France and Germany shut out!

[jimnyc]

Too bad for them.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Citing national security reasons, U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz has ruled that prime contracts to rebuild Iraq (news - web sites) will exclude firms from nations such as France and Germany that opposed the U.S. war.

In a policy document released on Tuesday, Wolfowitz said he was limiting competition for 26 reconstruction contracts worth up to $18.6 billion that will be advertised in coming days.

"It is necessary for the protection of the essential security interests of the United States to limit competition for the prime contracts of these procurements to companies from the United States, Iraq, coalition partners and force contributing nations," Wolfowitz said in a notice published on the web site www.rebuilding-iraq.net.

The move is likely to anger France and Germany and other traditional allies in NATO (news - web sites) and the U.N. Security Council who are being blocked out of prime contracts after their opposition to the war. They may bid for sub-contracts.

But the decision will placate countries such as Britain, Italy and Spain, which provided troops to Iraq but whose companies were excluded from the first round of deals that went to U.S. firms.

The contracts cover electricity, communications, public buildings, transportation, public works and security and justice. Additional contracts are also being awarded to oversee those projects.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20031209/wl_nm/iraq_contracts_dc_3

 

[jon_forward]

they were invited to the party but threw a hissy fit and stayed home, now that the cake is being cut up and served they all of a sudden want let in the back door.:finger: em..let em:wank:

 

[Johnney]

This is the funniest thing I've read in a long time. Made my sides hurt laughing so hard. But they should have seen this coming from when they decided to try to railroad us. Well you know they can still get in on it, im sure someplace over there needs a tiolet cleaned.

By the way, im new to this board. And from what ive seen of it, there is finally a place where i can get along with like minded people...lol


Johnney

 

[Isaac Brock]

This whole debacle brings up another important question though. Why should other nations who weren't in the "coalition" now contribute to the recontruction. They can only contribute money now. They have no say in where it goes, nor they can no longer share there expertise. I think this decisions is going rip an alright fragile international wound.

Word here in Canada, is that our new PM is considering dropping the aid donation because simply because it now has no say in where it goes and this is left up to the US. I frankly think our new PM has a point.

 

[Johnney]

But why shouldnt the US put restrictions on who get to help rebuild? IMHO the ones that have troops over there dying are the ones that should get the lions share of the contracts. Its not like the others are being totally shut out. There are other contracts over there. I think I read something like another 13 billion? Just because they dont get the prime contracts doesnt mean they have you get all pissy about it.
If they would have contributed some manual labor...

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by Johnney
But why shouldnt the US put restrictions on who get to help rebuild? IMHO the ones that have troops over there dying are the ones that should get the lions share of the contracts. Its not like the others are being totally shut out. There are other contracts over there. I think I read something like another 13 billion? Just because they dont get the prime contracts doesnt mean they have you get all pissy about it.
If they would have contributed some manual labor...

Yeah but the US is asking for help to make it an mutlinational venture. By saying the aid now is only to be directed and done by US friendly firms the US is effectively saying "Okay, our coalition is our coalition we don't need any outside help.", but that's certainly not the official line. Put it this way, it is a terrible way no multinationalize the Iraqi rebuilding effort and I think the US will see many nations pull out their reconstruction money.

 

[Johnney]

Obviously they arent goign to come right out and say tough shit to those who didnt want to help originaly. but anyone with half a brain cell knows the truth about that.
There would be no trouble with multinationalizing this venture, IF the UN wasnt crying about having a "significant role". When what they mean is they want to be in charge. If they wanted to be in charge, they should have stopped the dead line gig and took a hard line with sadam and stopped babying him.
I dont know how many other Vets are on this board, but I for one have had my fill of operating in an NBC suit. Or have to carry/ possibly use an antropiene (sp) injector. That needle is huge. And jsut because WMD werent found, doesnt mean they arent there. Thats a big ass place.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by Johnney
Obviously they arent goign to come right out and say tough shit to those who didnt want to help originaly. but anyone with half a brain cell knows the truth about that.
There would be no trouble with multinationalizing this venture, IF the UN wasnt crying about having a "significant role". When what they mean is they want to be in charge. If they wanted to be in charge, they should have stopped the dead line gig and took a hard line with sadam and stopped babying him.
I dont know how many other Vets are on this board, but I for one have had my fill of operating in an NBC suit. Or have to carry/ possibly use an antropiene (sp) injector. That needle is huge. And jsut because WMD werent found, doesnt mean they arent there. Thats a big ass place.

