Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

Dubya's 'diplomacy' skills do it again...

Dec 10, 2003 11:59AM PST
Iraq Bids Ban Reopens Diplomatic Rift.
"Russia suggested it would not restructure Iraq's debt. Canada threatened to stop sending aid to Baghdad. And the European Union said it would study whether global trade rules had been violated."
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Way to go !
Dec 10, 2003 12:23PM PST

If they won't cooperate militarily; if they won't
cooperate financially; if they just simply won't
cooperate, WHY...should they be prime beneficiaries
of contracts using American dollars. They can still
compete for sub-contracts.

They might continue to thumb their noses, but I'll bet
they won't be smiling.

- Collapse -
Re:Way to go !
Dec 10, 2003 12:26PM PST

Hi, Del.

One of the Democratic candidtaes said Dubya has change TR's maxim to "Swagger loudly and hit them with a stick." Not the way to make friends and influence people -- at least favorably.
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Yep, the "Democratic Candidates" are saying a lot of rather stupid things...
Dec 11, 2003 3:19AM PST

and much of what they are saying is coming back to haunt them.

Dean saying he would make his papers available if Bush did (only to be reminded by his own staffers that this had already been done) and then continuing to refuse. Even other Democrats are worried about what he is trying to hide.

- Collapse -
Re:Re:Way to go !
Dec 11, 2003 7:27AM PST

Heh heh, Dave,

I guess Russia, France and Germany are getting a lesson
about 'friends and influence', huh ?

- Collapse -
Agree wholeheartedly EXCEPT...
Dec 11, 2003 3:16AM PST

I do think that he should reconsider Canada as they stretched themselves a bit thin assisting in Afghanistan.

As for the rest, why indeed should they reap any contracts if they won't contribute to the cause.

- Collapse -
Help me, Dave...
Dec 10, 2003 7:40PM PST

Dave, you posted a link to a story and just after it a quote. "Russia suggested it would not restructure Iraq's debt. Canada threatened to stop sending aid to Baghdad. And the European Union said it would study whether global trade rules had been violated.".
Help me, Dave, I read that story 4 times, and can't find that quote? Where was it? You set it off in quotes, implying to all the readers of the post that those words came from that story.

- Collapse -
Re:Help me, Dave... They've change the story!
Dec 10, 2003 9:43PM PST

Hi, J.

Yahoo does this sometimes, unfortunately. When AP does a series of stories on the same topic, they'll sometimes change the reference of the link to the more recent version. What I quoted was the first paragraph of the story at the time I posted (cut and pasted). More interestingly, I went to the Washington Post site, where you can search the AP archives, and searched on "European union global trade" and got several references -- but not the version of the story I quoted. perhaps the AP caved to Wh pressure and pulled that version of the story? BTW, speaking of caving, how about U.S. says Iraq rules aren't set in stone; Global anger leads to change in tone.
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Geeez, Dave....
Dec 10, 2003 10:06PM PST

Geeez, Dave. You say that Yahoo sometimes does this, seeming to me to imply that it's a normal thing. And then you turn right around and say, " perhaps the AP caved to Wh pressure". Another Republican/Bush "plot", I assume.

- Collapse -
Re: Geeez, Dave....
Dec 11, 2003 12:09PM PST

Hi, J.

Having a later version of the same story show up under the link is normal. What isn't normal is having a story critical of the WH disappear completely from the searchable AP archives, as happened in this case.
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Re: Dave,isn't the whole idea behind diplomacy, selling your agenda?(nt)
Dec 10, 2003 9:15PM PST

.

- Collapse -
I wonder, Mary Kay...
Dec 10, 2003 9:54PM PST

Mary Kay, let me paint a pretend senario. It is silly but I'm trying to keep it as non-political as possible, as Dave K. tends to sometimes slobber all over when he's playing an anti-Bush attack dog.
What if 10 billion were to be spent on, say, an entertainment compllex and opera house in Iceland? Would the global trade rules require that France, Russia and Germany automatically be eligible to bid in the contracts that that project would generate?

- Collapse -
Re: I guess it would depend on who's footing the bill. IMO (nt)
Dec 10, 2003 10:09PM PST

.

