U.S. Bars Opponents from Iraq Bids

Post-9/11 Era Forum

WASHINGTON, Dec. 9 — The Pentagon has formally barred French and German firms and companies from countries opposed to the Iraq war from bidding on $18.6 billion worth of reconstruction contracts.

http://msnbc.com/news/1003413.asp?0cv=CA01

We can but to begin to enjoy accountability. Give it to 'em!

So much for a democratic Iraq. This shows exactly why the US will not let the UN take control over there.

Accountability? Who's going to hold Bush accountable for not finding what he said he had in the first place. Proof that WMD were there by the truck loads.

They would have been barred anyway should they have backed the war, like it happened in Koweit after the first gulf war. The only difference is this time it is offical.
I am always awed by the sheer artistry of the US government hypocrisy skills.

We Americans feel that we shouldn't reward someone who stabs us in the back as those two countries did. And no, it's not because they didn't agree. It is because of WHY did they feel that way. Saddam sympathizer? Selling weapons to use against the U.S.? Selling tunnel boring equipment to Iraq/ Or maybe its because they actively lobbied against us to African countries and others. AND they OWE us. This is why they will get NO money for the re-construction of Iraq. And they will continue to suffer economically. Got it? Lukily for you it has little or no affect on you in Australia. Just like your ridiculous opinions have no bearing on what we WILL do.

I read that the French Germans etc may still see some of this money if UK, Spanish or god forbid US firms hire out French German companiesetc as sub contractors

I can't believe people are actually complaining about the US wanting to reward our supporters rather than our antagonists. This is appeasment at a whole new level, perhaps we should give a few contracts to North Korea.
Each contract will have significant competition, there are countless compotent companies out there and they aren't all inside France and Germany, so don't feed me a line about Iraqi's suffering. (Actually i don't think i know the name of any French company)
Bottom line: i love this move. If you're gonna oppose the US while we try to act in our own self-defense, you're no longer going to leech off of us financially. This is all about accountability, if you're not willing to be accountable for your actions, then don't take any.

"A spokesman for the German government described the Pentagon decision as unacceptable, while France said it would examine its legality." Sorry to hear that this is "unacceptable" to the Germans—bwuaaahahahahaha! And leave it to the French to search for the proverbial loophole (or any "hole" for that matter).

What this is is a spoiled brat that says it's his ball and you can't play with it.

Is that why Bush's own spokes person who explained this was asked do he think it's productive and he said NO!!!!! Why is it that the US want by-gones to be by-gones when asking for reconstruction help and troop deployment, then turn around and do this? In case you haven't heard, Canada who contributed 190 million to reconstructing Iraq has said under these conditions they will not contribute another dollar.

Bush is a loose cannon if you ask me. He thinks he can run the world like he ran home. He was spoiled and got everything he wanted, even when he broke the law. Now it's do it his way even if he changes his mind or else. Problem is that he has so much company in America. That's why so many agree with his every move.

I think it's a genious stand. Why should American Tax payers pay those countries who slapped us in the face?
As Bush said, "You're with us, or agaist us". That path is clear and I support it. Are they Saddam sympathisers? Maybe....ans that casts it in concrete.

See what I would love to know is what about countries like Canada that have given $109 million dollars and is set to give millions more, if they do not get a slice of the action surely it is perfectly fair for them to close thier wallets. In fact the Canadian PM is considering this point. And this is where the whole leaglity thing comes into it because a lot of EU countries and Far East countries have given millions to help Iraq.

One of peace, i hate to break it to you but the UN is not solely comprised of France and Germany, although they'd like you to think that.
Bush is simply making policy that rewards his supporters and not his opposers, what's wrong with that again?
I don't think it's counterproductive, I'm sure France and Germany didn't actually believe their actions wouldn't have any consequences. And since i'm sure they themselves are big enough to take resposniblity for their actions, they wouldn't begrudge the president for his choice. This decision would only be counterproductive if it hurts the Iraqi people, and i don't believe it does. There are plenty of compotent companies from other UN nations that will get the job done.
As for Canada, they've been looking for any escuse so that they don't have to dig into their pockets anymore, they weren't contributing any more to reconstruction anyway.
As for bush being a loose cannon, if the definition of a loose cannon is someone who holds others accountable, then we don't have enough loose cannons around.

