Bush Seeks Help of Allies Barred From Iraq Deals

[zimv20]

link (http://nytimes.com/2003/12/11/international/middleeast/11PREX.html?hp=&pagewanted=print&position=)


President Bush found himself in the awkward position on Wednesday of calling the leaders of France, Germany and Russia to ask them to forgive Iraq's debts, just a day after the Pentagon excluded those countries and others from $18 billion in American-financed Iraqi reconstruction projects.

White House officials were fuming about the timing and the tone of the Pentagon's directive, even while conceding that they had approved the Pentagon policy of limiting contracts to 63 countries that have given the United States political or military aid in Iraq.

Many countries excluded from the list, including close allies like Canada, reacted angrily on Wednesday to the Pentagon action. They were incensed, in part, by the Pentagon's explanation in a memorandum that the restrictions were required "for the protection of the essential security interests of the United States."

The Russian defense minister, Sergei Ivanov, when asked about the Pentagon decision, responded by ruling out any debt write-off for Iraq.

The Canadian deputy prime minister, John Manley, suggested crisply that "it would be difficult" to add to the $190 million already given for reconstruction in Iraq.

White House officials said Mr. Bush and his aides had been surprised by both the timing and the blunt wording of the Pentagon's declaration. But they said the White House had signed off on the policy, after a committee of deputies from a number of departments and the National Security Council agreed that the most lucrative contracts must be reserved for political or military supporters.

Those officials apparently did not realize that the memorandum, signed by Paul D. Wolfowitz, deputy secretary of defense, would appear on a Defense Department Web site hours before Mr. Bush was scheduled to ask world leaders to receive James A. Baker III, the former treasury secretary and secretary of state, who is heading up the effort to wipe out Iraq's debt. Mr. Baker met with the president on Wednesday.

(more)


i must conclude that either:
1. the WH is monumentally incompetent, or
2. the WH is not in control

[Ugg]

I agree with your second idea. Wolfowitz wants more than anything to punish anyone who doesn't help the US and Israel. Period. He has shown that he will do whatever needs to be done to further his goals and has no regard for the WH or the good of the American public.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by zimv20


i must conclude that either:
1. the WH is monumentally incompetent, or
2. the WH is not in control

Or the WH is in control of its incompetence...? Skillfully managed incompetence. What a concept.

[wwworry]

against the party line, I don't think that it's so bad that France Russia and Germany are barred from US funded contracts in Iraq. Buy American, you know. However to go and ask them for money the day afterwards is rather thick or quite stupid.

If you made a list of stupidity, lies and corporate give-aways by this administration it would be huge.

When are going to make a list?

[mactastic]

The WH needs to take responsibility instead of passing the blame off to the Pentagon. King George needs one of those "the buck stops here" signs for his desk. Maybe I'll send him one for Xmas.

First it was the Pentagon's fault that the Iraqi intelligence was so bad, even though it now appears that the office of the VP was intimately involved in gathering and analyzing intel. Then they got blamed for poor post-war planning. Now they are taking the blame for another WH blunder. Pretty soon the intel community is going to want nothing to do with this administration. All they have to look forward to is misused intel being blamed on them.

[uhlawboi80]

I must be the only person who agrees with what hes doing. Though normally im not a big GW fan, here i support the governemnts position.

It is totally fair to restrict contracts to people who supported/contributed to the war...we are giving their contries economies infusions of cash to help them along as the countries took taxes that their businesses and citizens paid and used them in Iraq.

That being said, it irritates the ever living ***** out of me that jacka$$ chirac et al are trying to call it a violation of international law. We arent restricting some UN rebuilding funds or anything else, it OUR money, why cant we give it to who we want? The can still get the subcontracts or any contract paid for by monies not coming from the US.

And why NOT ask them to still help with rebuilding iraq? Its still in their best interests for a major oil producing nation to be stable. Not to mention it is jsut better to not have major states as unstable as iraq is now. I just find it hypocritical that they want to "help" and say its up to the world to build Iraq...but apparently that ONLY applies when US money gets tossed at the like a frisbee (though as smart as most of them are it will hit them in the head and fall on the groud) BUT when we ask them to do something that wont benefit them directly they dont want to.

