To the Victor Go the Spoils...

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
nbcrusader said:
It just amazes me to think that some countries believe they have a right to US funds....

They have, it's all in the WTO treaty which the US has signed.

From Reuters

The preamble to the agreement states that government procurement:

"...should not be prepared, adopted or applied to foreign or domestic products and services and to foreign or domestic suppliers so as to afford protection to domestic products or services or domestic suppliers and should not discriminate among foreign products or services or among foreign suppliers."

...

Governments have to set an appeal process by which aggrieved bidders can challenge procurement decisions and obtain redress in the event these decisions break the accord.

But there are circumstances under which signatory countries can set aside the WTO agreement. They are:

-- When it considers it "necessary for the protection of its essential security interests relating to the procurement of arms, ammunition or war materials, or to procurement indispensable for national security or for national defense purposes."

-- When it is "necessary to protect public morals, order or safety, human, animal or plant life or health or intellectual property; or relating to the products or services of handicapped persons, of philanthropic institutions or of prison labor."

This is why Bush says this is for security reasons.

I've heard on the radio that the EU is going to court with this.
 
Then, Dreadsox and Sting, how do you explain how Canada is banned from the reconstution of Iraq if they have given 300 million to you for Iraq. Because we didnt come out and publically support the war but financially supported it.

If you take that 300 million and multiply that by 10 (the difference in our economies and population) you get 3 billion.

We have our troops in Afganistan to support your troops so as there are more american troops available for Iraq.

France, Germany and Russia might not have the right to profit from the war because they never invested in it but Canada does.

It all comes down to politics not whats best for Iraq. Many people figure Canada has the best trained pipeliners in the world and they are courted by many big US companies, they would be the best for the job, but that doesnt seem important. What seems important is that people who publically supported this war, regardless of qualifications for the jobs, will receive them.

Its just not right.
 
Look, I don't care about the money, but this bullshit that Canadian subcontracting would be a security risk to the US is not only a big, fat lie, but incredibly insulting to Canada and its people.

Bush isn't man enough to come out and outline the real reason he's blocking bids, so they made up some baloney. The man's a character, but as for having character, that's a whole other story.

Lame.
 
Dreadsox said:
Sorry....Why should my $$$$ wind up in their pocketbooks?

Yet mine can go towards the $300 million rebuilding effort, essentially helping out not only Iraq, but the USA, the very country which considers my nation to be a "security risk?"

I'm all for sending the $300 million to Iraq, because that's what's called being a bigger person. But this whole sad sob story about taxpayers is kind of insulting considering that Canadian taxpayers are doing a lot all the while being insulted and being called security risks. We're such security risks in fact that the Canadians are leading the peacekeeping forces in Kabul with 2000 men. What garbage.
 
Ummm....Reread what I typed....My post was not directed at Canada.....I am trying to figure out why they would exclude Canada. I agree with you. Afghanastan and the Money alone should include you in this.

The ONLY logical case to include the other nations is to begin to repair old wounds but, but the soldiers dying over there just should not be there for the countries that did not want to help.
 
hmmm....one of my posts is missing.....I guess you cannot reread it...I responded to Bonoman.
 
Dreadsox said:
I am trying to figure out why they would exclude Canada.

There is no reasonable reason whatsoever except the pettiness of the administration and the fact that Bush has never liked our Prime Minister and has STILL, more than 3 years after being elected not come to Canada, and refuses to do so until we have a new PM (as of tomorrow). Members of the Canadian parliament haven't helped matters either, by publically having referred to Bush as a "moron," a "failed statesman" and to "American bastards." It's been a tense relationship ever since Clinton left office, from Kyoto to unfair softwood lumber tariffs, to decriminalization of marijuana being a "threat" to American war on drugs, to gay marriage, to a bunch of issues.

Bush is a petty man, but if you read Canadian news reports, it seems there is already some backtracking on excluding Canada.

From Newsday:

U.S. officials dropped hints Thursday that the eligibility list for Iraqi contracts was subject to change, prompting speculation that an exception might be made for Canada -- and its incoming pro-American prime minister.

Chretien said Bush confirmed Canada's eligibility in a farewell phone call Thursday. Asked about Chretien's comment, the White House refused to discuss.
 
BonoVoxSupastar,

If you read all my posts in here, you will see that I am not contradicting myself. My arguement has never been to EXCLUDE ALL countries from the bidding process. Yes, I did say I would like to see US companies get US Taxpayers money, But I never said other members of the Coalition should be excluded from the bidding process!