So it is only if you have troops killed that you get contracts so what if all these countries that gave money and remeber we are talking hundreads of millions decide that the little coalition group who got the contracts cannfind the rst of the funding as well. If it was not for the funding a lot of those contracts would not be up for grabs.

ew,ew (my hands up) I can answer that!

jrkiv who's going to hold Bush accountable for invading a country that he promised had WMD and now he cannot find what he said was there in the first place. It was Bush that said he had clear and convincing evidence, yet that evidence eludes him and you don't even question it?

And so now it's Canada that will become our enemy next? So if you don't agree with the US then we'll cut you out of reconstruction. And you think this is productive to our so called "war on terror"? You think that all of this hostile attitude we're projecting on any nation that has the slightest disagreement is helping?

Bush has no diplomacy what so ever. All these nations he's berating will not come to our aid when its time to "fight terror". He was the one who needed to make his case and he didn't. So now a long standing peaceful friendship with Canada is now in jeopardy.

Man, you guys are ridiculously naive to say the least. Bush is like a big spoiled brat kid. Play by my rules or I'll take my ball and go home. Meanwhile we continue to tally up more countries that will have animosity toward us.

At this rate, we're going to be isolated in this so called fight, and we won't be able to go into Mexico let alone any other country. And if you think for one moment that we're simply going to keep invading countries without reprisal, then you are detached farther from reality than I thought.

Lol!! One of peace wake up! WE WERE ISOLATED IN OUR FIGHT AGAINST TERROR BEFORE BUSH'S ANNOUNCEMENT ABOUT STUPID CONTRACTS!
Your overwhelming desire to appease everybody is shocking. And what does canada have to do with the contracts? They are fully capable of competing for them, they have donated money and troops to the fight on terror and reconstruction. Since when are they the "next enemy?" Can you say slippery slope?
I see nothing wrong with limiting contracts paid for by US taxpayers to countries who share our vision of a fight against terror. Letting France and Germany in on business contracts isn't going to make them support our next effort, they are stagnant, and opposed to anything the US does for the sole reason that it is popular. They're never gonna come along with us, i see no point in trying to appease them. Period.
It's clear you despise Bush, but calling him a brat and comparing him to a child doesn't consider what this announcement accomplishes. It shows the world we are committed to this fight, and that mutual support does in fact go both ways. You don't support us, and we are not going to continue to act as if you do. I don't see why that is such a bad thing, that'll go farther towards garnering support next time around than will letting anybody in on Iraqs reconstruction.
Oneofpeace, it seems like you want Bush to set a precedent where he treats his supporters in this war the same as he treats those who oppose our goal. THAT would be counterproductive and not to mention riddiculous.

Of course the US has contributed the most but it was also the US that asked for more money from countires around the wrold so therfore maybe that proves that they need financioal help after all the US economy has struggled in recebt years and has only recently showed sigs of improving therefore rebuilding two countries is not going to be easy.
But it still proves one thing the message is clear contracts by death if you lost soldiers your country will get a big juicy contract.

The U.S. taxpayers are providing a lot of this money and personally, I think it should stay with American contracts.

There is saying here that many adhere to: "If you don't help dig the hole, you can't swim in the pool".

I agree. At least, the move is clear. Although opponent countries are excluded for "security reasons", this sheds light on this tremendous hypocrisy. The very same countries were part of the coalition in 1991, but were excluded from most of the after-war contracts just the same - the means were different, more hypocritical, but just as efficient. At least now things are clear to everyone. Keep this money, it really stinks.
The French are raising judiciary procedures; successful or not to have something, does not matter ... what imports is that it is going to stir the slime and put even more in perspective this hypocrisy.

JRKIV you’re telling me to wake up?

First, Canada was excluded out of these contracts too. Though they do participate in Afghanistan with troop deployment, and have contributed almost 300 million to Iraq, Bush saw fit to exclude them as well.

Secondly, you are under some delusion that we're in Iraq to "fight terror and free the Iraqi people". You believe this because Bush said so because there’s no supporting evidence to justify this. What's funny is you think that Bush's current move will unify these countries into helping us during our next "fight on terror"? Have you even read the responses from the countries and from the E.U. organizations like the foreign affairs chief?

