Iraqi Reconstruction Contracts

Baketech · 12-11-2003, 8:27 AM

Concerning the latest decision to bar countries such as France, Germany, Russia and China from bidding on Iraqi reconstruction contracts.

spillover · 12-11-2003, 9:05 AM

No way in hell.

Baketech · 12-11-2003, 9:29 AM

My personal opinion is that the member nations(60+?) that have their military in harm's way should be allowed to bid first. Besides, nothing bars non-coalition countries from bidding on subcontracts.

If these countries were really opposed to the war on moral grounds, then they would want nothing to do with it anyway. Their outrage at being barred just underscores the reason for their original opposition......money. They were all indebted to Iraq and knew that a war could possibly lead to them losing claim to those debts.....

BDA116 · 12-11-2003, 12:26 PM

Absolutely not.
The majority of the money being spent - and the contracts the pansies are crying about in particular - is American taxpayer money. Money we worked hard to have taken from us. That money should be spent on American companies or companies from true American allies.
The reason the french, germans and russians argued against the war was money. They had huge contracts with Hussein and were making gobs of cash off the monster, knowing full well what he was doing. Now they want to replace the cash flow from Hussein with cash flow from me. Piss off.
If the country isn't spending money and blood with troops, they don't get a contract, period. This is one thing we better not waver on. Let them try a trade war with us - they'll lose that, too.

rocket · 12-11-2003, 12:31 PM

That's a tough one hmmm let me see...Hell no.

bwhip · 12-11-2003, 12:56 PM

American Leadership
American Money
American Risk
American Blood
American Courage

Sorry, cowards - you don't get to play.

CBRVFR · 12-11-2003, 1:05 PM

Of course they should be allowed to bid on the jobs - The bids don't have to be accepted...

Seriously, Wolfowitz is just unneccesarily sticking it up their ass publicly, which is basically self-indulgent and ultimately self defeating.

Also, remember that these companies are (in many cases) privately owned, and can no more be responsible for their political leaders' posturing than we could when Jimmy Carter decided that "we" were going to boycott the Olympics. Some of these companies are substantially owned by American interests. We're doing business with many of them anyway.

I think this is the problem with the Bush Administration. He's got too many idealogues working for him and they get in his way all of the time. He JUST told Taiwan to cool their jets because he didn't need another issue with China while he's negotiating to get them to stop supplying missles to everybody, and now Wolfie provokes them with a public prodding. It's unneccesary and unhelpful.

And like I said, they don't have to award contracts to these companies if there's any reason not to, and favoring the states that supported us is a good reason.

luvtolean · 12-11-2003, 2:28 PM

Since the main reason the opposition leaders (France and Russia) didn't want us to go there since it messed up their contracts, I give another HELL NO!

Baketech · 12-11-2003, 2:43 PM

Great post CBRVFR......

ULEWZ · 12-11-2003, 3:13 PM

What are those guys smoking? Hell no!!!

dB · 12-11-2003, 4:12 PM

Looks like the No's have it.

I do not understand the French. Anyone else see this?

Baketech · 12-11-2003, 4:18 PM

Interesting story dB.....

Here's a snippet of what Bushy said today:

Quote:

"It's very simple. Our people risked their lives. Friendly coalition folks risked their lives, and therefore the contracting is going to reflect that, and that's what the U.S. taxpayers expect,"

"If these countries want to participate in helping the world become more secure, by enabling Iraq to emerge as a free and peaceful country, one way to contribute is through debt restructuring,"

2OHOH2 · 12-11-2003, 4:49 PM

No #########, #######, ######### way

figment · 12-11-2003, 8:58 PM

Lesee heeeyar.... We "clean" up over there and now we want to use OUR OWN money to re-construct and choose who gets to do it. Thems that did nothing now are upset that we wont be letting them get paid by us... they can piss up a rope.

ND4SPD · 12-11-2003, 10:13 PM

It's bad enough that we had the highest death toll in the war. It's also bad enough that we're paying for the reconstruction of Iraq, which IMO, we should not(they recovered plenty of Saddam's money, they better be dipping into those funds). And now these asshat wankers want to go in there and rebuild everything? HELL NO!!! If you didn't think it was necessary for a war to happen, then I guess you don't need to make money off of rebuilding. Shove your tails between your legs and go back where you belong, buncha whiners!

Baketech · 12-12-2003, 10:18 AM

Looks like the bigger picture is that Bushy wants to use bidding eligibility as a bargaining chip in the pre-war debt issue.

Pete · 12-12-2003, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dB

Looks like the No's have it.

The .Org polling software must be screwed up, 'cuz it's obvious that Proto voted twice.

BDA116 · 12-12-2003, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pete

The .Org polling software must be screwed up, 'cuz it's obvious that Proto voted twice.

You're forgetting his lapdog. You know, the other one that swore up and down he was leaving the site, but didn't - Onda.

:give****: what the coward countries and the EU want. What it boils down to is this: It is OUR money, and we will spend it where we want, on whom we want and on what we want. The EU thinks it's illegal?

Is it illegal for me to state that when I am purchasing a vehicle I won't even consider Ford? I won't buy any product endorsed by mat mladin. Is that illegal too? To this day I won't buy french-based products. I guess I'm breaking the EU's precious little laws.

Baketech · 12-12-2003, 12:46 PM

The EU can't seem to agree long enough to draft their own constitution..... Story

And Canadas Cretin stepped down today...Link

Zeeman · 12-12-2003, 6:50 PM

as far as I'm concerned, the coalition countries spilled their blood, they can have the spoils. anyone who is complaining about not getting contracts who didn't help in the war is obviously lacking on the morality side. I was aginst the war, and any country that was SHOULD be against them helping rebuild.

My only issue with the current state of affairs is this "overcharging" issue I have heard about form Dick Chenneys former employer. However, I have no idea what the full story is (don't really care) so I choose to not comment. You boys have paid (and are still paying) with your soldiers lives for your Presidents choices, you deserve to earn the spoils.

Z...

Z...

BDA116 · 12-15-2003, 12:08 PM

Here's an excellent opinion from overseas: There are intelligent people in England.
Very well put.

Baketech · 12-15-2003, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BDA116

Here's an excellent opinion from overseas: There are intelligent people in England.
Very well put.

Great link...

Snipped from the article.

Quote:

What's at issue here is whether the American Defence Department should use American taxpayers' money to offer American government contracts in Iraq to companies from countries that actively obstructed and continue to obstruct American policy in Iraq. That's a legitimate national security interest, and no more "illegal" than, say, Belgium's refusal to sell Britain artillery shells during the Gulf War.

This is the key here imho.....it's the American taxpayer dollars being spent here. Why anyone feels they have a right to a handout is rediculous...