US bans anti-war countries from Iraq deals

I did several searches to see if anyone posted this and came up empty, so if I missed it elsewhere, I'm sorry.

I think a lot of people saw this coming...

www.guardian.co.uk...


The Pentagon's decision to exclude countries that opposed the Iraq invasion from bidding for reconstruction contracts provoked anger and incredulity in the capitals involved yesterday.
The bar on French, German, Russian and Canadian companies seeking more than $18bn (�10bn) in contracts, announced in a memorandum by the US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, immediately stalled attempts to heal post-war rifts.


[Edited on 11-12-2003 by mooseofterror]

Originally posted by mooseofterror
I did several searches to see if anyone posted this and came up empty, so if I missed it elsewhere, I'm sorry.

I think a lot of people saw this coming...

www.guardian.co.uk...


The Pentagon's decision to exclude countries that opposed the Iraq invasion from bidding for reconstruction contracts provoked anger and incredulity in the capitals involved yesterday.
The bar on French, German, Russian and Canadian companies seeking more than $18bn (�10bn) in contracts, announced in a memorandum by the US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, immediately stalled attempts to heal post-war rifts.

well this is a fair thing to do...

but there could be arguments against it...

Why does the Pentagon get to decide? Seems to me that if you take out half the competition the price of rebuilding could get even more inflated than I am sure it already is. The other companies could name their price and the taxpayers have to flip the bill.

Originally posted by mooseofterror
Why does the Pentagon get to decide? Seems to me that if you take out half the competition the price of rebuilding could get even more inflated than I am sure it already is. The other companies could name their price and the taxpayers have to flip the bill.

i agree with that too...

we should have a say...

Originally posted by mooseofterror
Why does the Pentagon get to decide?

Because the pentagon decided to liberate an oppressed nation. France was too worried we'd discover their "Made in france" stamp on the WMDs. On the day Bush came up and announced we had gone to war with Iraq, I called a few people and told them this was exactly what we needed to do, but I didn't think we had the balls to do it.

I can't tell you how proud, how honored I am living in a country which stands up for what is right, and doesn't reward those who were wrong because they're worried they might stand against them again.

Way to go USA. Way to go US Military. Way to go Bush. Way to go Bush.

Originally posted by junglejake
Because the pentagon decided to liberate an oppressed nation. France was too worried we'd discover their "Made in france" stamp on the WMDs. On the day Bush came up and announced we had gone to war with Iraq, I called a few people and told them this was exactly what we needed to do, but I didn't think we had the balls to do it.

I can't tell you how proud, how honored I am living in a country which stands up for what is right, and doesn't reward those who were wrong because they're worried they might stand against them again.

Way to go USA. Way to go US Military. Way to go Bush. Way to go Bush.

Now it's an oppressed nation, but before it was a nuclear power? That was the initial reason. Where are the WMD you talk about? I don't even see any with "made in Iraq" stickers on them. You would have a better chance to find genetic match of an anthrax strain in Iraq that came from a US research lab.


[Edited on 11-12-2003 by mooseofterror]

Originally posted by mooseofterror

Originally posted by junglejake
Because the pentagon decided to liberate an oppressed nation. France was too worried we'd discover their "Made in france" stamp on the WMDs. On the day Bush came up and announced we had gone to war with Iraq, I called a few people and told them this was exactly what we needed to do, but I didn't think we had the balls to do it.

I can't tell you how proud, how honored I am living in a country which stands up for what is right, and doesn't reward those who were wrong because they're worried they might stand against them again.

Way to go USA. Way to go US Military. Way to go Bush. Way to go Bush.

Thank you for reiterating my point!

Believe me Jungle Jake you would most probably see more 'made in USA' stickers if anything. It was the U.S that put Saddam in power don't forget. He didn't do what they wanted him to do so they had to go clear him out and take his oil whilst they were at it. Frances weapons dealings with Iraq probably had something to do with it but they did the right thing along with Germany and Russia etc. Your wonderful leader Bush is not fighting a war on terror but a war for terrorism. He is a terrorist.

Originally posted by mooseofterror
Why does the Pentagon get to decide?

simple, because they are controlling iraq....fair or not, whoever controls said land can deny access to whoever they want.