"We wont help at all if we dont get us contracts." These countries might as well be in the middle of your local supermarket on the ground flailing their arms and legs in a giant temper tantrum.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[zimv20]

Originally posted by uhlawboi80

it irritates the ever living ***** out of me that jacka$$ chirac et al are trying to call it a violation of international law. We arent restricting some UN rebuilding funds or anything else, it OUR money, why cant we give it to who we want?

it's already been "given" to the iraqi rebuilding effort, which just happens to be another US outfit. that outfit, operating as the stand-in gov't, is supposed to adhere to int'l law. it may very well be illegal.

<soapbox>
either way, bush is playing bad politics. the world won't put up w/ this crap forever. the US should stop acting like the world needs it more than the US needs the world.
</soapbox>

[wwworry]

uhlawboi80, As I said before I also agree that US money should go to US companies.

But the reason why France will not give money is because they are being asked to fund the US program in Iraq without having any say in how the money is spent. That does not seem fair does it.

Why should France follow what we say and do any more than the US should follow France? This seems a case of "Shut up and give us the money you stupid French people."

[Dont Hurt Me]

France hasnt ever followed what the U.S says, France is on its own path and this was very clear as they fought tooth and nail against giving Saddam the Boot. George told these nations that if they were not with us dont be hanging around afterwards looking for those U.S dollars when we clean up and rebuild the place. well here we are and who is hanging around? i dont see why they are acting so shocked. He told them before we went in. they choose not to participate so here we are. I guess Jacque had a little to much wine that day.:eek:

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
France hasnt ever followed what the U.S says, France is on its own path and this was very clear as they fought tooth and nail against giving Saddam the Boot.

dude -

go to france. have some wine. get laid. you'll ****ing love france. lay off the french bashing for a few days, huh?

[Dont Hurt Me]

My wife does a good job taking care of me zimv20,also a good merlot has found its way to my gullet more often then not(california thank you) im not France bashing but George told these guys did he not? come on did he? well you know he did. i dont see the problem they choose this path and now we are cleaning up. they could have gotten on board but they choose not to so who's fault is it that they dont get My Tax dollars? George tried everything to get these guys involved and it was the choice they made. They can still subcontract and they can still go in and help but iam GLAD France wont be getting my tax dollars.

[toontra]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
He told them before we went in. they choose not to participate so here we are.

Can you please explain what Bush "told them" before the war? Did he say to the French, etc, "Join us invading Iraq or you will not be able to bid for reconstruction contracts?"

I don't remember this, but if you can provide a link I'll stand corrected. :)

It's quite possible this was the case; it sounds like the sort of bully-boy tactics that the WH were employing in the weeks leading up to war (which revolted and insulted many countries and ended up having the opposite of desired effect).

[IJ Reilly]

Canada has supplied hundreds of millions towards the rebuilding efforts, but is on the Pentagon black list nevertheless. The incoming Prime Minister has said he can't fathom why.

Face it, the Bush administration has an unequalled talent for alienating friends and allies. If they hadn't made such a point of methodically ticking off our allies over the course of the last 18 months, we would not even be discussing this.

[radhak]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me

im not France bashing but George told these guys did he not? come on did he? well you know he did. i dont see the problem they choose this path and now we are cleaning up. they could have gotten on board but they choose not to so who's fault is it that they dont get My Tax dollars? George tried everything to get these guys involved and it was the choice they made. They can still subcontract and they can still go in and help but iam GLAD France wont be getting my tax dollars.

you are beating a different thread now. yesterday, the Pentagon told the world, "you did not give any, you don't get any". it was a stand-off more worthy of school-yard kids, but all the nations involved here have been pretty profit-oriented, so we could let it stand.

but this thread started when GWB goes back to the same countries and ask them to forgive Iraq's debts. so maybe the non-cooperation for the war implied limited access to the loot (it was never explicitly said, i think), but this is the classic example of adding insult to injury.

let us bring this down to an everyday example. you and me are big guys with heavy sticks, living in a neighbourhood where a bully abuses and tortures his family a lot. we are all silent spectators. the bully buys groceries from you, so you don't want to interfere, but nothing from me, so i want to set things a bit straight for myself. i want to go in to kill that guy, you refuse to help, i still go in, kill that guy, and then hit the poor widow and family with a hefty bill for 're-construction'. you want to 'help' with the reconstruction, i say no (who am i to say no? well, the big stick). at the same time, i do ask you to forgive the family for the debts they have run up with you, the poor things.

i wonder how many would call this situation unfair, but are okay with either France / USA's position.

