US bars France, Germany, Russia and Canada from Iraq contracts

AlladinSane said:
In other words, my country can invade another and then state that yours can't negotiate anymore with them bacause you didn't take part of it?
Click to expand...


thats pretty much it yes
 
Squiggy said:
Why bother? :shrug: Nobody reads links....So what if all that money is going to a company already convicted of fraud. So what if Iraqi companies have to settle for subcontracts under Haliburton so your boss can assure his future fortunes...So what if YOUR entitlements and benefits were being slashed to the bone by the man who put YOU in harms way...It doesn't matter. Some of you want to kill the world and claim bragging rights for doing it. Have fun. Tis a fine liberation you're conducting....
Click to expand...

And you still haven't provided a source for those claims. ;) The crux of the matter is this...if you can't give a source for your claim, then it's nothing but hot air. Adding anti-Bush rhetoric to your claim, although important to you, is not so important to those who want to see something besides your personal opinion. Don't get angry. It's not about anger. It's about righteous indignation. There is a difference, and you should understand that by now.
 
AlladinSane said:
In other words, my country can invade another and then state that yours can't negotiate anymore with them bacause you didn't take part of it?
Click to expand...

No...that isn't it.
Saddam was given an ultimatum by a conglomerate of nations (The UN)
I think it was resolution 1441 (?)
France, Russia & Germany all signed it along with the US.
So, in a sense..they signed that they were on board with us.
Now, just beause they backed out because they had a monetary stake in Iraq (not because they're peace loving..don't kid yourself) means they shouldn't have access to reconstruction contracts.

It's their punishment for not backing up what they said they would do.
It's their punishment for arming Saddam right up until the war, knowing we would invade, knowing Saddam owed them billions and THINKING WE were going to pay it back.

See, Russia, France & Germany will still want their money back..
Despite the fact that it will make things much harder for Iraqi's to get back on their feet.
Hmm... that really sounds like three nations who are really concerned with the normal Iraqi's well being huh? Oh yeah, and they were real concerned about peace when they were arming Saddam to the teeth 10 years after we stopped because we knew he'd become a loose cannon.
 
We find that the UN resolution side of the argument doesn't work because the UN ultimately put up a position of eternal stalling. The use of force was decided by unilateral action of a handful of independent nations.

IMHO, it was always a unilateral action. We tried to get the the UN to make it a universal action of world condemnation but they wouldn't play ball... not for reasons of simple nobility and justice... but because the dissenters had a stake in the continuance of the dictatorship. Cash woven into the fabric of status quo maketh for quite a Gordian knot. Granted, our ends were not of pure nobility either. It was 1/3 economic self interest, 1/3 regional stalemate continuance, and 1/3 helping an invaded ally. Toppling a vile dictator for war crimes was just smokescreen ... albiet very good smokescreen. We didn't have to hunt for little reasons when huge ones were staring us right in the face. Its one huge geopolitical game of 7 card stud. They tried to bluff up a wuss 3 of a kind when we were holding a full house. The bluff was thinking that our political/social resolve wouldn't outlast their ability to stall. We called the bluff and swept the pot. Now we get to put up a nice sympathetic western junta for a decade or so making the defacto government stable, but making the geurilla level common element fire up anew to shake off the 'imperialists'. They will try, we will resist, it will become muddied and unstable in a decade or two, a new government will start up and we do the dance from square one all over again.
 
Sorry unc, the UN wouldn't take action because the UN Inspectors could not find the WMDs. The unilateral action was then taken because the participating countries all believed (said they believed) that the WMDs existed (and implied that the UN inspectors were being duped). WMDs that have not been produced, I might add. Deposing a despot, while always a good thing, is not a good enough reason to invade a sovereign nation, IMO. You're right about one thing, what we've really accomplished is restarting the dance. :shrug:

Edit: Just my opinion. :D
 
chcr...
But Saddam's stalling including limiting inspector access then kicking them out entirely..just to allow them back in when the heat was turned up needed to stop.
He was setting a dangerous example for rogue governments around the world with nuclear ambitions. It's best we went in when we did for if we had waited and Saddam had compiled a mass quantity of WMD's..he would've used them on the invading forces.

See, we've nipped this obvious problem in the bud.
Something the anti-war kids love to blame Bush for not doing before 9/11.

People need to make up their minds..
Do you want us to nip serious problems in the bud or wait until another catostrophic event happens so we can finger point throught the smoke?
 
But Saddam's stalling including limiting inspector access then kicking them out entirely..just to allow them back in when the heat was turned up needed to stop.
Click to expand...

As the UN required him to do to avoid military action. :shrug:

Do you want us to nip serious problems in the bud
Click to expand...

A petty despot in a third world country. Hardly a serious international problem. We could have let the UN take the lead and spent more money trying to stamp out Al-qaida. They are the serious international threat.

