Bush Seeks Help of Allies Barred From Iraq Deals

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Dec 11, 2003.

  1. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #1
    link

    i must conclude that either:
    1. the WH is monumentally incompetent, or
    2. the WH is not in control
     
  2. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #2
    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.
     
  3. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #3
    Re: Bush Seeks Help of Allies Barred From Iraq Deals

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

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2002
    #4
    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?
     
  5. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #5
    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.
     
  6. uhlawboi80 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2002
    Location:
    houston
    #6
    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:
     
  7. zimv20 thread starter macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #7
    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>
     
  8. wwworry macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2002
    #8
    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."
     
  9. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #9
    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:
     
  10. zimv20 thread starter macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #10
    dude -

    go to france. have some wine. get laid. you'll ****ing love france. lay off the french bashing for a few days, huh?
     
  11. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #11
    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.
     
  12. toontra macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2003
    Location:
    London UK
    #12
    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).
     
  13. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #13
    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.
     
  14. radhak macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Location:
    NJ, USA
    #14
    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.
     
  15. uhlawboi80 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2002
    Location:
    houston
    #15
    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!)
     
  16. zimv20 thread starter macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #16
    yes, but that provisional gov't is supposed to be bound by int'l law.
     
  17. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #17
    Thank you, nice post.
     
  18. radhak macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Location:
    NJ, USA
    #18
    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.
     
  19. toontra macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2003
    Location:
    London UK
    #19
    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.
     
  20. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #20
    Then why are we out there passing the hat looking for "donor nations" to help us foot the bill?
     
  21. Stelliform macrumors 68000

    Stelliform

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    #21
    To give them a chance to feel useful? ;)
     
  22. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #22
    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?
     
  23. G5ROCKS macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2003
    #23
    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.
     
  24. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #24
    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.
     
  25. Inu macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 5, 2003
    #25
    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?)
     

Share This Page