[uhlawboi80]

actually from my understanding the US funds have NOT been put into any sort of international fund and it has not just been turned over to the provisional government in Iraq so no...till one of those two things happen international trade law really doesnt apply.

as to france bashing...im not bashing france itself and i didnt even really see the point in the boycotting of french products. But if they didnt have the balls or spine to help kick out saddam then they should probably just stay in frances safe borders where they were all along.

Besides, we are just following a very american ideal...we broke it, we will fix it ;) (with our money spent how we want it and give to whom we choose!)

[zimv20]

Originally posted by uhlawboi80
actually from my understanding the US funds have NOT been put into any sort of international fund and it has not just been turned over to the provisional government in Iraq so no...till one of those two things happen international trade law really doesnt apply.


yes, but that provisional gov't is supposed to be bound by int'l law.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Originally posted by uhlawboi80
actually from my understanding the US funds have NOT been put into any sort of international fund and it has not just been turned over to the provisional government in Iraq so no...till one of those two things happen international trade law really doesnt apply.

as to france bashing...im not bashing france itself and i didnt even really see the point in the boycotting of french products. But if they didnt have the balls or spine to help kick out saddam then they should probably just stay in frances safe borders where they were all along.

Besides, we are just following a very american ideal...we broke it, we will fix it ;) (with our money spent how we want it and give to whom we choose!) Thank you, nice post.

[radhak]

Originally posted by uhlawboi80
actually from my understanding the US funds have NOT been put into any sort of international fund and it has not just been turned over to the provisional government in Iraq so no...till one of those two things happen international trade law really doesnt apply.

as to france bashing...im not bashing france itself and i didnt even really see the point in the boycotting of french products. But if they didnt have the balls or spine to help kick out saddam then they should probably just stay in frances safe borders where they were all along.

Besides, we are just following a very american ideal...we broke it, we will fix it ;) (with our money spent how we want it and give to whom we choose!)

what are we talking about here : some sort of a no-mans-land? this is a real country, with living people. being so, they are part of the world, and international laws apply. or are you imagining some sort of a bandit-outpost where the say-so of the guy with the gun supercedes everything? just because the US rushed in with a mighty army does not make Iraq any less a country. the US is behaving more and more like an invading-and-occupying force (which it still denies to be).

the money that is being talked about is not US money alone, not in the long run; the very idea of the US investing money in Iraq is that : 'invest'. the idea is that the returns are going to be many-fold, for many years, and from Iraq's oil. this is all pure profit-talk, and let the hapless country be damned.

the best view of any situation is how history would view it.
eg : after Pearl Harbor, a witch hunt was carried out against people of Japanese origin in the US, and huge numbers of them were put in some sort of camps (pretty akin to concentration camps in structure, if not in brutality). it was only much later that everybody here realized how unfair and unjust that was.
seeing that the US is now even mightier than before (militarily), and the sole superpower, we can only pray it does not take so long again for it to think humanely.

[toontra]

Originally posted by radhak
what are we talking about here

We're talking, once again, about the US doing what it damn well pleases because there's no-one going to stop it, and, as time goes on, increasingly foregoing international diplomacy.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by uhlawboi80
Besides, we are just following a very american ideal...we broke it, we will fix it ;) (with our money spent how we want it and give to whom we choose!)

Then why are we out there passing the hat looking for "donor nations" to help us foot the bill?

[Stelliform]

Originally posted by mactastic
Then why are we out there passing the hat looking for "donor nations" to help us foot the bill?

To give them a chance to feel useful? ;)

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Stelliform
To give them a chance to feel useful? ;)

Yeah that's it.

That kind of snide attitude is what makes the rest of the world NOT want to help us out here. And not only not want to help us, it may make some actively work AGAINST our interests.