Again, these are my opinions. Nothing I've seen thus far has given me reason to change them.
 
Iraq was hardly a petty despot ..
Sure it's very easy to sit back now and say they were never a threat but I can also armchair quarterback now and say that if France, Germany & Russia were not selling Saddam weapons right up until invasion and that they did not have a monetary stake in Saddams murderous government...then they would've been on board with the invasion.

The fact that they still want their money back and are willing to punish the new government and newly liberated Iraqi people to get it shows that they were never interested in their true well being.
 
I fully agree about France, Germany and Russia having a monetary stake in Iraq. Still doesn't alter the fact that Saddam cooperated with the UN when he was forced to and was invaded anyway. As for playing armchair quarterback, I didn't believe it was right to invade Iraq to depose Saddam When Dubya decided to do it just after he was elected, and said so. It is not, was not and never will be a good enough reason for one sovereign nation to invade another, yet that is the reason we are being given now.
 
chcr said:
The unilateral action was then taken because the participating countries all believed (said they believed) that the WMDs existed (and implied that the UN inspectors were being duped).
Click to expand...

As I've pointed out time after time, look to Iran if you want to know whether saddam had WMDs. He had them. He produced zero evidence to prove he destroyed them. Logic.
 
Gonz said:
As I've pointed out time after time, look to Iran if you want to know whether saddam had WMDs. He had them. He produced zero evidence to prove he destroyed them. Logic.
Click to expand...

I still say that when he started to cooperate with the UN again at the end the coalition should have waited. I will believe that until someone presents irrefutable evidence otherwise. He was not a significant threat to the US, and he did what the UN resolution told him to.
 
Au countraire, I believe that Saddam was in violation of the UN mandates from day one. The resolution made it clear that he was to be wide open, prompt, fully disclosing about everything they had. The delays and kicking the inspectors out for huge chunks of time obviated the peace. Merely going through the dog any pony show of letting the inspectors back in at the last second to stall the restart of hostilities amounted to nothing. He was in violation from the get go. Once scrambled, the egg could not be unscrambled. What the UN did amounted to them yelling 'STOP!! I MEAN IT! ... pretty please? Ok, heres the deal: Don't cross this line or you will be in big trouble.' *Saddam crosses line* 'ummm... ok... Don't cross this line or you will force me to keep drawing lines and backing up.' *Saddam crosses line* 'Now you've done it!' *UN draws a pistol* *Saddam sees that hes pushed too far suddenly darts back behind the first line and start doing a mocking chant* 'Nya! Nya! ... I'm on base... You can't touch me! Nya! Nya!'
 
At the end, just before the invasion, he let the inspectors back in, and gave them the access they had tried to get earlier. You don't remember this? Now, clearly he only did it to avoid military action and he did it with truculence and ill grace, but he did it. That was why Blix suggested the UN hold off.
Australian News said:
Broadcast: 7/2/2003
Iraq cooperates as Blair weathers storm
In Iraq, weapons inspectors have had their first opportunity to interview an Iraqi scientist alone. Simultaneously, western journalists in Iraq have been taken on tours of facilities Colin Powell earmarked as possible locations of weapons of mass destruction. Meanwhile, Tony Blair found himself under attack from members of the public who do not support his push for military action against Iraq.
Click to expand...

Chicago Tribune said:
Published November 28, 2002

NEW YORK -- After a four-year absence, international inspectors resumed their search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq on Wednesday, and a UN team leader in the field called the initial cooperation by Iraqi authorities "a good sign."

But even as the inspections began without incident, the Bush administration shifted its war planning into high gear. A senior administration official said the White House will dispatch a handful of senior envoys across the globe over the next few weeks to close deals with potential allies in a possible conflict with Iraq.
Click to expand...

Bush was always going to invade, no matter what.

George W. Bush said:
God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them.
Click to expand...

And that's the scary part.
 
Saddam sees that hes pushed too far suddenly darts back behind the first line and start doing a mocking chant* 'Nya! Nya! ... I'm on base... You can't touch me! Nya! Nya!'
Click to expand...
Exactly my point.
 
Ergo the reinvasion was pretty much set in stone. I think we've just come to differing conclusions on the moral center nobility/opportunistic balance beam.
 
At the end, just before the invasion, he let the inspectors back in, and gave them the access they had tried to get earlier. You don't remember this?
Click to expand...

Yep I remember that part.;)
Only giving them access isn't what the resolution said though.
 
Don't you just love it.... "we blew up your country now you can pay us for rebuilding it".... liberated from Saddam = enslaved by the dollar(as in a general term for filthy lucre/money).... how many years will ordinary iraqis be paying for this I wonder...

Hands up anyone who didn't think this was inevitable?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top