Do I despise Bush? No, but I do despise his policies. He's arrogant, and is the worst President this country has had in decades. He totally lacks diplomacy skills. Never have I seen any world leader, let alone the US berate countries so openly in public like he does, and why? Because he made no convincing case before the world before invading Iraq and after how things over there is turning out, he’s still as arrogant as ever as if he proved the world wrong.

Let's look at how Bush treats his allies. First Canada and the US have never had any tensions. They helped us in Afghanistan sending troops to die (some by our own munitions) and have sent 100's of millions in reconstruction of Iraq. Now there's tension between us. Unprecedented.

France and the US have always gotten along. France has never used a veto vote against the US since 1956. They supported our effort in Afghanistan fully. Now there's tension there.

Let's look at Britain. They supported our every effort in everything. Bush went there a couple weeks ago and while there Blair asked him to release the prisoners in Cuba that were British who fought with the Taliban. He promised they would face trial in Britain. Bush flat out told him no! Talk about an ingrate.

This week he just sold Taiwan out to the Chinese after years of support because he wants their help with N. Korea, who is a far worst threat than Saddam ever was.

Bush sold out Israel just before the invasion to garner support from Arab countries to invade Iraq when they pointed to Israel & Palestine.

You know what’s amazing is how Bush goes about business. He invades Iraq in the midst of objection, then asks the UN and other Muslim nations to send in troops, but tells them the US will retain control there. Then he criticizes them for not accepting that. And after weeks of asking for financial support and troops from the world, he pulls this contact issue and to put the cherry on the cake, after he tells countries they cannot bid on the contracts, he sends James Baker over there to lobby these same countries to forgive their debt owed them by Iraq to ease the US burden of finance there. Russia told him in so many words that Bush is crazy.

Look, you can delude yourself all you want into thinking that we’re fighting terror by invading that country, but if you think this last move by Bush will garner support in our next fight where ever it may be, you have another think coming. Never before have we isolated ourselves with our allies as we have with this war in Iraq and post war actions. We had every one of these same nations on our side when we ousted the Taliban. Now we’re losing their support daily one by one.

You ask me about comparing him to a child? Well that’s exactly how he’s behaving, like a spoiled brat. Do it his way or else, like no nation can disagree with anything he does.

Today we’re worse off in the fight against terror than we were before entering Iraq. I simply don’t know how you can come to another conclusion. Wishful thinking maybe, but if you think we’re making other countries reconsider, just read their reactions to Bush’s latest stunt.

I have to believe that if the tables were turned, the result would be the same. American companies would have been left out.
With as much power that France, Germany and Russia had in their relationships with Iraq, there could have been other avenues to take however, they never transpired. I am sure that political and economic pressures could have been enstilled by the big three and would have had a big effect on Saddam early on. For some reason which, I willl never understand, they continued to do business as usual, providing weopans and creating oil deals while all the while the UN was warning the world of his intensions.
Whether the intelligence was good or bad, it was obviously accepted as credible enough to act. Not acting was not working.
Anyway, I am sure that the big three can still get back in Iraq but, they will have to support the effort in other ways besides complaining.

First, I do not believe that we should throw Canada in the mix. They did help with cash.

Second, I think ya'll need to learn the lesson of the Little Red Hen. It is something that we learned at the age of 5 or 6. If you don't know the lesson, ask someone.

I think everyone knew that this would happen and we can probably look back months ago in this forum find that it has been talked about before.

Guys, you gotta pay to play.

You are basing Bush's actions on the fact that his invasion was credible.

Look, if Bush decided to invade in spite of UN objection and found the things he said were there, this would have squashed any objection to his actions.

Bush had not found one thing he said was there. Why is he acting like he did? Because he hasn't makes us look like we are dead wrong here and negate everything Bush says in justifying this war after and before the invasion. Now he wants to play hard ball? As it appears now, those nations he's refusing to let in were right 100%.

We are not fighting a fight against terror here and if you still accept that we are in the face on no evidence, then we're fighting the wrong fight. Instead of our garnering support, we're losing every ally we had prior to the invasion. We've definitely moved backward since fighting in Afghanistan both in focus on terror, and allied support.