Shouldn't the Iraqi people have a say so in the matter? The US is always talking about giving back control to the Iraqi people, but not until the right people get richer.

Way to go USA. Way to go US Military. Way to go Bush. Way to go Bush.

Junglejake

This isn't a football game.

Originally posted by Glitch


Way to go USA. Way to go US Military. Way to go Bush. Way to go Bush.

Junglejake

This isn't a football game.

Time to die Bush!

Yeah well, we are doing the dirty work and the benifits are ours to reap.
Whose soldiers are dying over there?
When all the countries were sending money, who sent the bulk? Who didn't send any?
Canada seems to be the only one getting semi-screwed here as they did send money, troops and suffered casualties, but we'll see if that will change.

Originally posted by mooseofterror
Why does the Pentagon get to decide? Seems to me that if you take out half the competition the price of rebuilding could get even more inflated than I am sure it already is. The other companies could name their price and the taxpayers have to flip the bill.

Well, if we use our own, or allied countries for the contracts, then the revinue is returned to the taxpayers of those countries.

[Edited on 11-12-2003 by baked]

I heard about this last night on newsnight (BBC 2) and i couldn't believe the US done this. Even thou the other countries were anti-war and against America,this isn't gonna help to patch things up. Way to go to fix the relationship with the french

The benifits should be the Iraqi peoples first and foremost.

Originally posted by baked
The benifits should be the Iraqi peoples first and foremost.

This is the kind of thinking that i like, this is the humane way..

And not the G.W.Bushes power and money hungry way..

Originally posted by baked
Yeah well, we are doing the dirty work and the benifits are ours to reap.
Whose soldiers are dying over there?
When all the countries were sending money, who sent the bulk? Who didn't send any?
Canada seems to be the only one getting semi-screwed here as they did send money, troops and suffered casualties, but we'll see if that will change.

Is that what its about now? whose soldiers are dying? Whose citizens, CIVILIANs are dying? This ban just adds fuel to the fire for the US TRUE intent in IRAQ. Nothing to do with WMD or Oppression. It's all about money and greed. Bunch of rich #ers scratching each others back.

I do agree with you thought about the Iraqi people being the 1st to recieve the benefits, but unfortunately that isn't the case.

Originally posted by baked
The benifits should be the Iraqi peoples first and foremost.

True, but why should AMERICAN TAXPAYER money go to aid job markets in countries who did not support us. This is taxpayer money that is going to rebuild Iraq and if we were to let countries like France, Germany and Russia in on this, we would basically have taxpayers paying nations who spit out harsh rhetoric against us to fund jobs for these nations.

Im all for keeping the money that I as a taxpayer have paid in the hands of coalition forces that supported us.

And to Moose of Terror, Nuclear weapons wer enot the cause of war. Failed proof by Saddam to prove that he disbanded all WMD was. He proved nothing, therefor we followed resolutions on what course of action was possible and took it.

the American tax payers money...LoL...

A larger percentage of money is going towards building Israels Wall of Shame and Hatred. More tax payers money goes to cement the policy of Aparthied, murder, and racism that is Israel.

Dont talk rubbish, about tax payers and rebuilding countries. That money goes to buy nukes, build 'Star Wars', invade oil rich countries, kill innocent civilains, buy UN votes.

The US SHOULD pay to rebuild Iraq and Afhanistan. Hell, they were the ones that bombed the country to the ground. Why should other countries pay for what the US done ?

The US said they were doing it becoz of Iraq's links with WMD's and Al Qaeda. BOTH of which have since proved bogus lies. So ALL the countries that did not support this massacre for oil and power, WERE RIGHT in opposing.

So much for the new 'Iraqi freedom council'. If it were down to Iraqi's ALL the contracts would go to other Arab nations. NOT a penny would go to the people who have killed an destroyed their country.

Thats like saying...oh you killed my mummy, here, take my money and buy a new big gun to shoot my daddy with. Tks.

~Messiah~

Originally posted by Dreamz
And to Moose of Terror, Nuclear weapons wer enot the cause of war. Failed proof by Saddam to prove that he disbanded all WMD was. He proved nothing, therefor we followed resolutions on what course of action was possible and took it.

Where are the WMD? Bush has proved nothing, therefore what resolutions and course of actions shall follow for BUSH?