But why do that? You don't have to let the UN take over, I can understand logically why the US doesn't want that, but giving the ultimate rebuff to people who want to spend aid in Iraq is sending a pretty bad message. I think the next few days will be very interesting to see who pulls out their aid.

To be honest, I hope Canada does. It's simply fiscally imprudent to spend money, but have no say or idea where it goes. And that's a shame, because i do think Iraqis truly need it.

 

[Johnney]

Not trying to make excuses for either side, but why would some countries say I want my money to go to aid this part but not that part? Why shouldnt all the money to into a pot and be dished out to where ever part needs it? Wouldnt this be more prudent than getting to pick what money goes where?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
To be honest, I hope Canada does. It's simply fiscally imprudent to spend money, but have no say or idea where it goes. And that's a shame, because i do think Iraqis truly need it.

I thought the whole point of donating money to the rebuilding efforts was to help the Iraqi people? It sounds as if some are saying "deny us lucrative contracts and we will take back our initial donations". You wouldn't be penalizing the US, you would be penalizing the Iraqi people. Not to mention it won't matter anyway as the money will ultimately get there.

And what about countries that have made larger sacrifices than a small handfull of money? We should not give them the first chance at contracts?

It's humorous that France, Germany, Russia & Canada wanted to competely distance themselves from the entire Iraq issue, but now bitch and complain when they can't make money off of the situation. If they REALLY want to help the Iraqi people - give them monetary assistance and then sit back in the safety of of their respective countries. To say "we'll only assist if we can make some money" is disgusting.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by jimnyc
I thought the whole point of donating money to the rebuilding efforts was to help the Iraqi people? It sounds as if some are saying "deny us lucrative contracts and we will take back our initial donations". You wouldn't be penalizing the US, you would be penalizing the Iraqi people. Not to mention it won't matter anyway as the money will ultimately get there.

And what about countries that have made larger sacrifices than a small handfull of money? We should not give them the first chance at contracts?

It's humorous that France, Germany, Russia & Canada wanted to competely distance themselves from the entire Iraq issue, but now bitch and complain when they can't make money off of the situation. If they REALLY want to help the Iraqi people - give them monetary assistance and then sit back in the safety of of their respective countries. To say "we'll only assist if we can make some money" is disgusting.

I certainly can see your point on first glance, but I was reading my copy of the Globe and Mail this morning and our new PM makes a good point. Yes the Iraqis need the money no doubt, but let's put this in a historical context. Canada helped in the last Gulf War and we also paid for the reconstruction of Kuwait. Canada sent no contractors to Kuwait, but did at least have a say in where there money went.

Today in the paper, the new PM mentionned that Canada still probably won't have any major Canadian contractors to rebuild (beyond the RCMP), but does very much want a say in where its money goes. Again I ask if that's unreasonable? I'm trying to find the arcticle, but it's not online yet.

Plus if the Iraqi people could find a cheaper source for reconstruction isn't it in their benefit to use it, even if it isn't from the US allies? Plus, it would help shed the image that the US is using the war for its own profit, but would be a huge boon diplomatically.

 

[Isaac Brock]

...and the plot thickens. Oh and by the way, security reasons my ass. At least call a spade, a spade.

Pentagon Delays Iraq Bidders' Conference
23 minutes ago

By JIM KRANE, Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD, Iraq - A conference for companies seeking $18.6 billion in reconstruction contracts in Iraq (news - web sites) has been delayed by eight days until Dec. 19, according to U.S. officials.

The delay comes amid a furor over a Pentagon (news - web sites) memo barring countries that didn't support the U.S.-led war from bidding on the reconstruction contracts.

The conference, in which the contract requests were to have been made public, was delayed by scheduling conflicts of the top U.S. official in Iraq who is overseeing the issue, retired Adm. David J. Nash, a spokesman said Thursday.

Nash directs reconstruction and infrastructure funding for the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad.

"The requests for proposals have not been formally issued as of today," Nash's spokesman, Charles Krohn, wrote in a statement. "The delay is a result of decisions made by the Department of Defense (news - web sites)."

The conference was to have taken place Thursday in two locations in the United States. The rescheduled conference will be held at the Dulles Airport Marriott Hotel near Dulles, Virginia, Krohn said.

Krohn declined to comment on whether the delay was linked to the dispute over the Pentagon directive. The U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority, which oversees Iraq, confirmed the delay in a message on its Web site.

On Wednesday, U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz released a memo saying the United States would bar countries that opposed its war in Iraq from submitting bids.