These same nations will not support our next efforts as you will come to see. In light of this, and knowing that we need their help we continue to berate these countries simply because they disagreed. Now Bush is trying to blackmail them into sending troops with his send troops or else you can’t get any contracts attitude?

Bush's diplomacy stinks. Everyday we're sinking into an abyss of trouble and it's getting worse for us by the moment. I simply don't know how much more Bush has to do here for you to see that he's wrong. Nothing he does is wrong to you guys, even when he cannot back up his claims. What else can there be said?

Wah wah wah boo hoo hoo. Look if you don't like what we are doing then stay out of it. That means stay away from the contracts too.

You cannot be that short sighted Ron, so I will chalk that up to sarcasm.

Instead of worrying about who isn't going to get contracts, we should be worrying about where Osama is and what he's up to next. Oh and N. Korea too or haven't you heard. They're an axis of evil like Saddam whom which share the same record and has far worse weapons capable of hitting the US. It seems you all want to simply forget about that.

So while Bush play "you can't play with my ball" we're in more peril than ever now. Don't you think this is more important than trying to stick it to your so called allies for non-support? Probably not, after all you don't think it reasonable to question Bush in his lack of credibility.

I think that is was proabably not a good idea that Wolfy come out and announce it and belittle those who refused to work with us. I think they probably already knew that they would not get the primary contracts. But to come out and throw it in their face was not a good idea.

I agree. If you're going to move in the face of rejection, do it with diplomacy. I think it will go a long way even when you don't agree. We will need the French and Russia as well as other countries on other issues besides war. I never seen a country that was totally self sufficient yet.

This wasn't an overall statement that is intended to alienate Allies.
It is the fact that the decision was made up front and was laid out before the we went into Iraq and that was when the UN knew from intelligence that Iraq was global problem. Ignoring the possible repercussions with, "Oh, that won't happen to us", was arrogance and ignorance on their part. This wasn't a joke or blackmail or anything else, it was laid out as fact and is being followed through.
Because France, Germany and Russia didn't believe what the U.S. was telling them is their prerogative but to be so arrogant to believe the U.S. wouldn’t follow through was foolish.
France, Germany and Russia may have saved face with the world by not getting involved and is a choice they made. They have choices now too. By the time all of this comes to an end, we will be out of Iraq and they will be on their own to determine who gets what contracts or future business. They may very well base their decision on the outcome of their liberation. The U.S. may be looked down upon by Iraq after this is over but then again they may look at it in other ways. Hopefully they will look at it by who really helped them in the end and who took advantage of what.

Arrogance and ignorance on the part of the disagreeing countries ? Foolish to believe the US would not follow through ? Sorry USA1, but this does not make sense.
I will restrict here my view to the case of France. Ignorance about Iraq ?
France, among other countries, sold weapons to Iraq. It knew that they used to have, perhaps still had, WMDs. But no "clear and convincing evidence" of TONS of WMDs, for it knew that lots of them had a shelf life of a few years only, while a lot of the pre Gulf War material has been destroyed - either by the war or by inspectors themselves. Then the inspection process being carried out one year ago was merely wise in order to assess objectively what was at stake.
Foolish to believe the US would not follow through ?
Well, every sensible citizen here KNEW for sure that the US motivations weren't weak. And that this war was to come in a way or another one. The question was how and when. Who could believe the US would have displaced hundreds of thousands men, tons of equipment, for what ... Saddam's promise of appeasement ? And then going back home without having done anything ? One year after the wounds of 9/11 and the calls for the global war on terror ?

The reason why the French opposed, whatever what is spread continuously here, is that they had a deep conviction about how wrong things were turning up. Getting rid of Saddam, of course yes, but without throwing oil in fire. Getting Arab countries in the process to make of it a real "war on terror" - even if such a war, in my opinion, is not the appropriate answer to deter terrorists. At least, if the Americans were so prone to wage a war, give some legal frame to it... Nothing of this was done.
Now there is these beratings and boycotts. Do you think it is constructive ? What kind of cooperation can the Bush administration expect with such a spoiled child's attitude ? They act as a bully in a schooyard keeping the ball for him.