Why can't the US be the "bigger person" here and show some forgiveness rather than thumbing our collective nose at the world again? Or are we looking to perpetuate a climate of hostility between us and our allies?

[G5ROCKS]

Originally posted by radhak

the money that is being talked about is not US money alone,


The money being talked about is the 18.6 or so billion in US tax payer money. There is other international money, but the money being talked about for these contracts is US money alone.

[Ugg]

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
The money being talked about is the 18.6 or so billion in US tax payer money. There is other international money, but the money being talked about for these contracts is US money alone.

The US touts competition and free trade at all costs yet is willing to subvert those ideals whenever it suits their own purposes.

While everyone seems to think that the US has the right to do whatever it wants with its own money, and the idea does have merit, what has been lost sight of here is who this is designed to benefit. Did we go to war merely to help such beleagured :rolleyes: companies like Bechtel and Halliburton or did we go to war to help the Iraqi people. If the second is true then it is in the best interests of the Iraqi people to have the most competititive bidding process possible.

Of course if the welfare of the Iraqis is not of prime importance then gw has every right to tell everyone to eff off.

[Inu]

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
The money being talked about is the 18.6 or so billion in US tax payer money. There is other international money, but the money being talked about for these contracts is US money alone.

Yeah, and you are paying that money because you ran off to oust a dictator (that was as bad as they get, but not dangerous internationally speaking) for very dubious reasons, swearing and cursing at your former friends and allies - just to feel proud in having beat a very outgunned low-tech army.

If you really want international support, go on and admit you made an awful mistake there (it doesnt hurt so bad, really) and start from anew. The billions you are paying are part of the learning fee, and it might cost more sweat blood and money to bring your failure to a good end - an international end, with international sweat, blood and money.

Or you just keep your petty little games, pat your own shoulders pour in sweat, blood and money and in the end not even achieve your goal because lacking international support. Tough call.


On the other hand, it might as well go good if you go it alone (I wish you luck there) - it might as well go bad if you go the international route (less likely, but well... nothings granted in this world, is there?)

[zimv20]

Originally posted by mactastic
are we looking to perpetuate a climate of hostility between us and our allies?

krugman is wondering the same thing (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/12/opinion/12KRUG.html)

[G5ROCKS]

Inu,
The international danger of Saddam is something that you can discount, but I do not.

Right now, there is a good bit of international blood and sweat in Iraq from a number of different countries.

There's also other money, significant international money, that firms from non coalition countries can bid on.

There's just no reason to pass out prime contracts in places that didn't want to have anything to do with Iraq when it was costly, but start jumping up and down with rage when they aren't invited to take part when it may be profitable.

I say, let them have the contracts after they forgive the debt on the money they loaned to Saddam.

[radhak]

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
The international danger of Saddam is something that you can discount, but I do not.
...
There's just no reason to pass out prime contracts in places that didn't want to have anything to do with Iraq when it was costly, but start jumping up and down with rage when they aren't invited to take part when it may be profitable.

sure, it was dangerous then; but in all likelyhood, Iraq is even more dangerous now! an ever-visible brutal dictator is now replaced by a shadowy entity, as ruthless as ever, picking out and killing at will American youngsters who will henceforth have to protect all these contract-winning companies and their fat-cats.


I say, let them have the contracts after they forgive the debt on the money they loaned to Saddam.

despite whatever you or i say, what will most probably happen, is that Bush and team will not back down on the contracts (after all, nothing illegal there), and in retaliation the other countries will refuse to forgive the loan. the only losers in this game are the perpetual victims, the people of Iraq.

not that the American people get away free : their tax money is 'granted' by Congress to reconstruct Iraq, which is then siphoned over to Cheney's companies with zero competition and at usurious rates. i am amazed that there are people very happy about this.

[G5ROCKS]

radhak,
The contracts for the 18.7 billion in reconstruction that are at issue have not been awarded. They are also being awarded with an open bidding process. Where did you get the idea that there isn't a bidding process on this 18.7 billion? I am amazed that you think these contracts are being awarded without competition.

