Canada Has No Call on Iraq Contracts

The Globe and Mail ^ | December 12, 2003 | Marcus Gee

[quidnunc]

Let me try to understand this: Canada sat on the sidelines as its greatest friend went to war against a vicious tyranny in Iraq, and now it's offended that Canadian companies might not get to take part in Iraq's reconstruction?

Come on, Canada. It is the Americans and their allies who are fighting and dying in Iraq. It is the United States that is putting up most of the tens of billions of dollars needed to rebuild the place. Is it so outrageous for Washington to say that only companies from the United States and allied countries will get the right to bid on reconstruction contacts?

For countries such as Italy and Spain, each of which has been plunged into national mourning recently over the killing of their nationals in postwar Iraq, it is a very small reward for the enormous sacrifice they are making. To suggest that Canada should get equal status with countries whose soldiers are coming home in body bags is chutzpah on a grand scale.

Yet that is exactly what Paul Martin is saying. On Wednesday, he found it "difficult to fathom" why Washington would restrict bidding on $18-billion (U.S.) in reconstruction contracts to the 63 nations that supported the war in Iraq. Mr. Martin says Canada deserves an equal shot at the contracts because it is sending aid to Iraq and troops to Afghanistan to join the war on terrorism.

Well, let's be clear. Ottawa sent troops to Afghanistan at least in part so it wouldn't have to send troops to Iraq. With our soldiers tied up in the Afghan mission, Ottawa can say to Washington: Hey, we'd love to come help you in Iraq, but we have a previous engagement. Very convenient.

And why does sending 2,000 soldiers to Afghanistan for 12 months exhaust the strength of our military? Because we have been free-riding on the United States. It is only because our friends next door have the world's biggest and most expensive military that we can get by with a toy army. Americans subsidize not just our defence, but the social programs we are so proud of, which would not be nearly so generous if we had to pay for full-fledged armed forces.

As for our non-military aid to Iraq, Canada has spent $225-million so far — a tidy sum, but a raindrop in the sand compared with the more than $80-billion that Washington plans to spend just for starters.

-snip-

[At _War_With_Liberals]

"I believe he merely said that allowing nations who had not helped us out with troops in Iraq would be exposing ourselves to national security risks"

Not my comment.

[george wythe]

I'm concerned about the potential new NAFTA (North American Factory of Terrorists and Assassins) in Canada:

Ahmed Ressam, for example, an Algerian convicted of plotting to bomb Los Angeles International Airport during the millennium celebrations, was caught by Customs Service inspectors entering Port Angeles in December 1999 from Canada, where he lived as a refugee — even receiving a $500 monthly government stipend pending an immigration appeal.

At the time of his arrest, Ressam had a Canadian passport and driver's license that identified him as Montreal resident Benni Antoine Noris.

Since 1995, at least 15 persons identified by federal authorities as known terrorists have been caught crossing the border from Canada, two in Blaine alone.

But about 300,000 immigrants are admitted each year to Canada, some of whom have been identified by law enforcement authorities as terrorists, mostly Islamist extremists, looking for safe haven. Because Canada does not detain refugee claimants, even those with questionable backgrounds, more than 10,000 disappear into Canada's ethnic communities each year.

[vanmorrison]

If the Canucks want to be considered as full partners in our War On Terror, then they ought to make a full commitment to the war effort, not just where they find it to be politically convenient. At this point in time, Afghanistan is a sideshow. The real battle is now joined in Iraq. And those who have put the most on the line in Iraq, i.e., soldiers in the field, deserve to participate in its rebuilding process.

After the Pacific War against Japan, we were the sole administrators of Japan after the War's end. The British, Australians, Chinese, Dutch, and Russians also contributed, but we contributed more by far. Our greater contribution and sacrifice entitled the US to our post-war position. I see no difference here.

[RoseofTexas]

Well, you know the saying....PAYBACK IS A ROYAL B****!

[At _War_With_Liberals]

"If we are to get FULL cooperation from our allies, we need to start to learn not insult them."

Old Europe disingenuously screwed us on a world stage when Powell and Rumsfeld were there, revealing that they had formed new alliances over the last few years in meetings behind our back.

Your comment is naive or socialist boot licking.

[azhenfud]

Recall Carolyn Parrish's comment?
http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/02/26/bastards030226

[At _War_With_Liberals]

The US has been giving away taxpayer $$$ for so long, everyone expects it now, and leftists cry like we are starving children.

