Payback - French, Germans and Russians barred from Iraq contracts - Page 2

Winston · December 10, 2003, 08:55

Quote:

Originally posted by BeBro

Yeah, that will teach us!

You already got to build all of Saddam's personal bomb proof shelters in the 80's, so I'm sure you'll be able to cope with this minor setback.

BeBro · December 10, 2003, 08:56

I built Saddam something

rixxe · December 10, 2003, 08:58

I think the french deserve it, but not the russians and the germans.

The frogs were against the war because THEY broke the embargo there was against Irak by signing contracts to extract and export oil. And they knew that if the iraki government was to collapse, those contrats would become worthless... Here's partly why they were that much against the war...

Very well!

Gangerolf · December 10, 2003, 09:00

Winston, of course there are 6. Somehow I forgot to count the UK

.

Harovan · December 10, 2003, 09:01

The UK is in the EU?

I never knew.

Bereta_Eder · December 10, 2003, 09:04

Who will pay for these contracts BTW?

Winston · December 10, 2003, 09:05

Yeah, even most Britons could have made the same mistake, in a moment's distraction.

PLATO · December 10, 2003, 09:05

I think that far more is being made of this than actually exists. There are certain functions that should be managed by the combatants. These seem to be the ones that should apply. The so called "Allies" can still bid on billions of dollars worth of other contracts. Don't worry Europe...Those US dollars will keep flowing no matter.

Bereta_Eder · December 10, 2003, 09:08

Aren't those american funds for the contracts?
The americans can certaintly choose to who they give their money!

Nevermind that it seems as cheap payoff to those that supported this war

Grandpa Troll · December 10, 2003, 09:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Q Cubed
i feel sorry for canada. they did, after all, send about 200 mill for reconstruction.

either way... i don't buy the reasoning behind it saying that this limitation is for national security.

it's retaliation. uncle sam's way, or the highway; you're either with us, or you're against us.

Thats the way..ugh huh..

I like it oh yeah!!

Peace

Grandpa "Livin-Large-and-n-charge" Troll

Gangerolf · December 10, 2003, 09:17

actually, of the EU-countries only france, germany, belgium, luxemburg and greece are "weasels".

finland, sweden, ireland and austria are all "neutrals" so I don't think the US expected much from them anyway?

so that's 5 weasels, 4 neutrals and 6 good guys!

Bereta_Eder · December 10, 2003, 09:18

Wait. Or are we talking about the US saying who actually can give money of their own, of their own taxpayers, to Iraq? If that's the case then well nothing really needs to be said I think.

Bereta_Eder · December 10, 2003, 09:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Gangerolf
austria are all "neutrals"

Booo to Hersh

Bereta_Eder · December 10, 2003, 09:22

Or are they money from Iraq's resources proper? If that's the case then nothing really needs to be said either.

Gangerolf · December 10, 2003, 09:23

It's paid for through the reconstruction fund. Mostly US tax dollars, but other countries have contributed as well IIRC.

Bereta_Eder · December 10, 2003, 09:26

OK if this is the case it's just as I thought originally. Well Americans can certaintly decide where they give their money. I just hope that the world, that means citizens pressuring their governments and so on, will back Iraq when it forms its own government so that it will be free, as much as it can be, from any other "influence" and looking out for its own interests and that of its people first and foremost and thus really helping democracy for a change.

Tripledoc · December 10, 2003, 09:49

On the other hand, if France and Germany had provided troops, there would have been no assurance that the US would have given them any contracts. Theoretically they might have, but then it would probably be along some mathematical calculation that the nation which delivers the most gets the most and so on. As far as I know the stated reasons for going to war did not include the fact that Iraq would be open to investments by foreign powers, although it was clearly a chief motivationg factor. So in this case I think Wolfowitz has commited the sin of retroactive justice. That is you cannot declare something criminal after the crime has been committed.

Sadly the one who will suffer from this will not be the French or the German business contractors who will survive this easily (by investing in China and Iran instead for instance), but the Iraqi people who are hostages in this situation.

edit: I read that Pentagon did in fact warn potential allies that they would be barred from investment if they did not join in the crusade.

So clearly that did in fact enter the calcualtion of the French and the Germans. Hence they must either have thought the contracts too meager, or they had their sights on other clients.

