US bans anti-war countries from Iraq deals

Let's say Iraq can't do/provide what is needed and a product/service is put out to bid. From a domestic politics point of view, lets say American company A loses out on a contract to France company B. OUR tax money then goes to a French company? at a time when our companies could use the work? The American company and it's employers are going to yell, and loudly. Politicians from both sides of the isle would have a hard time explaining that we're giving jobs to France when we need them at home, after all, it's our money.

Granted, there our the stories about Halliburton charging too much for gas over there, and the Bush business cronies are seeing money from this, etc, yawn, blah, etc. Conspiracy theories aside, these companies do actually employ people, ya know? Would we rather have a French company charge us too much and not see ANY benefit, at all?

[Edited on 11-12-2003 by Bob88]

John Bull1.....
Question:
I noticed that you didn't ask for verifiable sources on "other" assertions made by various other members.....but me?
No problem......................
Here ya go and easily found:
Link:
www.boycottnet.org...
(Set graph as a picture in your "My Picture" file and the graph is easily read............)

Also, the source of the information and graph came from here.........
"Arms transfers to Iraq, 1973-2002"
Link:
projects.sipri.se...


regards
seekerof

[Edited on 11-12-2003 by Seekerof]

Your point of view is the one I disagree with.It's up to others to call for verifiable links that others make.

I appreciate you supplying that link.

It seems like a site set up to organise a boycott against France and Germany and as such I'm afraid I can't except that it is unbias enough to supply accurate figures.You,of course,can believe them but they appear to contradict reason and as I say I can't except your source.

Just to clarify.I don't think you will find accurate figures anywhere anyway.

This is a link to a website posted by William a little while back.I refer you to item number 3.It shows the extent that true figures are being kept from the public.

www.projectcensored.org...

That the US censored a report to the UN revealing the nature of origin of Iraq's weapons imports.Probably so that statistics like those you've produced could not be contradicted by the true figures.
Another point is that Anthrax and Mustard Gas are quite cheap.Bear that in mind also.It is probable that no other nation other than the USA supplied anything other than conventional weapons to Saddam Hussein's regime.

Ahhh....
So you consider SIPRI (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute) to have an agenda or is not acceptable? Hmm..ok.




regards
seekerof

Personally,I've never heard of them.Is the word Stockholm supposed to lead me to believe this is a neutral organisation of some repute and not just a front?

Did these Stockholm ppl put the bloodthirsty and peaceful bit in?

As I said above there are no accurate figures because the details were censored by the US before they went to the UN.

JB1....
I read your link to the "Project Censored" and the article for which you are refering to....its this concerning those missing documents:
"According to Niman, "The missing pages implicated twenty-four U.S.-based corporations and the successive Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr. administration in connection with the illegal supplying of Saddam Hussein government with myriad weapons of mass destruction and the training to use them." Groups documented in the original report that were supporting Iraq's weapons programs prior to Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait included:

- Eastman Kodak, Dupont, Honeywell, Rockwell, Sperry, Hewlett-Packard, and Bechtel,
- U.S. government agencies such as the Department of Energy, Department of Agriculture and Department of Defense,
- Nuclear weapons labs such as Lawrence-Livermore, Los Alamos and Sandia.
Beginning in 1983, the U.S. was involved in eighty shipments of biological and chemical components, including strains of botulism toxin, anthrax, gangrene bacteria, West Nile fever virus, and Dengue fever virus. These shipments continued even after Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran in 1984. Later, in 1988 Iraq used the chemical weapons against the Kurds"

I see no indications of this nullifying the numbers that I am refering to: Arms Trade to Iraq.

Nor do I see it in this:
"At the same time, according to the investigation by Michael Niman, the Iraq government sent out official copies of the report on November 3, 2002. One, classified as "secret," was sent to the International Atomic Energy Agency, another copy went to the UN Security Council. The U.S. convinced Colombia, chair of the Security Council and current target of U.S. military occupation and financial aid, to look the other way while the report was removed, edited, and returned. Other members of the Security Council such as Britain, France, China and Russia, were implicated in the missing pages as well (China and Russia were still arming Iraq) and had little desire to expose the United States' transgression. So all members accepted the new, abbreviated version."

I took the liberty of doing more 'searching' on the article you pointed to and found myriads of articles........all quoting the same source and virtually the same thing.
There is no mention of "arms trading" that I refer to and is only directed towards WMD: chemical and biological and the US connection, per se.'


regards
seekerof

Originally posted by John bull 1
Personally,I've never heard of them.Is the word Stockholm supposed to lead me to believe this is a neutral organisation of some repute and not just a front?