- Collapse -
2 questions J..
Dec 10, 2003 10:18PM PST

In your scenario,

Did the US help to liberate Iceland from a dictator?

If not, would the US have the right to tell Iceland which country, could or could not, bid on building this Opera house?

Bill

- Collapse -
And I'd answer, Bill....
Dec 10, 2003 10:36PM PST

And I'd ask, Bill, what do "the global trade rules require?".
Do they say that the the rules are different depending on whether or not Iceland had been under a dictator previously? Do they say that if the U.S. builds something in Iceland all the contracts must be let by Iceland and/or Iceland choses the final contractor?

- Collapse -
Re:And I'd answer, Bill....
Dec 10, 2003 11:41PM PST

You didn't answer my questions.

Do they say that the the rules are different depending on whether or not Iceland had been under a dictator previously?

I don't imagine that they do, I also don't imagine that they give the right to Coalition forces to go to a country,

Tell the people they are going to

1. rebuild your country

2, all the work will be done by companies they (coalition forces) choose

3. you will pay for all the work.


Do they say that if the U.S. builds something in Iceland all the contracts must be let by Iceland and/or Iceland choses the final contractor?

I don't imagine that they, do, I also don't imagine that they state that no other country beside the US can bid on them either,unless the US (coalition forces) are paying for everything with no expectation of repayment from Iceland

It was my understanding that the US was going to "front the money" for reconstruction of Iraq. After the country was on the road to recovery the Iraqi people would be responsible for repayment (from oil revenues) of the money for the reconstruction..

If the above is the correct interpretation then the Iraqi are paying for reconstruction and I don't think that any country should be excluded from bidding on contracts.

If the above statement is incorrect, and the Coalition forces are paying for reconstruction with no expectation of repayment then "go to it" and exclude any country they want.

But they should remember that Iraq is NOT a country that belongs to the coalition forces. It belongs to Iraq.

Bill

- Collapse -
As I said, Bill....
Dec 11, 2003 12:19AM PST

Bill, people have seemed to say that the thing that started this was improper. I wondered if that objection would apply to a different senario. As you seem to imply that there is some legal basis in the international rules, I wanted to have you point them out to me, then it would seem the time to discuss if those regulations were violated.
I can't answer your question until you specify the parts of the regulations that were violated specifically.
Something that, as you say, "I don't imagine" is a hard thing to apply to an unspecified specific rule to see if it is covered.

- Collapse -
Re:As I said, Bill....
Dec 11, 2003 4:09AM PST

I KNOW that they DO NOT SPECIFICALLY state

Do they say that if the U.S. builds something in Iceland all the contracts must be let by Iceland and/or Iceland choses the final contractor?

I know they make no reference to U.S. , Iceland, opera houses or entertainment centers., all in the same scenario


I also know they do not state that

A Coalition Force can invade (or liberate) a country, repair its infrastructure, and then send the bill to the invaded (liberated) country.

Just as a person cannot (or maybe they can) take over your house, carry out repairs and then send you the bill.

If you look in the law books, I know imagine this scenerio is not covered, so, I guess it OK.

How long do you thing the document would be if it was to cover every (im)possible scenario?


Bill

- Collapse -
Different I know but regarding
Dec 11, 2003 5:51AM PST

"Just as a person cannot (or maybe they can) take over your house, carry out repairs and then send you the bill."

A local community government can condemn property and tear it down if deemed unsafe or even just an eyesore and violating zoning laws after notification to owner of record. Even when no reply is obtained from the ower of record.

roger

- Collapse -
This just in......
Dec 10, 2003 9:36PM PST
- Collapse -
Re:This just in......
Dec 11, 2003 7:34AM PST

Anyone reading to the last paragraph will find that
the 'delay' was not related to the controversey.

- Collapse -
If the US tax payer is footing the bill,
Dec 11, 2003 12:58AM PST

and Russia, France, Germany, etc. have refused to help, the money should go to companies which employ US taxpayers. That sure sounds fair to me.

From what I've read, this is THE reason that Russia, France, Germany, etc. wanted the UN in control after Saddam was defeated.