U.S. bars opponents from Iraq bids


We won’t pay France, Germany, or Russia to fix this hole.


  1. Yeah, but I hear Canada has ponied up some money for the rebuilding effort. This doesn’t make us look unilateral, bullying, petty and retaliatory, does it?

  2. Some will choose to see this as unilateral, bullying, petty, and retalitory, sure. But this isn’t happening out of the blue or on a whim. Who should get the opportunity? Those that contributed to the effort? Or those that fought tooth and nail to prevent it? Canada is contributing some money. $190 million is the figure I’ve heard. Not sure if that’s Canadian or US dollars. Pretty slim contribution there, but I’m willing to let them in on a little at some point. Those that whine this is petty don’t seem to have a realistic understanding of actions and reactions.

  3. ‘Yeah, but I hear Canada has ponied up some money for the rebuilding effort. This doesn’t make us look unilateral, bullying, petty and retaliatory, does it?’ Ever since 9/11 I’ve found my interest level in what the rest of the world thinks of the US shrinking to non-existence. Old Europe has complained and tried to keep us from taking actions that we see as necessary to save innocent lives. I find that to be petty and unilateral. So far as Canada is concerned, it’s pretty obvious that they’ve cut their military to the bone because they know that we’ll protect them free of charge. If they don’t want to spend less than $200 million then screw ’em. We’ll still protect them because we’re the good guys. They’re just a bunch of freeloaders, though. James

  4. I’ve thought a lot about this since it was announced. My kneejerk reaction was that this was a bad thing, and we were just trying to penalize people we were sore at. However, you have to realize that it’s not a penalty because these ‘other’ countries never HAD the business, so it’s not like we’re taking anything away from them. These are schools that would have NEVER been repaired had the coalition not gone in. I think a fair compromise would be to allow countries supplying money for the reconstruction be awarded contracts totalling the value of their grant for the reconstruction. Then it would be fair for EVERYONE. Frankly, I’m a bit disappointed that we haven’t taken this position. No one (reasonable) could possibly complain about it, and it could theoretically increase the amount of grants for the reconstruction.

  5. As a Canadian, I would agree with a couple of the points made here. First, we weren’t there on the offensive with the US (a position I am proud of by the way). Second, we have not contributed substantially to any rebuilding efforts. The 2 points I think that are important to keep in mind are: One, Canada has been on the ground in Afganistan from the beginning (remember we lost 4 men to the actions of your reserve pilots). And two, Canada is by no means a threat to the security of the US which is the stated reason for controlling the countries included on the list. Wolfowitz goes on to state that this action might even cause some of those countries not supporting your country’s position to change their minds in order to get in the game. Although that logic may have wings in the minds of some of your politicians and business people, I would be appalled to hear that our government would shift policy so acutely for the chance at some blood money.