There are a lot of people that hate the Bush administration, but hatred of other countries is not the motivator for restricting the number of countries that can bid on the contracts.

If an when Germany, France, and Russia decide they finally want to spend some of their own money and troops to help secure and rebuild Iraq, then I think they should then be open to the bidding process. Forgiving Iraq's debts could also be a factor as well. Unfortunately, these countries have not sent any aid to the Iraqi people and attempted from a diplomatic standpoint to keep the Iraqi people under Saddam's rule. Allowing them to now bid and profit when they have not offered to help themselves with money and troops would be huge mistake and a risky model for future foreign policy.
 
iacrobat,

Lets get some things straight here. The UNITED STATES is spending over 60 Billion dollars in Iraq for reconstruction and security for the people of Iraq. THERE ARE NO STRINGS ATTACHED! Iraq will get the money and as long as Bush has his way with congress, and will never have to repay a dime of it!

When I said it was not a question of the well being of the Iraqi people, I was reffering to which companies could bid for the contracts. The money to rebuild Iraq from the Iraqi people has already been awarded by the US government to Iraq. The only question is which companies get to do the rebuilding. It would be stupid to allow countries that did everything they could diplomatically to prevent the overthrow of Saddam and have not spent any money or sent any troops to aid in development, to be able to all of a sudden make a large profit with US taxpayers money. It would set a terrible precident for the future if countries that do nothing to help and actually try to obstruct the enforcement of UN resolutions are now allowed to profit!
 
Rono,

The Iraqi's are not spending the money, the United States is. The USA will spend over 60 Billion dollars this year to help rebuild and secure Iraq. Private companies will do a lot of the rebuilding and I think it is a good idea to restrict US Taxpayer dollars to those countries that have sent troops, fought in the war, support it, sent money, or done something else to actively support the process.
 
DrTeeth,

I would consider it a security risk from the standpoint that it sets a bad example for the future if countries think they can get away with trying to diplomatically obstruct the enforcement of UN resolutions, do nothing from the standpoint of money and troops to help in the aftermath, and then be allowed to come in with their companies to cash in.
 
bonoman,

Since Canada has sent 300 million dollars in support for rebuilding, I think Canadian companies should be allowed to bid for the contracts.

If Germany, France, and Russia would change their policies about sending troops, money, and forgiving Iraqi debts, then maybe the US should consider letting them bid.

Right now, BUSTER has done more for Iraq than Germany, France or Russia!:wink:
 
OK Sting, i have finally witnessed you give up on a point. It was a long time coming my friend! :wink:

But today it came out that Haliburton OVERCHARGED the US govt in it roll to rebuild Iraq. Will you now consent that the bidding process is flawed and that maybe companies with a little integrety would be first to bid, rather then their location?
 
bonoman,

Its still an open question as whether they really overcharged. There is nothing wrong with the bidding process and as long as there is some oversight, any problems should be kept to a minimum.

There are plenty of companies with integrety in the 63 nation coalition.

I do question the integrety of French companies that may have sold or gave Saddam, Rolland missiles just months before the war, in total violation of the 1990 weapons embargo placed on Iraq following their invasion of Kuwait. My friends saw the missiles while they were in Iraq, which were built by the French in 2002.
 
I heard the best quote for this war today
"It was supposed to be about WMD's now it's all about money.


Funny that was what my sign said before the war. Same as NO BLOOD FOR OIL, same freakin money and defense industrial complex making the :censored: money
 
I like it when our soldiers and weapons designers make money. They help keep this world a safer and more secure place. But, their not the chief issue in this current debate. Some countries are crying because their not getting US Taxpayer dollar for development and reconstruction contracts in Iraq.
 
You know what, after reading this whole thread i've come to a conclusion.

I dont give a fuck anymore. If the US wants to pick and choose who helps Iraq, let them. In a few years time they will still be part of this mess and Canada wont, thank God.

They choose to go to Iraq and they can have the 18.6 billion in contracts, they will be remembered for the war in iraq by Iragi's, good or bad.

I'd galdly give a few billion to be disassociated with this. It's just to bad we gave 300 million to the US to be told to go fuck ourselves!
 
Its up to Canada, if they want to help out with the security situation in the Persian Gulf where the majority of the worlds energy supply comes from, they can. If they want to help a nation of 24 million people form a new country after living under the brutal oppression of a dictator that Canada did not want to overthrow, they can. If they would prefer to bitch and scream from the sidelines while other people do the work in this situation, they can.