Did these Stockholm ppl put the bloodthirsty and peaceful bit in?

As I said above there are no accurate figures because the details were censored by the US before they went to the UN.

Now John Bull1.....
Thats like me saying am I not supposed to think likewise of your reference and source?
Like who is this 'neutral', all-revealing: Michael I. Niman and his staff: Faculty Evaluator: Thom Lough Ph.D., and
Student Researcher: Lindsey Brage, Licia Marshall?
I'm sure that I can believe them about as much as you can believe my sources.....


BTW:
I have asked this on numerous occasions and in light of these last few postings on this thread....
Does ATS have a forum or thread on what is considered "reliable, non-disputable" sources? If so, I'd be interested in viewing it if you would kindly point the way, but if not.......then we are basically back to square one and the continued "source wars" issue.....
Thats a great argument that has increasingly become used here at ATS as of recent.
Perhaps a group can get together and provide those of us seeking "reliable, uncontested, non-disputable" references/sources with a way to give information without having to have our sources disputed.


regards
seekerof

Look for references to the delay in producing Iraqs weapons declaration.

Surely you remember it.They took the declaration and then edited it before handing it out to other UN security council members.

As for reliable sources.I think they tend to vary but I don't think a site basically saying don't buy perfume from the cheese eating surrender monkeys is probably not a good choice.IMHO.

As for the link I supplied,as I said it was originally posted by William.So take it up with him.

Originally posted by infinite
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

Who the hell WANTS to fix things with the French? Those gun-dropping-surrender-monkeys didn't just fail to lend support to the country that pulled their tushies out of total domination in TWO WORLD WARS, they AIDED THE ENEMY!!!! They cost us lives, and should not get a single red cent from the reconstruction efforts. Think about it...it's US tax dollars, over 80 billion worth, going to the project...who's economy should benifit from that? The Germans? The Russians? the FRENCH???? I think NOT!!! Great Britain, Austrailia, the USA, those that did the job get the money....PERIOD!!! To say anything else is absolutly ludicris!


"OK, France...you busted our chops and aided So-Damn-Insane, but here, here's a multi-billion dollar contract as a reward..."....


Cheez....get a clue.....

Originally posted by namehere

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.

Yep...Just like when Japan asked Korea if they could march across their lands to invade China...and Korea said "No"....So Japan just invaded Korea as well.

The U.S. actually increased it's military and financial support to Saddam AFTER he gassed all those Kurds in 1984, by the way.

Funny how that's never mentioned, now that the Kurd-gassing is a terrible terrible thing that was done completely without the knowledge of the American government.

j

Originally posted by John bull 1
Look for references to the delay in producing Iraqs weapons declaration.

Surely you remember it.They took the declaration and then edited it before handing it out to other UN security council members.

As for reliable sources.I think they tend to vary but I don't think a site basically saying don't buy perfume from the cheese eating surrender monkeys is probably not a good choice.IMHO.

As for the link I supplied,as I said it was originally posted by William.So take it up with him.

Thanks for your cander and honesty John Bull1...now you know why I came to you over "the proposed research project."
*edit* in regards to the questions I asked you concerning it....thank you again.

regards
seekerof

[Edited on 11-12-2003 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by baked

Originally posted by the HYPOCRITE jozuph


hihi so ure saying that just because it didnt looked like your garden its worth nothing and destroying it is no problem..I think the usa has no rights to tell other countrys how they should live, let alone the way the build up there country..is there a countrys that says to the usa, you can not build two high towers because they will be tumbled anyway ?? No right, get out of the idea that yall know how others should live and when..thats maybe a good thing to start with for u too.

Dude, you make no sence at all!
How about you take your own advice?
Most of your posts on this board is name calling christians for believing in god.
So you get out of the idea that you know how others should live and how.....Moron

Pick the third finger from either side!
A gift from the USA!

Nice gift, have to say thanks for that. Maybe its better if you learn to read first before start to call names. As far as i know ive called only on one occasion and this had nothing to do with god. If u dont like that i go against " name calling from gods mouth" then dont try to read at all..pz, joz

Yay, Canada is back in! Probably because we have troops in Afghanistan (getting killed by Taliban and also by US pilots).