We will see what happens with the restructuring of loans opening of contracts to non coalition countries.

[uhlawboi80]

1. no one is saying that there isnt a provisional government. the point is its not money GIVEN to them. its US money being used to pay for services we are providing for them. Its not a loan. Its not theirs. Therefore laws governing their government really arent relevant now are they?

2. We do expect a return...so does the rest of the world. A more stable oil supply and therefore a more stable energy market.

3. These awards are being bidded out, what i was saying earlier is that if this simple fact puts our money at the mercy of international law there is a good chance we will just sidestep bidding.

4. we arent subverting free trade and open markets. The bidding is still being offered to MANY MANY countries. Its not like the US (and honestly it has every right to) is keeping the contracts for only US companies. And dont tell me that not offering a handful of countries options to bid on the contracts will result is some failure to provide the needed aid to Iraq, thats just a load. No one has lost sight of who its going to benefit...but if someone has might it be the countries who threw attitudes and are threatening to refuse all aid and not forgive loans to Iraq simply because they cant bid on a PORTION of the contracts??

[wwworry]

but why would he go and ask France for money the day after he excluded them from Iraqi contracts?

[toontra]

Couldn't this whole thing have been contrived partly to make Bush look tough for domestic political reasons?

Judging by some of the responses in these threads this policy does seem very popular with Republican voters concerned with how their tax dollars are spent!

[uhlawboi80]

i dont recall him going and asking france for money, but he is asking everyone for support for Iraq and asking then to forgive debt.

Though, i still dont see why people are connecting the two. France is still able to bid on billions of dollars worth of other contracts and why does france have to get money from our contracts in order to provide other aid to Iraq...they are the ones running around claiming its up to the world to put Iraq back together...well then just do it, dont just do it because we will give you the shot at lucrative contracts. Im sorry, but to say its something everyone needs to work for then turning around and saying we wont give money without the chance of getting money seems uber hypocritical.

and im sure it is partially political, but no one loves to see us tossing money away on ANYTHING. and personally id love to see the US and anyone else who provided assistance in the freeing of Iraq get these contracts. They are the ones who risked things, they are the ones who spent monies already so why not infuse THIER economies with our money?

[zimv20]

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
I am amazed that you think these contracts are being awarded without competition.


were you amazed when halliburton and bechtel were awarded no-bid contracts?

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by uhlawboi80
i dont recall him going and asking france for money, but he is asking everyone for support for Iraq and asking then to forgive debt.

Okay, so what's the difference between asking for money and asking for debts to be forgiven?

[uhlawboi80]

ok

1) no one ever pretended the halliburton or bechtel contracts were goiing to be bidded out. The need was immediate, the expertise required was high and the government went to who they knew could get the job done. We didnt claim that they were going to be bidded out. If they say the other contracts are going to be bidded out then they will be.

2) The difference being he wasnt asking for money for the rebuilding as such he was actually asking at the time for humanitarian aid and for the debt to be forgiven which is more of an economic aid. but to say he went begging for money the next day implies he went to get money for the purpose he was not offering them the ability to get contracts for. Thats not the case.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by uhlawboi80
ok

1) no one ever pretended the halliburton or bechtel contracts were goiing to be bidded out. The need was immediate

because no one knew reconstruction had to happen, right?

i'm not certain how breaking the law and handing out no-bid contracts w/o pretense makes everything hunky dory.

[uhlawboi80]

no one said we werent expecting reconstruction, though i dont think anyone really expected the entire water/sewage systems or power grids to be DESTROYED. damaged yes, and no we didnt expect the Iraq army to light their own oil fields on fire ot attempt to..which is why Haliburton was brought in (we did expect it in Kuwait..they werent their wells).

now please, oh wise one, what law was broken by those contracts? The governments policy is usually to bid out contracts but i could almot gaurantee there are exceptions built into that policy (which may not even be a law) for certain circumstances. so yeah, handing out the contracts IS hunky dory till you can find me a law that was broken, which i doubt you can.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by uhlawboi80
no one said we werent expecting reconstruction, though i dont think anyone really expected the entire water/sewage systems or power grids to be DESTROYED.

The point is, this should have been anticipated. It's called "planning," the thing the Bush administration did poorly.

