Kindergarden behaviour by the US

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2003-12-11 08:29am

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast ... index.html

Essentially, countries who did not help the US in attacking Iraq won't get to be apart in rebuilding it.

Chardok · Post by **Chardok** » 2003-12-11 08:42am

What the hell? Makes sense to me. If your country didn't participate in breaking it, we're not paying for your country to go fix it. Cry us a river.

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2003-12-11 08:52am

Chardok wrote:What the hell? Makes sense to me. If your country didn't participate in breaking it, we're not paying for your country to go fix it. Cry us a river.

As I said, kindergarden behaviour, essentially a childish way of punishing those that didn't kiss ass from the get-go.

There is no real objective benefit to this, only a "haha, looks like you should have joined us after all huh *sticks out tounge*" result that makes the US look like even bigger dicks to the rest of the world.
A german company could do something just as well as say a brittish, if not better, but they won't even get a chance because the US is shutting the door before they can lay out their proposals.

This won't do anything but fuck up the way the US looks, it won't do shit for the iraqis either, they seem to be secondary concerns.

theski · Post by **theski** » 2003-12-11 09:45am

His Divine Shadow wrote:

There is no real objective benefit to this, only a "haha, looks like you should have joined us after all huh *sticks out tounge*" result that makes the US look like even bigger dicks to the rest of the world.
A german company could do something just as well as say a brittish, if not better, but they won't even get a chance because the US is shutting the door before they can lay out their proposa

Yea maybe they should take some of the risks and burden before they get a cookie...

and remember France was sucking Iraq oil dry long before the war...

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-12-11 09:54am

I'm all for punishing those miserable shits in the French and Germany government, but this doesn't appear to be a good policy. At this point, getting Iraq rebuilt as soon as possible should be the first priority.

Chardok · Post by **Chardok** » 2003-12-11 09:59am

That's not the point. It's U.S. Taxpayer money, we can give to whomever we want and exclude whomever we want, too.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-12-11 10:11am

Chardok wrote:That's not the point. It's U.S. Taxpayer money, we can give to whomever we want and exclude whomever we want, too.

Correct, but if a German firm were more capable of performing some service in Iraq than others, it would probably be in the best interest of Iraqis to allow that firm to do the job.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2003-12-11 12:09pm

His Divine Shadow wrote:
Chardok wrote:What the hell? Makes sense to me. If your country didn't participate in breaking it, we're not paying for your country to go fix it. Cry us a river.
As I said, kindergarden behaviour, essentially a childish way of punishing those that didn't kiss ass from the get-go.

There is no real objective benefit to this, only a "haha, looks like you should have joined us after all huh *sticks out tounge*" result that makes the US look like even bigger dicks to the rest of the world.
A german company could do something just as well as say a brittish, if not better, but they won't even get a chance because the US is shutting the door before they can lay out their proposals.

This won't do anything but fuck up the way the US looks, it won't do shit for the iraqis either, they seem to be secondary concerns.

Yeah, almost as childish as crying and moaning that you can't get on the tit and suckel it.

Besides, from what I've read, that only applies to the 'major' contracts. Now what that means, I don't know. But there are, iirc, Germany companies already in Iraq or Afganistan doing work.

Chardok · Post by **Chardok** » 2003-12-11 12:29pm

It also does not exclude sub contractors, so, arguably, the countries being excluded from general contracts can still get work there.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2003-12-11 12:49pm

Sorry gentlemen but as much as I agree with the sentiment the fact that after anouncing that these countries would be barred from contarcts in Iraq (I would have preferred a PREFERENCE being given to the allied countries) he now has the balls to ask France and Germany to forgive Iraq's debts.

On one hand Bush is telling these countries its only right since we made the sarcifices to liberate Iraq he then says it would only be right that now that you will not be allowed to have any economic interests you should also forgive debt incurred before our liberation? That's just ass backwards move. We had our fun, there's no need to fucking be brutally inept with our dipolomacy. No one likes a sore winner.

Source:

December 11, 2003
DIPLOMACY
Bush Seeks Help of Allies Barred From Iraq Deals
By DAVID E. SANGER and DOUGLAS JEHL

ASHINGTON, Dec. 10 — President Bush found himself in the awkward position on Wednesday of calling the leaders of France, Germany and Russia to ask them to forgive Iraq's debts, just a day after the Pentagon said it was excluding those countries and others from $18 billion in American-financed Iraqi reconstruction projects.

