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

[unclehobart]

No no no... The lesson here is for Canada to invade Cuba. We as the US will promise to be looking down and tying our shoes when you do it. You guys have to learn to take a little now and then. Thats how this game works.

 

[Gato_Solo]

So...give us our slice and we'll promise t help next time? We've been helping, we did help, we are helping and will continue to help...

kindly put your switch away...we've been good little boys and girls up here in Canada.

Ummm...that wasn't meant for our northern neighbors. That was meant for our European "allies".

 

[MrBishop]

Ummm...that wasn't meant for our northern neighbors. That was meant for our European "allies".

Okay, eh!

Perhaps it should be aimed at the UN first... the USA is effectivly the UN's teeth and claws. NExt time, make them beg for help...

 

[ris]

i sort of hoped the reconstruction of iraq would be done with iraq's interests first, not some political point scoring. maybe i should stop being so naiive

 

[chcr]

i sort of hoped the reconstruction of iraq would be done with iraq's interests first, not some political point scoring. maybe i should stop being so naiive

 

[Gato_Solo]

i sort of hoped the reconstruction of iraq would be done with iraq's interests first, not some political point scoring. maybe i should stop being so naiive

Such well-placed scarcasm deserves some kind of reward...How about a 'no-prize'.

Since the US taxpayers are footing a huge part of the bill, shouldn't the US be able to say who can get involved and who cannot?

 

[ris]

seeing as my tax-quids are going to this and my troops too why shouldn't my government at least have a say?

 

[Gato_Solo]

seeing as my tax-quids are going to this and my troops too why shouldn't my government at least have a say?

Seeing as though some companies in the UK have been invited to bid, your argument seems a little hollow. The US has only stated who cannot bid...and the folks excluded are France, Germany, Russia, China, and anybody else who refused to enter into our little coalition.
Foremost in the bidding wars, outside of the US, are the UK, Australia, and Poland. In other words...those countries who had troops in the theater.

 

[Squiggy]

Unfortunately, it seems you'll all be bidding on subcontracts because Haliburton has already been given the contracts...Good luck everyone....

 

[unclehobart]

*thinking about applying to haliburton*

 

[Gato_Solo]

Unfortunately, it seems you'll all be bidding on subcontracts because Haliburton has already been given the contracts...Good luck everyone....

The word, there, Squiggy is some contracts. If they got all the contracts, and everyone else is bidding for subs, you should provide a link so that we can all be righteously indignant...

 

[ris]

my argument is that seeing as my country has been instrumental in the coalition throughout the process i would like to have hoped my government would be consulted in how the bidding process would be arranged. then again, why should i care - my country got to bid?

don't get me wrong, i understand and can appreciate why the us government has made the decisions it has, and there was warnings that this would be the case a fair few months ago. i suppose i hoped that rather than a slightly schoolyard 'you didn't do as we wanted so we are going to take our ball' the interests of iraqi reconstruction would be first.
i am sure that if in a reversed position most countries would do the same and i would understand it just as much. and indeed why should france and germany get rich off someone elses endeavours?

if there is expertise and excellence in countries like france, germany or russia then it seems a shame that it can't be exploited. it's not iraq's fault that these governments took a different stand but at the end of the day it could be they that suffers, either through inflated costs to be repaid or for missing out on the quaility and experience.

i'd like to see the altruistic helping the iraqi people find freedom and liberty goals set in motion and decisions made with iraq at its heart. it just seems a little self-serving for the coalition, rather than standing for iraq they stand for themselves.

like i said, i can understand and appreciate it, perhaps i am just too naiive.