Wolfowitz's directive limits bidders for 26 lucrative contracts in Iraq to firms from the United States, Iraq, their coalition partners and other countries which have sent troops to Iraq.

It says restricting contract bids "is necessary for the protection of the essential security interests of the United States."

Countries that did not send troops would be eligible for subcontracting work in Iraq.

The main contracts will be awarded Feb. 2 through the contracting office of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Krohn said.

 

[5stringJeff]

The way I see it, France and Russia made plenty of money in pre-war Iraq by dodging the UN sanctions. So here's to the French and the Russians!! :finger:

 

[dijetlo]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
The way I see it, France and Russia made plenty of money in pre-war Iraq by dodging the UN sanctions. So here's to the French and the Russians!! :finger:

What happened to free trade, the markets as a self correcting entity? Shouldn't we open bid the contracts to gain the best price, terms and products?
By the way, who was it who took issue with the phrase "economic lackeys"?

 

[jon_forward]

I agree with you jeff....150% sorry that our friends in canada are on the shitty end of the stick but where were they this time?

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by jon_forward
I agree with you jeff....150% sorry that our friends in canada are on the shitty end of the stick but where were they this time?

To be honest. Where were we? We were taking over from you guys in Afghanistan. We had to send at least a thousand more troops to Kabul, when the US military was redeployed.

I'd don't blame you guys on the board though, outside of Canada, no one ever hears that we're the head of NATO operations in afghanistan. Though it's a real shame that's not good enough to prove that we're good allies and friends.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by dijetlo
What happened to free trade, the markets as a self correcting entity? Shouldn't we open bid the contracts to gain the best price, terms and products?
By the way, who was it who took issue with the phrase "economic lackeys"?

Very good question, dijetlo.

I am a free trader at heart. I do believe that the global market will tend to make the economy more efficient. In fact, I think that we might end up having to pay more for some of the reconstruction contracts. However, I think that it is worth it to exclude these countries, because if they did not support the war effort and did not contribute to the liberation of Iraq, why should they be able to profit from the reconstruction? It's getting something for nothing.

 

[dijetlo]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
To be honest. Where were we? We were taking over from you guys in Afghanistan. We had to send at least a thousand more troops to Kabul, when the US military was redeployed.

We'd invite you in on the contracts for Afghansitan but, let's face it, we can't rebuild Afghanistan 'cause their was nothing there to start with. Sorry hoss, you picked the wrong occupation to support. (You guys didn't know about the oil?) I suggest you impeach your prime minister, recall your troops and seize Buffalo immediately.

I'd don't blame you guys on the board though, outside of Canada, no one ever hears that we're the head of NATO operations in afghanistan.

Wow, I've allways said Canadians were sneeky...
How long before Ice Rinks begin to dot the verdent poppy feilds of Northern Iraq, eh?

Though it's a real shame that's not good enough to prove that we're good allies and friends.

You are, after all, Canadians. When we revolted, you went and told mom and dad. We had to ask the French for help!!! Do you realize how embarassing that is for us now that we are a superpower and France is still...french. You got a province or state or somethin' that's basicaly french...name like Que Ball err..a Clubneck, somethin' like that, don't ya' ? DON'T YA!!!
Your lucky we didn't invite Afghanistan to help occupy you.
I'm sorry Isaac, your no doubt sick of Canadian jokes but I can't resist. What can I say, I'm weak. I'll try to stop now that I got that out....

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
To be honest. Where were we? We were taking over from you guys in Afghanistan. We had to send at least a thousand more troops to Kabul, when the US military was redeployed.

I'd don't blame you guys on the board though, outside of Canada, no one ever hears that we're the head of NATO operations in afghanistan. Though it's a real shame that's not good enough to prove that we're good allies and friends.

Isaac, you're right, I didn't know that Canada has taken over in Afghanistan. Rock on!

As far as us being allies, I am happy that the US and Canada are close friends. It would be a real shame if Canada and the US ever got on bad terms.

 

[Aquarian]

Shutting the 4 countries out from reconstruction projects (especially when those same 4 countries are contributing money to fund the reconstruction) because they did not jump on the war bandwagon is wrong if only on issues of appearance. In doing so it makes the US look like we are either a) trying to stuff our own pockets and the pockets of our 'buddies' or b) petulant children who hold a grudge. Allowing those countries to bid would create just the opposite impression, something that would help out some of our more strained international relationships. It may be too late now tho as a reversal would probably not be seen in the same way as allowing all countries to bid initially would have been. imo