi government, disbanded the army, etc. Your unproven assertion that Iraqis aren’t capable of handling construction on the scale required is, well, unproven. Actually, it’s contradicted by the existing infrastructure, which after all didn’t just build itself.
Just off to the side of the link furt provided for his international law cite is a story revealingly entitled, especially since I used the phrase myself, High hopes as firms fight for crumbs.
Now you tell me, why on Earth should Iraqis be forced to jostle for crumbs of work in their own country?
Actually, that was this thread, page 1, when you equated it with racism. And it was answered:
You declined to respond.
Yes… so then if I happen to live in America, and someone doesn’t like that America uses cluster munitions with extremely high dud rates comes up and punches me in the face, even though I oppose the use of such unreliable weapons, that’s justice?
In a democracy the policies of the government are foisted upon me by my neighbors. That doesn’t make me responsible for them.
No less than Osama Bin Laden was fond of making the opposite argument of course: that because ordinary citizens ultimately control the government, they are responsible for its decisions, including those decisions he considered abhorrent and worthy of death. So he took out his vengence on those people he could manage to strike.
Your logic justifies that line of reasoning and, to a lesser extent, the basic tactic that is its conclusion (threaten and punish otherwise blameless people so that they will have to struggle to change the policies of their government if they want to escape further punishment).
I don’t think that logic makes sense. The entire point of democracy is that the government is not an all powerful all encompassing Leviathan, a proxy for the nation and all its vassals. Democracies are not monarchies where all citizens are merely thought of as components of a single body wholly owned and represented in the person of a king. A democratic government is a buerrecratic institution given limited power and autonomy that is held in check by people who need not as individuals owe it their agreement or complicity in its decisions.
I didn’t say it was equivalent, I said that group punishments are based on the same motive as racism: taking a single component of someone’s identity and then generalizing things from someone else with the same identity to everyone with that identity. Not all French people were necessarily against the war. Not all French corporations were necessarily against the war. It makes no sense to blanket punish everyone who happens to share a single component of identity with someone else you don’t like.
And, in fact, I DO think there are some serious moral problems in giving more rights to citizens than non citizens, at least when it comes to things like the redistribution of wealth and welfare that are given out of some supposed moral motive.
Maybe, maybe not. Care to elaborate?
I don’t see what that has to do with anything.
The argument here is that we can “punish” “France” by punishing firms that are incorporated in France, some of which (ironically) happen to employ Americans, on American soil, to fulfill these contracts. I don’t happen to think that makes much more sense than punishing Collin Powell for the fact that Al Sharpton is a fruitcake. The people we want to punish are the people who opposed our interests: namely the French government.
Jill has a lot more influence on her husband Bill than you do. They part of a family that you are not. Bill is a real turd of a guy. But it doesn’t necessarily follow that you are justified in taking your anger at Bill out on Jill, just because she can plead with him to change his ways more effectively than you can.
Just hadn’t gotten around to it.