 

[Gato_Solo]

my argument is that seeing as my country has been instrumental in the coalition throughout the process i would like to have hoped my government would be consulted in how the bidding process would be arranged. then again, why should i care - my country got to bid?

don't get me wrong, i understand and can appreciate why the us government has made the decisions it has, and there was warnings that this would be the case a fair few months ago. i suppose i hoped that rather than a slightly schoolyard 'you didn't do as we wanted so we are going to take our ball' the interests of iraqi reconstruction would be first.
i am sure that if in a reversed position most countries would do the same and i would understand it just as much. and indeed why should france and germany get rich off someone elses endeavours?

if there is expertise and excellence in countries like france, germany or russia then it seems a shame that it can't be exploited. it's not iraq's fault that these governments took a different stand but at the end of the day it could be they that suffers, either through inflated costs to be repaid or for missing out on the quaility and experience.

i'd like to see the altruistic helping the iraqi people find freedom and liberty goals set in motion and decisions made with iraq at its heart. it just seems a little self-serving for the coalition, rather than standing for iraq they stand for themselves.

like i said, i can understand and appreciate it, perhaps i am just too naiive.

Naive? Nope. Idealistic? Most definitely. The analogy you used about taking the ball and bat and going home, however, is off the mark. If you clicked my link for the 'Little Red Hen', I believe that analogy is more apt. All those who worked should reap the benefits. All those who refused and, in some cases, interfered, should get nothing. It may seem like bullying behavior, but I think we all know that it's not. It's just good business sense.

 

[ris]

i suppose it depends if going into iraq was as business opportunity or an act of joyous freedom in the interests of the iraqi people in freeing them from a wretched dictatorship.

i know which one i was being told about in march

 

[Squiggy]

The word, there, Squiggy is some contracts. If they got all the contracts, and everyone else is bidding for subs, you should provide a link so that we can all be righteously indignant...

Why bother? 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....

 

[ris]

take it easy squiggs matey, it's not worth that much blood pressure

as far as i recall [and i could wrong, its happened before] the early contracts in iraq were appointed rather than tendered for. halliburton did get some choice morsels in that arrangment. who they sub to is their affair i guess.
i was certainly pissed off when the first contracts were done up the us government. i seem to recall one of them was the deep ship dock at umm-qasr in southern iraq, which british sbs and sas squadrons secured early on and prevented from damage - for british to not be allowed to bid on that especially was a bit annoying. but then it's not very idealistic so i can hardly criticise

 

[AlladinSane]

If you clicked my link for the 'Little Red Hen', I believe that analogy is more apt. All those who worked should reap the benefits. All those who refused and, in some cases, interfered, should get nothing. It may seem like bullying behavior, but I think we all know that it's not. It's just good business sense.

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?

 

[catocom]

I've tried to stay out of this thread really have, buuut

I agree mostly with Gato, but I can see ris's side to an extent.
That said, what i propose is.....
If this is going to be a democratic society, let the Iraqies vote on
more stuff, just like this.

 

[MrBishop]

I've tried to stay out of this thread really have, buuut

I agree mostly with Gato, but I can see ris's side to an extent.
That said, what i propose is.....
If this is going to be a democratic society, let the Iraqies vote on
more stuff, just like this.

:nod:

The contracts will be draw up in about 10 years...hope they can wait.

What I can't fathom is why, just because the USA led the "willing", that they have the only vote? Shouldn't Australia have a vote as to who gets the contracts? or Britain, or any number of the other countries that played a part?

Even if they all voted "Keep Canada, Russia, France etc, out of it", shouldn't they be asked whom they think which contracts should go to? I'm not seeing this happening.

Seems mighty perculiar t'me

 

[chcr]

:nod:

The contracts will be draw up in about 10 years...hope they can wait.

What I can't fathom is why, just because the USA led the "willing", that they have the only vote? Shouldn't Australia have a vote as to who gets the contracts? or Britain, or any number of the other countries that played a part?

Even if they all voted "Keep Canada, Russia, France etc, out of it", shouldn't they be asked whom they think which contracts should go to? I'm not seeing this happening.

Seems mighty perculiar t'me

That's because you're forgetting the "cronie-ism."