[uhlawboi80]

first i feel i should point out that i was against the war to begin with and am NOT a giant fan of bush.

All the same, what does being prepared have to do with calling his actions flippintly illegal? You dont like that he (though it was the pentagon really) handed out no bid contracts fine. Just say it. I thought it was a bad idea too as we are now seeing, but i can see why it might have and might need to be done.

still doesnt make his/their actions ILLEGAL

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by uhlawboi80
All the same, what does being prepared have to do with calling his actions flippintly illegal?

I never said they were illegal, someone else made that claim. I think it's just plain dumb. In some ways, that's even worse then illegal.

[Juventuz]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Okay, so what's the difference between asking for money and asking for debts to be forgiven?

The difference is that the new Iraq is not bound to pay back France, Germany and Russia. The three countries made the "loans" to Saddam Hussein and his regime. Neither of which are in control anymore. We're just being courteous by asking them to forgive the debt.

They knew that they were going to loose that money the second the invasion started, that was a main factor in them protesting against the invasion.

Many are saying that if Germany, France and Russia were to forgive the debts the US would allow them to bid of the $18 billion. Canada is rumored to be allowed into the bid process now that they have a new pro-US Prime Minister.

[uhlawboi80]

i never said you did. but the post i was replying to that you took issue with was in response to labeling of Bushes actions as "illegal" and i was making a point about the need for services not being expected as a possible reason there was no bidding.

so i did sort of assume that your post was implying that the contracts were illegal and occured because of poor planning...but no you didnt say they were illegal outright :)

[Ugg]

Originally posted by Juventuz
The difference is that the new Iraq is not bound to pay back France, Germany and Russia. The three countries made the "loans" to Saddam Hussein and his regime. Neither of which are in control anymore. We're just being courteous by asking them to forgive the debt.

They knew that they were going to loose that money the second the invasion started, that was a main factor in them protesting against the invasion.

Many are saying that if Germany, France and Russia were to forgive the debts the US would allow them to bid of the $18 billion. Canada is rumored to be allowed into the bid process now that they have a new pro-US Prime Minister.

You don't know of what you speak.....

As an occupying power, according to the Geneva Convention, the US is responsible for the general well-being of the people and the running of the country, AND assumes all the debts of that country. So, technically it is the US that is responsible for paying back those debts. Since the debt was incurred legally by Saddam's government (much of it was sanctioned by the UN) it must be paid back unless the governments to whom it is owed CHOOSE to forgive that debt.

Unless the US decides to flaunt the Geneva Convention in its entirety it is stuck with repaying the debt. Neither can the new Iraqi government forgo paying the debt. If it did, the countries to whom it is owed could essentially claim a percentage of Iraq's industrial output, ie oil, in order to be repaid.

Talk about a mess. I'm sure that once the US hands over the reins to Iraqis the lawsuits are going to start flying right and left. It is definitely illegal for the US to order the sale or attachment of anything owned by Iraqis. This includes oil, tax revenue, etc. The US has broke a number of laws outright and is flaunting others. The US will pay and pay and pay and pay and pay for gw's little incursion into the gulf.

[Juventuz]

Originally posted by Ugg
You don't know of what you speak.....

Actually I do...

Iraq, with regard to its actual debts, has a couple of options. One is to 'reschedule' them, issue new IOU's in exchange for its old ones. Another option is that Iraq could simply default' repudiate the debts of its so-called 'odious' predecessors.

The second option has historical precedence, Russian bonds were never paid after the Tsar was removed. Chinese bonds of the earlier government before the revolution were never paid. In the US the bonds of the Confederacy, when the Confederacy collapsed, were not paid. So there's a history of sovereign debt default.

As for your claim that the US is now reponsible for Iraq's debt, that's false. When the UN sanctions were lifted in May of this year part of the resolution stated that the new Iraqi government would deal with the Paris Club in regards to their debt.