In yer face, Coalition of the Weenies! Now let's go sell those Iraqis some toques and teach them how to stickhandle in the corner.

www.thestar.com.../Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1071144014567&call_pageid=968256289824&col=96870589 9037

"Bush to Chretien: We'll include Canada


CANADIAN PRESS

OTTAWA - U.S. President George W. Bush is grateful for help in the war on terrorism and is "working" to include Canada in hefty contracts to help rebuild Iraq, he said in a farewell phone call to retiring Prime Minister Jean Chr�tien.
"He thanked me for what we're doing in Afghanistan and for the offer of money in the reconstruction of Iraq," Chr�tien told a news conference today.

"As for the news in the newspapers stating that Canada would be excluded from economic activities in Iraq, the president assured me that this was not the case, and that he would be taking action," Chr�tien said. "






jakomo

First I will list my sources; COMMON #ING SENSE.

Let's take a look at what is going on here, Bush says something along the lines of "you are either with us or against us" , hmmm. Next, I think he even mentioned that those not a part of the coalition of idiots would run the risk of not being included in the "rebuilding of Iraq' AKA "filling the pockets of all my daddy's rich friends".
So, he gave all those opposed 2 warnings and now he is rubbing their noses in it. WOW, if that isn't a wonderful example of foreign policy.

We can go back and forth quoting events in history or we can worry about the future. Bush just tried to bribe countries for support of this cluster # he calls a war. Now. because he has no COMMON #ING SENSE, he is going to do the nanny-nanny-boo-boo dance for the entire world. This sets a great example for how all countries should behave. Lead by example, do I need to say more. Do you think this is going to make the world a better place?? Bush is being selfish and doesn't give a # about your's or my future. Are you people really that brainwashed, look at the big picture.

Hers's another great example of what this administration is trying to do, again WOW what a great leader, please...

Big Picture, open your eyes.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[Edited on 12-12-2003 by mooseofterror]

Originally posted by mooseofterror
Just to point a fact out to you, if it wasn't for France, the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA would NOT exist. How do you repay France for saving american a$$ in the war of independence?

The old good Lafayette sauce.

Anyway I don't see where the problem. If I can do what I want with money, I think a nation can do what she want with her money too. And when I see how these nations ( France-Germany-Russia ) acted ( I mean standing up for Saddam ), it's pretty normal if the USA don't give them one penny for their companies.

Not in the coalition = NO MONEY 4 U.

Originally posted by ultra_phoenix

Originally posted by mooseofterror
Just to point a fact out to you, if it wasn't for France, the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA would NOT exist. How do you repay France for saving american a$$ in the war of independence?

The old good Lafayette sauce.

Anyway I don't see where the problem. If I can do what I want with money, I think a nation can do what she want with her money too. And when I see how these nations ( France-Germany-Russia ) acted ( I mean standing up for Saddam ), it's pretty normal if the USA don't give them one penny for their companies.

Not in the coalition = NO MONEY 4 U.

Don't take it out of context, I was mearly addressing someones sorry excuse. How did Germany support Sadaam? Are we getting back to the "with us or against us?" Germany honored it's agreement with the UN. US claimed WMD where are they at? US claimed freeing Iraqi people, now they stop counting the civilian casualties. The US claimed bin laden connection with Sadaam. Where's the proof? Now, just so everyone is sure about the TRUE intent of the war, the US is banning companies from countries not in this coalition, from contracts in Iraq. Nice reward for standing by your word to the UN.


[Edited on 12-12-2003 by mooseofterror]

Ok mooseofterror. And what ? It seem normal that nation who weren't standing up with the coalition don't receive any dollar.

France, Germany, Russia, China and some other nation did what they th they had to do. I can understand their choice, even if I don't agree with. But now these nation have to assume their choice These nation aren't stupid.They knew what would be the result of their choice. So now I say : ASSUME And assuming mean " NO SOUP 4 U "

On one hand its right, ok they didnt wanna waste blood so they cant have the benefits...but in this case thats a bit weird thinking, i think the best companies should go, haha yepp thats fair.
The idea is that a big part of iraq dont like people who fled the country being in charge and thats what happening, all those asylumseekers are in this so called goverment, a big part of iraq's people dont like this..hell they dont like the usa neither..so why make more trouble ? i thought its about humanity, so maybe its better that countrys that they dont dislike [so much] take care of rebuilding, so the people in iraq are also satisfied..i think thats the best, its not about money..and if it is for the states then there is something mad wrong here..pz, joz