Contracts For Re-Building Iraq

[Graeme Kessey]

I'm not sure if this topic has been raised, but how do the members feel about countries who supported the U.S.A. being allowed contracts to re-build while those who did not are left out?
Is this a reward for the Allies or a f---k you to the Europeans namely France and Germany who opposed the war but now want to make money in the aftermath?

 

[Sabir]

I see it as a bit of both... and why not, seems fair to me.

However I think America still needs the support of those countries which opposed the war and from another post on this board I understand it has softened its stance.

 

[bamthin]

Originally posted by Graeme Kessey
I'm not sure if this topic has been raised, but how do the members feel about countries who supported the U.S.A. being allowed contracts to re-build while those who did not are left out?
Is this a reward for the Allies or a f---k you to the Europeans namely France and Germany who opposed the war but now want to make money in the aftermath?

I think it's disgraceful. It's not like the corporate fatcats who can get the contracts actually did anything. They are profiting off the blood and sweat of the actual soldiers who died. What did a UK businessman do to deserve a piece of the pie? In addition, I find it a bit funny that the US will lower itself to excluding competition, which could ultimately save US taxpayers money, and then have the nerve to grovel back to the UN and ask for international assistance in Iraq. As an American, I find it embarassing and I can tell you that many other Americans do too. Just my opinion though.


-Bam

 

[jimnyc]

I'm not embarassed. If they helped in any way, they are being rewarded. If they opposed us, they aren't being rewarded. Sounds pretty cut and clear to me. And if I'm ultimately paying more as a result, so be it, I have no problem with that either.

 

[jon_forward]

the spoils of war...DUH...

 

[wonderwench]

Spoils of War?

Hardly. Why should countries who played games as permanent members of the UNSC, and who, not coincidentally, profited greatly by doing business with Saddam, profit further from the rebuilding of Iraq? The Unwilling also hold enormous amount of debt due from Iraq. If they want to participate in the contracts, they should forgive the debt.

After all, why should the Iraqi people have to continue to pay for the tools which were used to oppress them?

Some interesting data about who armed Saddam:

Note the top 3: Russia, France & China, all members of the UNSC who refused to support removing Saddam from power.

http://www.thedissidentfrogman.com/bureau/000113.html

 

[jon_forward]

ww, I am on your side of the fence here, the more risk taken, the great the reward should be

 

[wonderwench]

The phrase War Profiteering drives me up the wall.

Given that American taxpayers are footing most of the bill for liberating Iraq, it makes no sense for our money to go to countries which made the job more difficult for our troops.

 

[Johnney]

from what ive seen, alot of people arent taking into account the other contracts that are floating around over there. they see that they US is excluding those who didnt contribute and thats it. now who are the other countries that say "im (insert country here) and i should get this much in expensive contracts"? there are others out there, not just the ones mentioned in the press.

 

[Annie]

Good point Johnney. The 'exclusion' list only pertains to projects that rely on the US taxpayers money. When it's money from Iraq, UN, other countries, the bidding is open to all.

Certainly the limited bidding may cause a higher bid than open bidding, but for some reason many feel that rewarding those that risked is worth that. I for one will be very happy to have Poland, Japan, Australia, UK, US, Spain, Italy get these contracts.