A lot of you are using politics and patriotism and friendship to decide and not one of you has looked at this practically. If you want to put an extension on your house what do you do? over here you get a few builders over they make bids and the one with the best bid and skills gets the job. If the US bans all these big rich and skilled countries how do they know they are getting the best for the Iraqi people after all their best interests is what this is all about is it not? because Bush has turned this into Americas favorite pass time Euro bashing and not even considering the fact that maybe just maybe the French,Germans or the Russians might be able to do something better or cheaper that the good ol USA.
Yeah so the Americans are paying for Iraq though a lot of countries have given money to help Iraq through reconstruction or medicine etc where do you think the money for that came from? but the message is loud and clear you want a contract we want your dead soldiers, is that an unfair statement well bush said practically that "those that risked lives"

I believe that Bush's statements on that matter is intended for internal political benefit. Indeed this is a message easy to get by everybody, and, even irrelevant, counterproductive, undiplomatical on the world's scene, it flatters average Americans' nationalism. Remember, there is an election in less than one year ...

I cannot believe he is sending a family friend (Baker) to France, Germany and Russia to askt them to cut doen on som of the mone Iraq owes them

I can believe he is doing so. Nothing surprises me from this administration right now.

I honestly think that Bush has forgotten that somewhere down the line this will have repercussions for the US there is no way that these countries will give the US nay help in anything over this.

Exactly JY French. Bush has a lot a faults, and some redeeming qualities ( though I'm hard pressed to find any ), but one thing you can say about the fella.... he is consistant.

I don't know why anyone would expect better from him. I guess we keep hoping that in that dumb "deer caught in headlights" look he continues to give while on TV, that a flicker in intelligence somewhere in his head there will prevail. Maybe it's asking too much of him, after all, you can't get blood from a turnip

I also expected Bush to show just what an idiot he actually is. I mean anyone with a grain of intelligence will kow that there is more chance of WMDs being found than these countries calling off the debt.

Wouldn't it be something if it was the new Iraqi government that opposed the big three from contracts in Iraq? Could it be possible?

Well USA why do you think the US wants to keep control? Clearly with this move is shows they want a government that will be a puppet for them like Britain is.

So now you hate Britain too? Is there anything you do like? Besides complaining that is.

Ok Mr. French. So who's your best pick to lead this great nation of ours?

All money owed to France and Germany will never be recovered. Who will pay it? It was a deal with the devil and the devil died. I wonder if all that money owed had anything to do with those countries(france,germany) fighting tooth and nail about overthrowing Saddam's regime?

Oh they will get their money I guarantee it, this is not like the poor African countries that cannot afford to pay it back, Iraq is rich and at some point It will all have to be paid back if not now later like when the Iraqi government is in charge, unlike the US I do not imagine that a new Iraqi government wants to alienate itself from the rest of the world

Their country doesn't owe it. Saddam's' regime made these ILLEGAL deals with these countries and that is the chance you take,in my opinion. Choose your friends wisely.If my friend is a drug dealer and I give him money And he gets busted,than I pretty much write that off. I wouldn't go try to collect from his family. I betcha these monies are never recovered.

So if George Bush borrows $1 billion from Canada and in an election he is beaten do you think that the US does not owe Canada, look at all these African countries that have borrowed money and changed their leader and name but they still owe the money. These loans are made to the country as a whole not the leader the money was lent to Iraq and is owed to Iraq. If this is false then why has Bush got his mate running around Europe like a headless chicken trying to get countries to call off the debt?

So without going through all the posts in detail (sorry if this has already been mentioned) -

There are no restrictions on subcontractors.

French company already subcontracting big telecom deal.

What's the problem?

In any case this is US money we are spending right? It has nothing to do with reconstruction funds pledged by other countries and not administrered by US.

Or am I wrong?

Toothfairy bubble bath population ... amazing how much I get acquainted with new wordings while reading your crap. Maybe I should thank you for educating me with fascist rhetoric.

Time will tell. I still say NO money will be recovered from those debts.

I say we look at what the debt is for.

For weapons? PAss. Sorry. Bad business decision to sell weapons on credit. And crappy weapons at that. Saddam should sue for his money back plus breach of contract and moral damages for faulty weapons systems.