No matter what Canada decides to do, they stand to benefit from the actions taken by the USA and other coaltion members.
 
Fuck that. YOU ARE WRONG.

If what you mean by Canada benefiting from this with oil then you are wrong. Canada sells most of its oil to the US with Iraq being overthrown and with their oil coming onto the free market it will hurt Canada.

Go find me a qoute that says that Canada supported Saddam. GO!

You wont find it.

Help in the persion gulf, what about the 2000 troops we have in afganistan so you americans can take their troops out of there and send them to iraq?

Work, some work.

You piss me off like no other!
 
STING2 said:
I like it when our soldiers and weapons designers make money. They help keep this world a safer and more secure place. But, their not the chief issue in this current debate. Some countries are crying because their not getting US Taxpayer dollar for development and reconstruction contracts in Iraq.
Ask the turks about the safer world,...
 
STING2 said:
iacrobat,

Lets get some things straight here. The UNITED STATES is spending over 60 Billion dollars in Iraq for reconstruction and security for the people of Iraq. THERE ARE NO STRINGS ATTACHED! Iraq will get the money and as long as Bush has his way with congress, and will never have to repay a dime of it!

When I said it was not a question of the well being of the Iraqi people, I was reffering to which companies could bid for the contracts. The money to rebuild Iraq from the Iraqi people has already been awarded by the US government to Iraq. The only question is which companies get to do the rebuilding. It would be stupid to allow countries that did everything they could diplomatically to prevent the overthrow of Saddam and have not spent any money or sent any troops to aid in development, to be able to all of a sudden make a large profit with US taxpayers money. It would set a terrible precident for the future if countries that do nothing to help and actually try to obstruct the enforcement of UN resolutions are now allowed to profit!

Give the money freely to Iraq let them choose the who they want to rebuild their country after it was destroyed. Let them choose the lowest bidder or the best quality. If America decides, it is a conflict of interest.

America and friends produce and sell millions upon millions of dollars worth of weapons.

America and friends destroy Iraq with those weapons(twice).

America and friends rebuild Iraq and make billions of dollars.

War is big business.

I just don't see it all through rose coloured glasses like you Sting2.

I like it when our soldiers and weapons designers make money. They help keep this world a safer and more secure place.

A statement like this represents just about everything that is wrong with this world. Utterly mind boggling.
 
Last edited:
I think it was the right decision basically, but poorly handled. We should have accepted bids from everyone, and awarded contracts based on merit, but accompanied by a set of criteria based on their nationality. France would end up with zero or one, and the US and Britain and our other allies would get a vast majority. It seems fair that return should be based on investment, and I think it would deal with some of the political issues.
 
There was an interesting editorial letter in the paper today about how Canada should impose a $2 tax on every barrel of oil it sells, and use the money to fund the rebuilding Iraq.

Since the US buys the vast majority of our oil (what, like 80%?), then they can have their precious resource and fund their war too. Works out well, doesn't it? :wink:
 
iacrobat said:


Give the money freely to Iraq let them choose the who they want to rebuild their country after it was destroyed. Let them choose the lowest bidder or the best quality. If America decides, it is a conflict of interest.

America and friends produce and sell millions upon millions of dollars worth of weapons.

America and friends destroy Iraq with those weapons(twice).

America and friends rebuild Iraq and make billions of dollars.

War is big business.

I just don't see it all through rose coloured glasses like you Sting2.



A statement like this represents just about everything that is wrong with this world. Utterly mind boggling.

China, Russia, Soviet Union arm Iraq

Germany helps build Nuke and Bio Facilities in Iraq

Iraq Invades Iran, Iraq Invade Kuwait, Iraq Invade Saudi Arbia

United Nations and the World Take Action

Iraq signs a Treaty

Iraq Violates Treat for 12 years

China, Russia, Germany, France profit from Food for Oil

Russia Violates Flight Regulations into Bagdhad

Saddam Given Control over Food for Oil

Russia, Germany, France use the Veto to keep their OIL contracts.

US and Allies, under UN resolution 1441 and Resolution 683 Chapter 7 Rules Legally Remove Saddam from Power.


UN Passes 2 Unanimous resolutions recognizing the US occupation as Legit....and as the controlling legal authority.



But hey....if you want to reinterpret history go for it.
 
Last edited:
I didn't mean the weapons were sold to Iraq.

I also wasn't attempting to "re-interpret" history (as if there is only one way of looking at thing anyways). I was simply pointing out that war is indeed big business. Therefore the motives for the invasion must be questioned. I don't see them as entirely wholesome.