White House officials were fuming about the timing and the tone of the Pentagon's directive, even while conceding that they had approved the Pentagon policy of limiting contracts to 63 countries that have given the United States political or military aid in Iraq.

Many countries excluded from the list, including close allies like Canada, reacted angrily on Wednesday to the Pentagon action. They were incensed, in part, by the Pentagon's explanation in a memorandum that the restrictions were required "for the protection of the essential security interests of the United States."

The Russian defense minister, Sergei Ivanov, when asked about the Pentagon decision, responded by ruling out any debt write-off for Iraq.

The Canadian deputy prime minister, John Manley, suggested crisply that "it would be difficult" to add to the $190 million already given for reconstruction in Iraq.

White House officials said Mr. Bush and his aides had been surprised by both the timing and the blunt wording of the Pentagon's declaration. But they said the White House had signed off on the policy, after a committee of deputies from a number of departments and the National Security Council agreed that the most lucrative contracts must be reserved for political or military supporters.

Those officials apparently did not realize that the memorandum, signed by Paul D. Wolfowitz, deputy secretary of defense, would appear on a Defense Department Web site hours before Mr. Bush was scheduled to ask world leaders to receive James A. Baker III, the former treasury secretary and secretary of state, who is heading up the effort to wipe out Iraq's debt. Mr. Baker met with the president on Wednesday.

Several of Mr. Bush's aides said they feared that the memorandum would undercut White House efforts to repair relations with allies who had opposed the invasion of Iraq.

White House officials declined to say how Mr. Bush explained the Pentagon policy to President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, President Jacques Chirac of France and Chancellor Gerhard Schröder of Germany. France and Russia were two of the largest creditors of Saddam Hussein's government. But officials hinted, by the end of the day, that Mr. Baker might be able to show flexibility to countries that write down Iraqi debt.

"I can't imagine that if you are asking to do stuff for Iraq that this is going to help," a senior State Department official said late Wednesday.

A senior administration official described Mr. Bush as "distinctly unhappy" about dealing with foreign leaders who had just learned of their exclusion from the contracts.

Under the Pentagon rules, only companies whose countries are on the American list of "coalition nations" are eligible to compete for the prime contracts, though they could act as subcontractors. The result is that the Solomon Islands, Uganda and Samoa may compete for the contracts, but China, whose premier just left the White House with promises of an expanded trade relationship, is excluded, along with Israel.

Several of Mr. Bush's aides wondered why the administration had not simply adopted a policy of giving preference to prime contracts to members of the coalition, without barring any countries outright.

"What we did was toss away our leverage," one senior American diplomat said. "We could have put together a policy that said, `The more you help, the more contracts you may be able to gain.' " Instead, the official said, "we found a new way to alienate them."

A senior official at the State Department was asked during an internal meeting on Wednesday how he expected the move to affect the responses of Russia, France and Germany to the American request. He responded, "Go ask Jim Baker," according another senior official, who said of Mr. Baker, "He's the one who's going to be carrying the water, and he's going to be the one who finds out."

In public, however, the White House defended the approach. Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman, said "the United States and coalition countries, as well as others that are contributing forces to the efforts there, and the Iraqi people themselves are the ones that have been helping and sacrificing to build a free and prosperous nation for the Iraqi people."

He said contracts stemming from aid to Iraq pledged by donor nations in Madrid last month would be open to broad international competition.

Richard A. Boucher, the State Department spokesman, said Wednesday that while the bidding restriction applied to prime contracts, "there are very few restrictions on subcontractors."

He also said the World Bank and International Monetary Fund "may have different, or their own, rules for how they contract."

When the committee was drafting the policy, officials said, there was some discussion about whether it would be wise to declare that excluding noncoalition members was in the security interests of the United States. As a matter of trade law, countries are often allowed to limit trade with other nations on national security grounds.

"The intent was to give us the legal cover to make the decision," one official said.

But the phrase angered officials of other nations because it seemed to suggest they were a security risk.

Moreover, the United States Trade Representative's office said on Wednesday that contracts with the occupation authority "are not covered by international trade procurement obligations because the C.P.A. is not an entity subject to these obligations."

"Accordingly, there is no need to invoke the `essential security' exception to our trade obligations," the office added.

That raised the question of why Mr. Wolfowitz included the phrase.

The Pentagon was already recasting the policy on Wednesday.

"Nobody had the intent of being punitive when this was being developed," said Larry Di Rita, spokesman for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.

"This is not a fixed, closed list," he said. "This is meant to be forward looking and potentially expansive."

And Canada, our good ally to the north who has troops in Afghanistan for fuck's sake wouldn't be allowed in either. Seriously this is a flawed policy that is going to bite this adminstration and country in the ass in the future. I am seriously concerned by teh way this man is handling the Iraqi situation. Its like any step that he can take to make matters worse he does.

Post by **LadyTevar** » 2003-12-11 12:59pm

Stravo wrote: And Canada, our good ally to the north who has troops in Afghanistan for fuck's sake wouldn't be allowed in either. Seriously this is a flawed policy that is going to bite this adminstration and country in the ass in the future. I am seriously concerned by teh way this man is handling the Iraqi situation. Its like any step that he can take to make matters worse he does.

There's still some religious folks that still believe Bush is the AntiChrist... and they use his actions in Iraq to prove it.

Dahak · Post by **Dahak** » 2003-12-11 01:09pm

Germany's policiticians from all spectrums, even those who were pro-war, are highly irritated.
Especially by the sheer insolence to ask for forgiving the debts of IRaq at the same time, which now seems more unlikely than ever.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-12-11 02:04pm

Idiocy. Sheer idiocy. Petty recriminations and vindictive bullshit have no place in international relations. Besides, Germany has been a tremendous help in other vital areas in the War on Terror. Now we're going to fuck them because the objected to the war? France I can almost understand--they actively tried to fuck us in the UN, but Germany just said "We want no part of it", and left it at that.

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2003-12-11 02:14pm

theski wrote:Yea maybe they should take some of the risks and burden before they get a cookie...

So this is about acting like a bunch of shitheads rather than helping Iraq?
That there is a very stupid reason that helps the Iraqis in no way whatsoever, petty vindictiveness is what it is, nomatter how much people piss and moan with sentiments like the above.

and remember France was sucking Iraq oil dry long before the war...

So? Someone bought their oil atleast.

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2003-12-11 02:18pm

Knife wrote:Yeah, almost as childish as crying and moaning that you can't get on the tit and suckel it.

Nah, it's merely pointing out idiocy and childish behaviour on bush's behalf.
Just because they objected to the war? WTF, whats the big deal about that? It's not like this was some holy jihad to free the iraqis or something, even though thats what the bush administration is trying to make it look like.
Nevermind that they could have gotten in on it hadn't Bush acted like the total nob he is, he's got himself to blame for pissing of his allies and acting all hurt when they react.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2003-12-11 02:44pm

His Divine Shadow wrote:
Knife wrote:Yeah, almost as childish as crying and moaning that you can't get on the tit and suckel it.
Nah, it's merely pointing out idiocy and childish behaviour on bush's behalf.
Just because they objected to the war? WTF, whats the big deal about that? It's not like this was some holy jihad to free the iraqis or something, even though thats what the bush administration is trying to make it look like.
Nevermind that they could have gotten in on it hadn't Bush acted like the total nob he is, he's got himself to blame for pissing of his allies and acting all hurt when they react.

First, this is the first I've heard of Bush asking to forgive debt. That was really stupid consisdering the face slap the day before. So I agree there.

But on the contract deal, I would have done it more subdued. You know, 'ok apply for the contract. What, France didn't get a single one? Wow, how odd.'

Germany and Cananda should have been able to sneak through because they have been helpfull on alot of issues even though they were generally against the war. But France and Russia, who have not only been against the war, but in my view, actively worked against the US durring the war, shouldn't get JACK SHIT.

So, yeah. I agree with Bush's move and don't think its childish. Some countries worked against us and now they want tax payer backed contracts. Nuh, shouldn't work that way. Sorry. Didn't pass go, don't collect $200.

Bush did fuck up though because some countries did pass go, Germany and such, so they should be considered.

Bush further fucked up with phoning them the day after this shit, asking for a favor. Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb....

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2003-12-11 04:06pm

It doesn't really matter that it's the US's money, they're gonna spend them anyway, on Iraq, it's whats best for the iraqis that matter first and foremost.

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2003-12-11 04:33pm

The attitude of Baby bush,gives more reason to people who say "American Imperialism".....officialy Canada was against the war but we still had some ships there patrolling the gulf.

EmperorChrostas the Cruel · Post by **EmperorChrostas the Cruel** » 2003-12-11 05:08pm

Anyone every heared of the fable, "The little Red Hen?"
The little Red Hen wanted some bread for dinner, so she saw some grain, and got to work. Seeing how this was a lot of work, and help would be nice, she shouted out to the barn,
"Who will help me harvest the grain?"
"Not I," said Piggley Wiggley,
"Not I," said Turkey Lurkey,
"Not I," said Foxy Loxy, (ECT..)
The little Red Hen did the work, and She then needed to grind the grain at the mill.
"Who will help me mill the grain?" cried the little Red Hen.
"Not I," said Piggley Wiggley,

(For brevity, the tale continues through the process of changing raw grain into baked bread)

When the Little Red Hen was done doing all the work, she said,
"Who will help me EAT this bread?"
"I will!" shouted Foxy Loxy, Turkey Lurkey, Piggley Wiggley, Doggy Woggy, Catty Kitty, and Mousy Wousey all at one.

"I think not," said the little Red Hen, and ate her bread alone.

These countries have a lot of nerve asking for goodies, after making it harder on us than needed.

My outrage cancels YOUR outrage, so now that outrage is off the table, just WHY should we NOT punish those who made it tougher on us?
This is more than just about money.
This is to let the world know, we are a changed nation, and our patience and forgivness should no longer be considered a given. You cross us, and there will be consequences. If you don't like it, spend some of that welfare state money and get you own military.
Don't slap us in the face, spit on our flag, call our leader a Nazi, and expect that all is forgiven and forgotten, make nice nice.

Send some soldiers, or something worthwhile to the effort, and you too can get in on the Gravey Train. If not, those that are helping are in the front of the line, and there just may not be enough for the last ones.

This is a common thought, among those I am asking about this idea. I find this to be resonating with the mood here.

This asking for Iraqi debt forgivness is a seperate issue, and a blunder.
We should just keep putting off the payments, until the Iraqi government tells the creditors to fuck off.
You know they will.
That or the Iraqis will make BS token teeny tiny payments, and stiff them later.

I read of this DAYS ago, and thought,
"Anybody NOT see this coming for miles?"
Well, Anybody NOT see this coming?
Anybody see Bush changing his mind on this?
Does anybody see just how POPULAR this idea is in America's heartland?

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-12-11 05:17pm

AHHAHAHAH

Stupid Europeans! You want in on the rebuilding of Iraq, after decades
of building bridges, air raid shelters, command bunkers, and chemical
weapons plants (gotta love those whacky germans), and telling us to fuck
off when we asked for your support.

Hey fuckfaces, our money is going to go to those who did support us, bitch

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-12-11 05:25pm

This is just more reason why I despise Bush's petulant-little-boy foreign policy.

Sam Or I · Post by **Sam Or I** » 2003-12-11 05:32pm

I guess I see this from an American point of view. France and Russia against the War from the beginning, and now that there is a profit to be made, be there the first in line, riding the USs back.

Personally, if I was Bush, I would use this situation to benefit the US, and Iraq as much as possible. Contracts would be considered if X amount of troops are on the ground in Iraq, and/or X amount of forgien aid given to Iraq. Hey its not to late to help with the military effort, let them come now and patrol the streets, and bring American troops home.

TheDarkling · Post by **TheDarkling** » 2003-12-11 05:41pm

Considering Powell was begging for NATO aid last week (two days after Rummy was begging for the same) this doesn't seem to be that wise a move.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-12-11 06:03pm

Joe wrote:I'm all for punishing those miserable shits in the French and Germany government, but this doesn't appear to be a good policy. At this point, getting Iraq rebuilt as soon as possible should be the first priority.

Punishing them for what, exactly? Not licking US arse?

The diplomatic incompetence of the Bush administration knows no bounds. The fucking nerve to ask to forgive Iraqi debt just tops it off.

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2003-12-11 06:04pm

MKSheppard wrote:Hey fuckfaces, our money is going to go to those who did support us, bitch

Yes, yes, you managed to make yourself look like idiots and you're proud of it.