Direct investment in oil, infrastructure? Restructure, cut them a break, but allow them to step up to plate and make repayment commitment at some level. Give them 5 year grace period.

Food, clothing, etc.? As per direct investment. Cut them a break. They will have to spend billions rebuilding from sanctions.

I certainly hate to break it to you Devil, but that country is legally bound to pay any debts it incurred during, before, and after Saddam. Why do you think Bush is sending James Baker over there to talk to France, Russia, and other nations to have them forgive some of the debt?

Bush never ceases to amaze me though. Tell me this, how do you constantly berate a country, countries you know you will need help from, then turn around and ask them for a favor? If this isn't the epidemy of arrogance I don't know what is.

As for this contractor business, the US can do what they want with their money. Is this a good move for us? No way. How do you do this knowing you will need help from these same people sooner or later? It flies in the face of reason, but can you be surprised? Nothing I've seen Bush do concerning Iraq has been anything near reasonable.

Since learning of this latest event I've been looking forward to seeing what people here had to say about it. I'm not surprised by much of what I've read.

Once again, the Bush administration is demonstrating either an intense absence of diplomatic skills or absolute arrogance. OOP has burned into my retina the image of our President telling the world, "it's my ball, you can't play with it!" Just like when the UN would only be allowed to help rebuild Iraq if the US got to be in charge.

Supposedly, our primary objective is to help Iraq become a healthy, stable democracy. As lodgebo pointed out,

So we should offer contracts to the countries that did nothing but condem the US during the war in Iraq, but now that the cash cow (contracts) are up and France, Germany, and many others have there hands out to recieve there "share" the US should just fall over and give them some.

Everyone keep saying this war was about Money and it is becoming apparent that EVERYONE wants to profit from it now that the deadly work is done.

For the debts, I'm not sure what to do with that. I mean there old currency is dead, the new one being brought is hardly in use. I guess its up to each country what they want to do with the debts that Iraq owes them.

Indeed so Optic, but do you think it's wise to berate these countries like we have, then turn around and ask them to help the US by forgiving the debt owed by Iraq?

To put this mildly, Bush surely lacks diplomacy. He is under the impression that every country in the world should do as we ask or else. In my opinion, this shows an extremely spoiled and arrogant personality.

Another thing, no country is being given anything. Their services are being rendered. Maybe one of the others can help the US save face just a little. As it appears now, the Halliburton issue continues to cloud the Bush position as they are now under question for overcharging the US Army in gasoline to the tune of 67 million.

It just keeps getting better now doesn't it?

As for countries that have been berated, the US is in that picture. The countries wanted nothing to do with the war but now that there is money to be made the countries are crying because they can't play. Well those countries chose not to play but now that there is a winning team, they want to jump ship to celebrate and profit in the spoils.

Yes the countries are looking for hand outs. Yes they would be rendering services. Where where there rendered services during the war.

As for Halliburton those are potential issues. We will see what happens with them.

Frankly, I don't believe anything Saddam did was above the table or for the good of his people. So, in saying that, I am sure the debts will be disclosed to determine what is legally owed.
Those countries who violated the UN resolution and sanctions will definiately be exposed regardless of the whether the debt is payed or not. I am more interested in that than the debts owed.
I want to know who supported Saddam for monetary gains.

Personally I think every country should just back completely off and let the US handle it if that's what the US wants, but it isn't now is it?

Is the reason Bush sent Jim Baker over to France to ask them for debt forgiveness Bush's idea of being fair?

You keep saying that these nations want a handout, yet Bush is asking them for support after he refuses to support them. That is astonishing that he would have the nerve to do so.

In the long run, the US will need these countries as you see with him sending Baker to them.

As for Halliburton I guess you're another that don't see any kind of conflict of interest in using them too right? After all, just because Cheney is connected and they contributed millions to the Bush campaign and afterward got a no bid contract for billions doesn't mean that things look conflicting here. It's just our imaginations because it's just perceived as such.

You are missing the underlying reasoning. Exposing those that went against the UN resolutions and sanctions with Iraq.
As far as Halliburton, give us a list of the global countries that can handle this contract better than Halliburton? Besides, I don't want my tax dollars paying for French or German workers in Iraq. Period.