And really, what would the UN have done after the US invaded Iraq? It wouldn't have mattered to Bush one way or the other.
 
From the Toronto Star:

Dec. 14, 2003. 01:00?AM

Takeover by new PM could set stage for vigorous lobbying movement to push for closer ties with the United States

LINDA MCQUAIG

All those poor nations that were strong-armed into joining Washington's "coalition of the willing" finally got their reward last week ? their companies will be permitted to bid on $18 billion worth of Pentagon contracts for reconstructing Iraq.

No doubt champagne glasses were clinking and CEOs doing high-fives in corporate boardrooms throughout Rwanda, Eritrea, Albania, Mongolia, Tonga, Uganda, etc. (Although it seems unlikely that Third World companies will squeeze out Halliburton, Bechtel, etc.)

Meanwhile, countries in the coalition of the unwilling ? including Canada ? are barred from the Pentagon contracts, illustrating again that the Bush administration seems to regard Iraq as a treasure chest of spoils, to be doled out only to those who have helped in the heist.

All this came at an awkward time for Paul Martin, who last week was in the final throes of taking over the reins of power in Ottawa, and who has vowed to improve U.S.-Canada relations.

Martin quickly leapt into the fray, proclaiming the Pentagon blacklist "difficult to fathom" ? although it's hard to imagine anything much more straightforward.

It's nice to see our new Prime Minister questioning the Pentagon, but his protests over the Iraq contracts are misplaced. This is one sandbox we should be happy to stay out of.

To begin with, let's remember what we're dealing with here ? reconstruction contracts awarded by an army of occupation. The whole premise is wrong. The only people who should be rebuilding Iraq are Iraqis.

Iraq has a highly educated workforce that effectively managed the country's electrical, water, education, health care and oil-pumping systems ? even under the deprivation of years of harsh sanctions ? until Washington invaded last spring.

In fact, Iraqis could probably rebuild their country for a lot less than what the Pentagon is paying. (Halliburton, which has already been awarded contracts over there worth $5 billion, has been charging the Pentagon twice the going rate for delivering fuel from Kuwait to Iraq, the New York Times reported last week.)

If the U.S. wants to turn Iraq into a functioning country ? not to mention a democracy ? it should start by doing something about unemployment levels there that are above 50 per cent. So Iraqis rebuilding Iraq ? I know it sounds radical ? would be a good place to start.

But Canadians should also be happy to pass up these Pentagon contracts because of the strings attached. The Bush administration could hardly be clearer: It's a package deal. As deputy U.S. Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz put it: "Limiting competition for prime contracts will encourage the expansion of international co-operation in Iraq and in future efforts." Fight American wars, get Pentagon contracts. No blood, no booty.

This is a horrific package deal, particularly with a White House that has declared itself ready to fight preemptive wars.

Of course, Washington plans to make all the decisions about where and when to wage war, but it would clearly like to have some willing helpers ? well-armed, co-operative, cheerful nations to help out in war zones.

Canada, with its ample resources and reputation for deferential behaviour, would seem like the perfect fit ? except that it's been strangely unco-operative lately, refusing to fight in Iraq, spending money on health care that it could be putting towards beefing up its military.

All that may be about to change, however, now that the cranky former prime minister has been ousted in a bloodless coup and replaced with a new leader who promises friendlier U.S.-Canada ties. (As a CNN headline put it on Friday: "Pro-American takes over as Canadian PM.")

I suspect most Canadians would like to continue to stay out of U.S. wars and would prefer to rebuild our public health-care system before worrying about our military.

But there are powerful elements in our corporate elite ? many of whom contributed heavily to Martin's recent leadership campaign ? with different priorities. The Canadian Council of Chief Executives (CCCE), headed by Tom d'Aquino, has been pushing for what it calls deeper integration with the U.S., which includes closer economic and military co-operation.

This would better position Canadian firms to win contracts from the Pentagon, which has an astonishing $400 billion a year to dispense.

But don't bother applying unless your government is onside. One effect of deeper integration, then, according to defence analyst Steven Staples at Ottawa's Polaris Institute, would be to activate a powerful Canadian corporate lobby, which would pressure Ottawa to keep our foreign policy in line with Washington's.

All this threatens to put Canada on a reckless, dangerous and immoral course, as a sidekick in Washington's wars and a northern branch of its military-industrial complex.

Linda McQuaig is a Toronto-based author and political commentator.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom