U.S. encourages cooperation by avoiding cooperation

[DaysWithoutEnd]

U.S. blocks foes to war from Iraq contracts
Wednesday, December 10, 2003

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Pentagon will bar France, Germany and other countries that opposed the U.S.-led war in Iraq from competing for $18.6 billion worth of contracts in the Mideast nation's reconstruction efforts.

A memo posted Tuesday on a Pentagon Web site restricts the list of countries eligible to compete for the contracts to nations that participated in the coalition effort in the Iraq war or supported it.

The memo, signed by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, said that "international support and cooperation are necessary for progress in Iraq."

"It is necessary for the protection of the essential security interests of the United States to limit competition for the prime contracts of these procurements to companies from the United States, Iraq, coalition partners and force contributing nations," Wolfowitz said in the memo, dated December 5.

An attachment lists 63 countries eligible for contracts to improve Iraq's ravaged infrastructure -- including electricity, water, transportation, housing and health systems -- as well as to arm the new Iraqi army and restore oil production.

Noticeably absent from the list are France, Germany, Russia and China -- countries that strongly opposed the war.

France is studying the legality of the decision to bar its participation, the French Foreign Ministry said Wednesday.

"We're taking note of the directing lines signed by Mr. Paul Wolfowitz," a French spokesman said. "We wish to make no comments at this stage."

But the spokesman added, "We're studying the compatibility of these decisions with the international laws of competition, together with our concerned partners, especially the European Union and the European Commission." (Full story)

In Berlin, a German government spokesman said the United States had not contacted his government. If it is true that Germany is barred, he said that "it would not be acceptable. It would not be in agreement with the spirit that both sides have signaled, to look into the future and not into the past."

[tobedawg]

Another great example of why our country and it's government is so loved around the world...

[Duemellon]

The typical left/liberal/conspirist argument:
This is the next step in the plan. It's not a surprise and it's a clear case of the US taking hold of resources in an attempt to control the world.

The typical right/conservative/patriot argument:
This is the next step in the plan. It's not a surprise and it's a clear case of the US taking hold of resources in an attempt to reward allies and ensure security.

[Phreon]

It goes like this:

They didn't help us, so they ain't getting a piece of the pie.

Think of it as a modern day, "Neener, neener, neener! I won all the marbles; you can't have any!".

Phreon

[Duemellon]

Analogy time:

My mother is proud (read: too good for anyone), intelligent, and lived independently for years (before she met my dad and shortly afterwards). She never needed anyone's help. Actually, it's worth saying she avoided anyone's help. When the problem became big, she did it herself. If she failed to resolve it, she wore the collapse around her shoulders, waded through her own mess, and lived with that buren for the rest of her life.

Due to her own arrogance, she has made life difficult for herself. She has proven to herself that she is her own boss, but also is carrying around a lot of weight she really needed to share with others. Now she's alone, bitter, and resentful of everyone with an attitude that's a mixture of: "You didn't help, why do you care?" and "I did this myself, why do I need you?" with a dash of "You're weaker than me because you never would've gotten this far."

Yah, she was the only one reaping the seeds that she had sewn, but her life would be a lot better if she shared her burdens, even those she did to "prove a point".

[dcXhc]

The "burden" part is finished.

The only "burden" these foreign companies are looking to shoulder is the heavy load of making profits.

Your analogy is totally lame. We didn't avoid the help of the French, et al. They made it clear that they were opposed. Now they want to come in and make money without taking on any of the risk.

A better analogy would be that your mother wanted to renovate her house and asked others to help her. Some of the others said she was a moron and they refused to provide any help. After the renovations, the house was worth a bundle, and now these same good-for-nothings who told her to sod off are knocking on the door looking for some handouts.

[DaysWithoutEnd]

For the me, the irony is that the U.S. was so intent on going alone, that it ignored the international community, when we should have waited for their help in the first place. Now that the damage is done and people are more willing to get involved, we are still trying to shut them out.

I think Due's analogy was more accurate. If Iraq was a house, then his mother would've knocked it down first, despite the objections of the Preservation Society. THEN, she would ignore the people offering to help rebuild the house to neighborhood standards, and put up an ugly suburban style ranch that didn't even make sense compared to the other homes on the block.

[dcXhc]

Originally posted by DaysWithoutEnd
For the me, the irony is that the U.S. was so intent on going alone, that it ignored the international community, when we should have waited for their help in the first place. Now that the damage is done and people are more willing to get involved, we are still trying to shut them out.

I think Due's analogy was more accurate. If Iraq was a house, then his mother would've knocked it down first, despite the objections of the Preservation Society. THEN, she would ignore the people offering to help rebuild the house to neighborhood standards, and put up an ugly suburban style ranch that didn't even make sense compared to the other homes on the block.

But the motives for the others getting involved is not some altruistic desire to help build a better Iraq, it is simply to cash in on the contracts. These countries are not offering to assist in the cost of the reconstruction, they just want riskless access to the profits.

[BigSugar]

well sure, if you mean that the 63 coalition partners giving money and troops and support to the war effort is "ignoring the international community". i guess because France and Germany took their ball and went home, then it's not "truly international"....

63 out of 193 dentists disagree!

[DaysWithoutEnd]

So our esteemed President, who espouses the ideals of free trade, competition, and trickle-down economics, now thinks that our efforts are best served by reducing competition?

[DaysWithoutEnd]

Originally posted by dcXhc

But the motives for the others getting involved is not some altruistic desire to help build a better Iraq, it is simply to cash in on the contracts. These countries are not offering to assist in the cost of the reconstruction, they just want riskless access to the profits.

Which country are we talking about now?

[dcXhc]

Originally posted by DaysWithoutEnd
Which country are we talking about now?

I assume that's a rhetorical question?

[DaysWithoutEnd]

Originally posted by dcXhc

I assume that's a rhetorical question?

If by 'rhetorical' you mean 'sarcastic', then yes.

[Duemellon]

If by 'rhetorical' you mean 'sarcastic', then yes. I might even put that in my sig. That is great.

Oh, and as for "most of the burden is over"...

nah. Well, if you want to believe that we've already lost as many lives as we possibly could and that ALL major operations have truly ended.

But, uh... doesn't look like it.

Me? I'd say, "Hey dudes, you guys can come if you help provide security and other monies. I mean, sure you didn't start the fight, but DAMN, my kids are being killed daily and it's costing me THIS much per week!"

It's easy for me to say that because I invaded Afghanistan & Iraq on principle and self-defense not out of financial concerns or resource control.

[WalterSobchak]

Originally posted by Duemellon
The typical left/liberal/conspirist argument:

The typical right/conservative/patriot argument:

I understand your point, but disagree with your meaning of patriot. Just want it on the record.

the audacity of wanting to make a profit off of rebuilding a country.

Originally posted by dcXhc
A better analogy would be that your mother wanted to renovate her house and asked others to help her. Some of the others said she was a moron and they refused to provide any help. After the renovations, the house was worth a bundle, and now these same good-for-nothings who told her to sod off are knocking on the door looking for some handouts.

It would be her house... So this analogy fails as well. Just keep ignoring the root of the problem and keep poking the end result with your stick.

[dcXhc]

Originally posted by WalterSobchak
the audacity of wanting to make a profit off of rebuilding a country.

I agree. It is audacious that the French, Russian, Germans, Chinese want to come in after everything just so that they can make a profit.

[Duemellon]

again, everyone is pointing at these other countries as if they were vultures...

dont you understand these vultures have armies of their own? Let them secure Iraq & Afghanistan. Sure, we did the initial push, but the war is far from over, heck, we're suffering casualties at a quicker pace than during the main push.

WE NEED HELP!

Besides, if we did this for the moralistic reasons, why do we care who gets a piece of the pie?

Superman never made any money saving the world from Solomon Grundy.

[dcXhc]

Originally posted by Duemellon
again, everyone is pointing at these other countries as if they were vultures...


That is exactly what they are.

They were adamant in their opposition to the war, but now that there is money to be made, they want in.

It's just that simple.

They aren't offering soldiers or support of any kind. They just want the Benjamins.


I'm sorry this ruins many people's fantasies of a noble Europe standing strong against the evil and greedy AmeriKKKan$.

[Duemellon]

"Think again Spacely..."
-Gogswell

When the US 1st offered these countries a chance "in" he did it with restrictiions equal to a straightjacket and under the auspices that he was doing it outside of international law without international oversight AND anyone who joined the "party" had to play soley by US's rules.

63 countries decided they'd buy into that for a dollar.

These 63 countries who bought in were able to send how many ohter troops? I mean, which countries really stand out as a financial or military powerhouse? I tell you which 3 do:

UK
Brittain
and England.