[uhlawboi80]

well....the US doesnt really blow off the geneva convention...though flaunting it (exhibiting it ostentatiously) would seem an odd action...

that aside, the geneva convention deals with humanitarian law, not finances. The only part of the geneva convention that have to do with money are the taking of assets from individual citizens (and i believe it requires they be given reciepts to account for them and it all be returned as well as prevents the taking of things from them that have purely sentimetal value) and nothing with National finances.

in fact, you cant find the word DEBT in the entire 4th incarnation of the geneva convention so im not sure what exactly you are talking about here at all.

Now, i think Iraqs new government may be responsible for Iraqs debt as long as the debt was incurred legally by the state (not a dictator getting loans) but im not sure on this. either way, people would be trying to get money from Iraq even if the new govt wasnt technically liable...that may be why GW is asking for loan forgiveness *shrug* on that point im not positive. but again...this is NOT addressed by the geneva convention...so im not sure WHERE you are getting this.

or what other law suits the US would be subject to...though really states dont SUE each other, if a convention or treaty addresses the issue it usually provides for arbitration or a court/counsel to make a decision which isnt a suit.

anyway

[uhlawboi80]

oh, and if you want to toss out violated treaties

Iraq:

Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare. Geneva, 17 June 1925.

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 9 December 1948.

Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict. The Hague, 14 May 1954.

Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction. Opened for Signature at London, Moscow and Washington. 10 April 1972.

Convention on the Rights of the Child, 20 November 1989.


ok...not an exhaustive list but hey, ive got more finals to study for.

[uhlawboi80]

ok...sorry to triple post but all are unrelated :p

i had no idea that after sanctions were lifted that Iraq was able to go to the Paris Club to reschedule thier debts...though i didnt know the UN sanctions would prevent iraq from rescheduling their debts anyway...still interesting, maybe ill read the resolution (not that it matters NOW) after finals are done

[zimv20]

Originally posted by uhlawboi80

now please, oh wise one, what law was broken by those contracts?

there's no need to be sarcastic.


Such issues have been a nearly lifelong concern for Collins - one of the rare lawmakers who can do the dog work of a tough investigation herself. As staff director for the government management subcommittee from 1979 to 1987, she led an investigation that found "excessive reliance" on sole-source contracting in Washington. The committee produced a bill that required more competitive bidding, but the law left a loophole: No one needs to account to Congress when they claim one of the seven exceptions in that law, including one for national security.


some might argue the contracts were legal because they dealth w/ national security. others might argue that rebuilding schools doesn't qualify.

link (http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1010/p02s01-usfp.html)

[uhlawboi80]

one could also easily argue that at that given time they only wanted certain (and very likely only US/British or one of a handful of other countries) companies in there doing things...for national security reasons. Also, both of the companies at issue here have histories of govt contracting and therefore the US govt knows what to expect, how to deal with, and i suppose in a required circumstance how to control what they do...as in dont mess with this, this needs to be done...so they can get the company flowing to what they need.

just a thought

[zimv20]

Originally posted by uhlawboi80
one could also easily argue that at that given time they only wanted certain (and very likely only US/British or one of a handful of other countries) companies in there doing things...for national security reasons. Also, both of the companies at issue here have histories of govt contracting and therefore the US govt knows what to expect, how to deal with, and i suppose in a required circumstance how to control what they do...as in dont mess with this, this needs to be done...so they can get the company flowing to what they need.

just a thought

they also contributed heavily to bush's campaign.

just a thought

[uhlawboi80]

well Haliburton also gave money to democrats and the Clinton administration managed to get Haliburton millions of dollars in building contracts for building jails at Guantanamo Bay, a base in Kuwait, a ferry terminal on Vieques, an air station in Spain, a breakwater in the Azores and facilities slammed by a typhoon in Guam.

Im sure this was also for the large amounts (140K over like 8 years) that they gave democrats while CHENEY was running the company. Oh wait, maybe Haliburton is just a MASSIVE comapany that does a huge amount of govt contract working.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by uhlawboi80
Oh wait, maybe Haliburton is just a MASSIVE comapany that does a huge amount of govt contract working.

And a company that just happens to have close ties to the Vice President.