Drogue · December 10, 2003, 09:58

Whether I'm worried about this depends on exactly what "US Appropriated Funds" means. Of course the US is able to decide who can get it's money, so the thin veil of national security isn't needed. However if they mean money that Iraq will pay back to them, that basically is Iraqi appropriated funds, then it should be up to the Iraqi's who gets to bid for them.

The US can say that they won't give money for reconstruction to anti-war countries, but if they mean the money that they are loaning to Iraq, to be repayed by the Iraqi's, then it isn't up to them if anti-war countries get it.

Q Classic · December 10, 2003, 10:03

Quote:

But aren't they having even more fun poking holes in huge American flags and then getting nicer south Korean flags to hold over their heads?

"****ing USA!"

and still no-one seems to understand that it's more anti-bush than anything.

Az · December 10, 2003, 10:07

Where's my country! We supported the war effort by not doing anything just as much as everyone else!

Bereta_Eder · December 10, 2003, 10:09

Disqualified!

Tripledoc · December 10, 2003, 10:11

BTW why can't the Iraqis build up their economy themselves. Studies have been made on the Marshall help after the Second World War, and they have shown that in Germany foreign funding had minimal effect on the reconstruction effort, the socalled Wirtschaftwunder.

If Iraqi scientists can make nuclear weapons and chemical agents, and if the Iraqi healthcare system was one of the best in the Arab world prior to the embargo, there must be enough local know-how to build up the economy inside Iraq.

Sandman · December 10, 2003, 10:45

I don't know what's worse, the utter hypocrisy of the right regarding free trade, or the barely disguised glee with which they regard their new colony.

Winston · December 10, 2003, 10:51

Or the left's total neglect of the fact that Iraqi's have been liberated from a tyrant, no thanks to them BTW.

Harovan · December 10, 2003, 10:52

Yes. And the world has been saved from certain destruction by the horrible Iraqi WoMD's.

USA!

Tattila the Hun · December 10, 2003, 10:55

I thought US went to war for the good of the Iraq people and the safety of the homeland, not for building contracts to boost the US economy?

Tattila the Hun · December 10, 2003, 10:56

I thought US went to war for the good of the Iraq people and the safety of the homeland, not for building contracts to boost the US economy? Just curious, is any nation, not on the list, automatically banned? Finns make great rubber boots...

Harovan · December 10, 2003, 10:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Tattila the Hun
I thought US went to war for the good of the Iraq people and the safety of the homeland, not for building contracts to boost the US economy? Just curious, is any nation, not on the list, automatically banned? Finns make great rubber boots...

And didn't Saddam escape in a rubber boat?

Finland

. You will be invaded next.

Patroklos · December 10, 2003, 11:09

Get over yourselves,

You don't want to go to war that is your right. However, don't delude yourselves that your companies would get involved in Iraq for the good of Iraqis. European buisness operates on the same motives as all other buisnesses, their own profit.

In fact, given the illegal buisness deals some of the Allies had with the dictator Saddam under the UN embargo (ironically the one you claimed should have been extended instead of going to war, I wonder why???), your total refusal to go to war to liberate the Iraqis (who cares if you think the Americans weren't there for that, you could have), and the current whining about bieng excluded from buisness contrats it is very clear which group is more greedy. America, no matter how many contracts we sign, will not make money from this war. So why should profiteering Europeans?

-Pat

Bereta_Eder · December 10, 2003, 11:46

It's not our fault if the US government couldn't forsee the consequences of going into an illegal war with many civilian casualties that resulted in anarchy.

Actuall Shroeder and Chirac have been too kind to you, they should have warned you more strongly.

And, it's the sabotage to the oil wells that keep US from currently sucking the oil wells dry.

The ideal if anyone really cared for that country would have been to indeed help Iraqis (that doesn't include bomb them - bombing for peace is like ****ing for virginity as it was proven) to get rid of the dictatorship and then establish a democracy. But I geuss that's asking too much from those who actually helped that dictatorship in the first place.

Now you have rebels going around blowing things up and stopping foreign companies from drilling oil. Is it any wonder? And while there's ample blame to go around on all sides is it really to be sorry for oil wells being blown up when it is certain that if they were to be used they would end up in western hands? I'm sure SOME of the Iraqis would have less incentive to blow them up if they considered it their own property? Or if they didn't feel the need to avenge their dead?

Just some food for though. I may be right I may be wrong.