All the others can't pull forces away to help or their Wal-Marts can't catch shoplifters.

Did you want to review why they didn't join in the original fighting? (Fr, Rus, & Germ) Was it because they were punk-bitches or because they didn't want to join a unilaterally run/administered force creating an internationally destabilizing incident on questionable premises?

They didn't join because they didn't want to be US's war-whores during this international event. They wanted the US to take this opportunity to "come into the fold" and join the world.

instead we carved a piece off, claimed it as our own, told them "fuck you" and are serving this chunk of land WHICH IS NOT OURS to our friends and family as a reward for joining us in our plunder.

Again, make their bidding conditional:
You want in, you defend yourself & others.

[BigSugar]

Iraq has tens of billions in outstanding debt to the Russians (help with oil industry), China (missles and weapons tech), France (brie and spare razors) and Germany (surplus Cyanide gas for the death chambers).....i would welcome those countries into the bidding process....forgive the debt to Iraq, join the re-building process....

while we don't have to make military support conditional on these countries helping in the re-building/bidding, as soon as their citizens are in harms way, i'd bet dollars to dimes that they send troops, at least in a protection role....booya...international cooperation.

Bono wants us to forgive Africa's debt....well, let's do the same for 3rd world, war torn iraq. what say you?

[DaysWithoutEnd]

Originally posted by dcXhc

They were adamant in their opposition to the war, but now that there is money to be made, they want in.

The American people had mixed feelings about the war, but since there was money to be made, our President wanted in.


Bono wants us to forgive Africa's debt....well, let's do the same for 3rd world, war torn iraq. what say you?

I'm down with that. Maybe we can get somebody to forgive our multi-billion dollar deficit too.

[IPrayForSound]

Originally posted by DaysWithoutEnd
Maybe we can get somebody to forgive our multi-billion dollar deficit too. Umm...that would be...uh...us. As a nation, we are FAR too fiscally irresponsible to forgive ourselves that kinda debt.

[dcXhc]

Originally posted by DaysWithoutEnd
The American people had mixed feelings about the war, but since there was money to be made, our President wanted in.

For the sake of argument, let's say your assertion is true.

That would be wrong of the U.S.

So why would you support others who are trying to do the same thing? Isn't that just operating on the "two wrongs make a right" fallacy?

Even if you hold the opinion that "the U.S. was wrong to go into this war and they did it just for the money," you can't logically hold the opinion that "the French, German, Chinese and Russians have a right to get in it just for the money too."

[BigSugar]

what no one seems to understand is that the French did it all for the nookie.....the what?? the nookie.....

[DaysWithoutEnd]

So why would you support others who are trying to do the same thing? Isn't that just operating on the "two wrongs make a right" fallacy?

If we're paying for the reconstruction, then we should increase competition as much as possible, in order to keep the price down. Several articles from Newsweek have suggested that American contractors have been charging much more than necessary.

I think the 'right' thing would have been to encourage as much international cooperation as possible from the start, but that has yet to happen.

[BigSugar]

i think the story you're referring to is the Halliburton story....they charged back $3.00 a gallon for gas used in Iraq to the US govt., when apparently gas is only $0.25 cents per gallon there....they should be bitch slapped for that kind of gouging if it indeed happened.

but with gas so cheap in Iraq, i smell a large market for SUV's!!! ;) Me and my Fedayeen, rollin' in my Escalade......

[Duemellon]

Originally posted by BigSugar
Iraq has tens of billions in outstanding debt to the Russians (help with oil industry), China (missles and weapons tech), France (brie and spare razors) and Germany (surplus Cyanide gas for the death chambers).....i would welcome those countries into the bidding process....forgive the debt to Iraq, join the re-building process....

while we don't have to make military support conditional on these countries helping in the re-building/bidding, as soon as their citizens are in harms way, i'd bet dollars to dimes that they send troops, at least in a protection role....booya...international cooperation.

Bono wants us to forgive Africa's debt....well, let's do the same for 3rd world, war torn iraq. what say you? even though this is overflowing with sarcasm, i agree with this statement, whether or not you do.Even if you hold the opinion that "the U.S. was wrong to go into this war and they did it just for the money," you can't logically hold the opinion that "the French, German, Chinese and Russians have a right to get in it just for the money too." damage done, and you want to play "rewind".

[dcXhc]

Originally posted by Duemellon
damage done, and you want to play "rewind".

huh?