Of course you don't want your tax dollars paying for those nations, because Bush doesn't.

Another thing, we didn't expose anyone. They were up front with their objection to this war. I don't know where you get these nations objecting to sanctions from. That's a new one for me.

Halliburton is not the only qualified contractor to do this job. Why do you think even the republicans were calling for an investigation into the way Halliburton received this contract? The process was a no public bid award to Halliburton. It would seem to me that this is exactly what it seems or at the very least a political payback.

But Charles was one of the points of this invasion not to make Iraq a democratic fair country and also to make it like a lot of the superpowers of the world with issues like treating everybody fairly?
Well in making decisions for the Iraqi people Bush has blown that dream. After all it is very clear you can only have a blood contract if you are our friends, that I must say is a very democratic way of deciding and a great step in diplomacy from the greatest superpower on earth.

And yes Iraq will be a fair and free country that has a lot of international influences, that is of course unless you are talking about the Russian, French, German and Chinese influences.

And finally Bush telling these countries in the morning that they are not getting any of the contracts and in the afternoon asking them to call of the debts to give the US a hand I always thought those that had kicked alcohol were not meant to drink again because that idea sound s like a drunk one.

Chuck, how can you form your fingers to type the word credibility when talking about Iraq and the US period? You ask me did I study the Halliburton contract issue. Unless you have something that would shed light, why would this administration even cling to the appearance of something unethical?

Don't tell me I'm suceptible to propoganda when you fell for everything Bush has said about this war dispite his lacking any evidence for it.

As for the French. Is this why Bush sent Baker over there to ask them for their help in forgiving Iraqi debt owed to them?

You have to be kidding. Bush is the biggest embicil we've ever had as president, not because he's republican either, but because he runs this country like he thinks we rule the world. It is dangerous for us, and we are no safer or better off since he's taken office.

Bush Expects Iraq Overcharges to Be Repaid
Fri December 12, 2003 02:57 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush said on Friday that he expected $61 million to be repaid to the U.S. government if a Pentagon probe determines a Halliburton subsidiary overcharged for fuel deliveries to Iraq.
"Their investigation will lay the facts out for everybody to see. And if there's an overcharge like we think there is we expect that money to be repaid," Bush told reporters.

Really Ron, I wasn't making an issue out of that (although I noticed you left out that this isn't the only time they've been acused of bilking the military :lol don't get hung up on this ok. It could have been an oversight, but my point is simply this. The way things are being handled, this wouldn't have come out in the media if it were done properly.

@peace

Halliburton publicly bid and won the contract in early 90's. When it was rebid, I think '97, they lost. The company that won - whoever it was, was also a big player. There aren't that many. It was rebid in '00 I think and Halliburton won again.

It is a huge competitive blanket contract to supply logistics support services. The Fed agencies with purchasing authority have the right to send work orders to company holding contract without going public. It provides speed to buyers when speed is necessary.

@ron

Pentagon saying that they might have not overcharged because they paid subcontractor high price and added some cents for themselves (al provided for in contract).

In any case it needs to be thoroughly investigated.

Sorry the article didn't have more in it. That's all there was.

[QUOTE][i]Charles said this in post

The US is not asking our dear friends to call off a debt that the US owes them.

I am not saying the US owes anybody money but what I meant was that this debt thing is a problem and as long as the US is making the big decisions for Iraqis it is their problem

The US is asking them to consider relieving the debt burdon of Iraq. These are crushing burdons that Saddam took on. I don't know the breakdown but I will imagine that much was defense related.

Nobody really knows how it was spent but I know that the debt is somewhere around the $125 billion mark.

First of all, the weapons were crappy and did not't work, so the Iraqi's might not want to pay...

Put it this way if you get a loan for a car and the car doesn't work you don't just cancel the repayments do you? regardless of how the money was spent if Italy, France, UK, Germany and Russia want that money back it has to be repaid. Iraq like I have said before is not a rich country all they need to do is get that money from oil exports, and I am willing to bet who will be the first to buy.