[uhlawboi80]

yes, i think i pointed that out myself when i said he "RAN THE COMPANY" but either way, he has no financial interest in the company now that isnt allowed. So i dont think this is happening to benefit Cheney. Im not saying that having run the company he doesnt get hit up with a question and because of his past say "Haliburton was always top of the industry doing ___" but we all do that. There is a reason you go buy certain products...you associate them with quality. Its human, but for whatever reason i dont think Cheneys former job is a big impact on these things. *

* again, im just calling it like i see it..i thought from day one Cheney was a poor choice for VP, and i think hes probably done less as VP (or at least gotten no press for anything) than any VP in a while.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by uhlawboi80
i never said you did. but the post i was replying to that you took issue with was in response to labeling of Bushes actions as "illegal" and i was making a point about the need for services not being expected as a possible reason there was no bidding.

so i did sort of assume that your post was implying that the contracts were illegal and occured because of poor planning...but no you didnt say they were illegal outright :)

You talking to me? Hard to tell if you don't quote back.

No need to assume. I said what I meant, and I said it "outright."

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by uhlawboi80
yes, i think i pointed that out myself when i said he "RAN THE COMPANY" but either way, he has no financial interest in the company now that isnt allowed.

Not really -- he's still receiving deferred compensation. But that's only a side issue. To assume Cheney doesn't have any interests in Halliburton is to also assume he doesn't have any pals there anymore simply because he's no longer serving as CEO. Remember, when it comes to making policy, his old buddies from industry are the people he invites into his office for exclusive face time.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Originally posted by uhlawboi80
well Haliburton also gave money to democrats and the Clinton administration managed to get Haliburton millions of dollars in building contracts for building jails at Guantanamo Bay, a base in Kuwait, a ferry terminal on Vieques, an air station in Spain, a breakwater in the Azores and facilities slammed by a typhoon in Guam.

Im sure this was also for the large amounts (140K over like 8 years) that they gave democrats while CHENEY was running the company. Oh wait, maybe Haliburton is just a MASSIVE comapany that does a huge amount of govt contract working. Thank you, that is what these big companies do, they give money to both parties so its a win win situation, if you think haliburton is bad you should look at the sugar industry.:eek: yep they Give to both parties big time so who gets screwed? you and me and the ones doing the screwing is the Republicans and the Democrats and our domestic sugar farmers have a BIG fat smile on their face.

[G5ROCKS]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Not really -- he's still receiving deferred compensation.


Yes, really -- his deferred compensation will come to him whether Halliburton makes a profit or not, even whether it files for bankruptcy protection tomorrow. uhlawboi80 is quite correct. Cheney has no financial interest in Halliburton.

You know, if one was making policy about computers, it would be smarter to call on Bill Gates, Michael Dell, and Steve Jobs rather than the Unabomber.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
Yes, really -- his deferred compensation will come to him whether Halliburton makes a profit or not, even whether it files for bankruptcy protection tomorrow. uhlawboi80 is quite correct. Cheney has no financial interest in Halliburton.

You know, if one was making policy about computers, it would be smarter to call on Bill Gates, Michael Dell, and Steve Jobs rather than the Unabomber.

...he said, evading the point, and contributing a nonsensical analogy.

[uhlawboi80]

well i think any valid comment on Cheney's financial interest in Hlaiburton is right on point, esp considering you were talking about it in the post he was replying to :rolleyes:

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
You know, if one was making policy about computers, it would be smarter to call on Bill Gates, Michael Dell, and Steve Jobs rather than the Unabomber.

And it would be prudent to allow the fox to design and build your henhouse.

[g5man]

If Cheney wanted to get rich he should have rejected Bush's invitation to be VP. If hadn't sold his shares in Haliburton once he was nominated he would have made millions.

I would object and agree with many of you if Cheney was helping Haliburton because of his past relationship, when there were better companies out there to do the job. This has not been shown. In fact there I have not seen any proof showing financial gain for the GOP or Cheney. If Haliburton benefits it is because they do an excellent job in industry (which is not all oil by the way).

[pseudobrit]

So you presume Cheney's golden seat won't be kept warm for him while he's away?

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by uhlawboi80
well i think any valid comment on Cheney's financial interest in Hlaiburton is right on point, esp considering you were talking about it in the post he was replying to :rolleyes:

That, and two other points. :rolleyes: