Payback - French, Germans and Russians barred from Iraq contracts

[Ned]

News from the White House:

This may all be a ploy to allow Baker bargaining chips in his debt-reduction talks. The thinking is that if a country tones down its anti-US rhetoric and positions, and does something for Iraq on reconstruction and debt reduction, the ban will be lifted.

So, rather than complicating Baker's mission, this seems to be planned to give him negotiating leverage.

[Bereta_Eder]

The list is not important. However, I doubt wether this is really based on who actually helped and how much.

For example, let's take the most striking examples. You have on that list Albania and the former yugoslav republic of macedonia.

What did those countries actually do?

You don't have for example Greece, whose base on suda, crete is where many of your planes got refueled and armed from, under the NATO conventional obligations.

Once again, it simply doesn't make any sense at all.

[Bereta_Eder]

And Canada is excluded where I think IIRC they actually offered help.

As said it's your money, and certaintly Albania and what have you need it more than Canada, but it still doesn't make sense IMHO.

[lord of the mark]

im skipping the rest of this long thread to make a few points about the topic - pardon if theyve already been made

1. Including Canada in the list of nations to be excluded was flat out stupid. A. Canada offered more reconstruction money at Madrid then France, Germany and Russia combined - alot more. They may not have troops on the ground, but short of that they are really contributing. B. Canada has a new PM coming in the first new leader of a major western nation since the war. He looks to be friendlier to the US than his predecessor. Greeting him this way is idiotic.

2. Grouping Germany in with France and Russia seems less than wise. Germany has offered at least some help with reconstruction, unlike France and Russia. And Germany has gradually been moving away from the French position, and seems amenable to compromise on the political future, role of the UN, etc.

3. This need not have been done so publicly - we could easily have allowed all nations to bid, and quietly steered biz away from the non-contributors - a public slap only distracts from more important issues. Also by making it public it makes it HARDER for the French and Germans to back down - thats the advantage to quiet diplomacy.

4. This need not have been done NOW - would make more sense to wait untill after Baker has started negotiations on debt relief, and till after Dec. 15 deadline for Iraqi election plans.

[Ned]

paiktis, if they were part of the coalition, they are automatically on the list. It is just that simple.

Bush said in a cabinet meeting that a country can still get on the list if it begins to cooperate - such as providing a significant reduction of debt.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Ned
Davout, Unilateral preventative war unacceptable to France?

Explain Kosovo.

Kosovo was a Nato affair; you cannot find more multilateral.

[Bereta_Eder]

Ned, do you, or anyone else, have that list? So that we can compare it with this one?

I find interesting that all one country had to do is say "we support the war on iraq" and then do nothing else whereas countries like Canada which actually helped are not on the list.

[Q Classic]

no good deed goes unpunished. canada was against the war because they didn't think it was a good idea. after the war happened, they were like most liberals in the us: we told you it was a bad idea, but we're here to help anyway.

'course, conservatives don't give most liberals that credit, and the bush admin doesn't give it to canada, either.

[Boris Godunov]

In the Cabinet meeting, Bush said that it was right to exclude countries who "put lives at risk."

What a ****ing snake.

Lives killed by U.S. bombing: est. 3,000+ (minimum)
Lives killed by French/German bombing: 0

It's pretty neat how he's responsible for the deaths of thousands and can say something like that with a straight face.

[Dry]

Originally posted by DAVOUT

You apparently did not get my point : the fact that we are still here shows that the defeats were not important, and that the victories were decisive.

;p

It shows also something else: the strength of the french diplomacy.
A victory on the battlefield is one kind of victory. There are other ways to win.

[Ned]

Originally posted by DAVOUT


Kosovo was a Nato affair; you cannot find more multilateral.

Davout, the coalition that took on Iraq was nearly 40 nations, larger than NATO.

The only major distinguishing factor between the two is France's agreement with the intervention in Kosovo but not in Iraq.

[Q Classic]

many of those countries in the coalition are incapable of sending any real monetary or military aid.

or are we to assume tonga's mighty army is going to stop terrorism?

[Ned]

Originally posted by paiktis22
Ned, do you, or anyone else, have that list? So that we can compare it with this one?

I find interesting that all one country had to do is say "we support the war on iraq" and then do nothing else whereas countries like Canada which actually helped are not on the list.

I think you can get the list on the State Dept. site. I'll look for it you cannot find it.

[Q Classic]

the coalition of the willing

[Ned]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
In the Cabinet meeting, Bush said that it was right to exclude countries who "put lives at risk."

What a ****ing snake.

Lives killed by U.S. bombing: est. 3,000+ (minimum)
Lives killed by French/German bombing: 0

It's pretty neat how he's responsible for the deaths of thousands and can say something like that with a straight face.

Boris, I think Bush said the opposite.