No you cant ask the UN I think bush has fallen out with them as well after all they are backing the rest of the wrold as far as the contracts go.
BTW what happens to these contracts if the UK gets it's way and a NATO foprce is sent in, then the coalition get what it wants (more soldiers) can the NATO countriues get what they want (blood contracts)

Heh weird how things work. When this all started I asked my mom and dad their thoughts on this and they said what was gonna happen did happen. The USA and their allies were gonna go and handle everything than when everything was said and done with were gonna have their handout begging for a piece of the cut. I say this screw France and Germany and if they don't like it who cares no need to be diplomatic to them. They are miserable miserable people and just want to make all of us the same. Good Job USA and good job BUSH

Yeah well you your attitude is the same as Bush, whereas Frnace and Germany etc are angry at the US contracts they are stiil willing to work with the US and still willing to pay money to the Iraq reconstruction fund. Meanwhile Bush idiot that he is keeps throwing it back in thier face. Mind you only Bush would be stupid enough to scrap relations with two of the biggest strongest countries in the world.
Only question is who is stupid enough to back him?

The US of all people should not be criticizing anyone about being in Iraq for monetary reasons. We have a history in that region that rivals none when it comes to greed.

Secondly, I think France and Germany and the rest of them should just back off and let the US have what we say we want. I guarentee that it will be the US that will be asking for help long before the French or Germans would.

As for diplomacy, well Bush is certainly lacking there. He has none plain and simple. But what takes the cake is that after snubbing these countries, he send Baker over there the same day he did it to ask for help in reducing Iraq's debt. And I thought nothing could top Bush asking for troops from other nations to risk their lives, but the US will retain control over all decisions in Iraq.

We don't know how much trouble we're in with someone like this at the wheel of this country. Diplomacy, whether right or wrong, goes a long way. No one wants to be publicly embarrassed, then after you do this you turn right around and expect them to help you.

How do some of you agree with this? I'm surely puzzled here.

Here is a helpful breakdown of contracts to rebuild Iraq, including political contributions (both Republican and Democrat) for the past few years.

As far as this discussion goes,

• Our administration decided to invade Iraq, with no apparent concern for how anyone else felt about that decision.
• They awarded contracts with no bidding process.
• They refused UN assistance when the UN wanted control of the operation.
• They are asking other countries to provide military and logistical support, under their control.
• They are asking other countries to help Iraq by forgiving at least some of its debt.
• They are now refusing contracts to the countries who have not supported our action.

At last the voice of reason!!!! I could not put it any better myself Luke. This invasion and subsequent actions we've taken in Iraq has totally negated every accomplishment we've made since Afghanistan. This is a mass setback.

Although I'm from the states and I want to be a patriot. My conscience will not let me pass the voice of reason.

Thanks for sharing that Luke.

Oneofpeace, Luke90,

From your posts I have no doubt about your patriotism. You are good persons and sensibles ones. The doubts and questions you dare to write, as American people, and given how sensitive these issues are, only put better in perspective your morality. I already forecast barkings, beratings, from some other people but, anyway, your behaviour simply reflects american values as I have always understood them.

All I care to say is:

http://www.inreview.com/showthread....3656&forumid=13

Alright Joe typical tunnel vision I hear Bush has that as well, only seeing one way out of things by sending your soldiers to die on some godforsaken desert and what has that achieved? a few billion dollar contracts, a lot of dead soldiers, a nation that is losing faith in America and a leader who for reasons best known to himself has tried to isolate the US for the rest of the world. All in all I think this is a year Bush and Blair will want to forget.
Have you also noticed that while America is isolating itself from the rest of the world, the rest of the world does not really care?

Thanks, oneofpeace and JY French, for your support! As I read these discussions, the preponderance of posts from people who seem to mindlessly accept the US Administration's point of view can become frustrating. I particularly appreciate JY's recognition of our patriotism! While some here will insist that because we don't approve of the action our country took we must be anti-American and should leave the country, you recognize that as Americans who love our country, we are unhappy with many of the decisions our Administration has made, and hopeful that the world will one day forgive these few years of bad choices.

And lodgebo,

Too many liberals in this thread. Your right we hsould just step back cause that will suerly end all the terrorism riight? Damn sometimes I wonder if a kindergartner has more intelligence than Liberals. I KNOW they do over the French but that's not saying much.