The contracts are a reward for loyalty, not a punishment for non participation. The media has reframed the issue.

Socialists simply cannot understand the concept of 'earning it', loyalty or merit. Their top trade lobbyist was sent to the US to shake us down for $$$$ by any means possible. He was so arrogant, he thought he could still insult us with his hand out. He thought wrong.

[been_lurking]

It's US taxpayer's money being spent on these contracts. The US decides who gets the contracts.

I know how much that must pain you, but trust me, you will get over it.

[MontanaBeth]

"we need to be more tactful about it"


Like these countries have been so "tactful" to the United States? I use to read the story "The Little Red Hen" to my kids. The storyline tells of a hen that gathers, plants, waters, harvests, processes the grain, then finally bakes bread. All the time asking for help from others, they all decline for various reasons but when the fruit of those labors, of the hen, produces bread and she asks who would like some, they all clamor "we do we do", she refuses to share the fruit of her labor with those who did nothing to help produce it. She and her chicks ate it all.

[Eala]

Scothia, time to repost your story: The Little Red, White and Blue Hens

[philosofy123]

It's US taxpayer's money being spent on these contracts. The US decides who gets the contracts. I know how much that must pain you, but trust me, you will get over it.

Actually, I am trying so hard to imagine that this whole mess may be over soon, and we may start being more tolerant, and more civilized toward each others. The Pentagon could have made it known to the bid selection committee to award the contract to any special friend that they choose. They did not need to have a document spelling out who is good and who is bad. If you call me bad, so why do I want to help you in Afghanistan, for example. I guess you know that Jim Baker is going out to beg other nations (some of them are on your axis of weasels) to forgive billions of Iraqi debts. Would you suggest it would be helpful for his mission, and for our president, as well as our policy in Iraq to tone down the hostility towards our friends and allies in order that we may get their FULL cooperation?

[philosofy123]

I do agree with you that our money is being spend in Iraq for this reconstruction, and contracts should go to us or to our friends. However, my objection is for issuing a document in black, and white, declaring who is good and who is bad. We could have conveniently awarded the contracts to the Brits, or the Italians, without irritating the same countries that our x-Secretary of State is going to beg to forgive Billions of Iraqi debts.

[philosofy123]

Your comment is naive or socialist boot licking. Your comment is very homble, and very pragmatic-NOT

[Snowyman]

I agree with you. But. It's not that simple. And I don't believe Canada is entitled to ONE American PENNY of the Iraqi contracts . Manley has a point. We're asked to donate money, and excluded on where it's spent. And our contribution to the war in Iraq , for asinine Liberal political reasons , has been buried from the public .

Has anyone ever considered why this was put out by Wolfowitz.and the Pentagon the same week that Bush sends Baker to ask for debt forgiveness for Iraq . From the very countries this announcement speaks against ? Someone should be really pissed off. And Canada isn't that someone.

[Sunsong]

Here is what the article says:

"And why does sending 2,000 soldiers to Afghanistan for 12 months exhaust the strength of our military? Because we have been free-riding on the United States. It is only because our friends next door have the world's biggest and most expensive military that we can get by with a toy army. Americans subsidize not just our defence, but the social programs we are so proud of, which would not be nearly so generous if we had to pay for full-fledged armed forces."

Canada does not deserve to profit from the US effort in Iraq. Canada had nothing but disdain for the effort.

[Sunsong]

"Socialists simply cannot understand the concept of 'earning it', loyalty or merit."

LOL -- I think they really do understand it. They just hate the idea of merit and of "earning". But probably, loyalty, does go right over their heads :-)

[Sunsong]

"I am a Canadian - and I don't believe Canada is entitled to ONE PENNY of the Iraqi contracts. The Canadian government made a decision, and, right or wrong, they should have the balls to stick to it."

Thanks for that. I don't think we will get anywhere until honesty and honor are also a part of communication.

[Sunsong]

"I guess you know that Jim Baker is going out to beg other nations (some of them are on your axis of weasels) to forgive billions of Iraqi debts. Would you suggest it would be helpful for his mission, and for our president, as well as our policy in Iraq to tone down the hostility towards our friends and allies in order that we may get their FULL cooperation?"

George W. Bush demostrates consistently a "civility" that Chretien, Schroeder and Chirac do not. I could not disagree with you more. You seem to be siding with certifiable jerks here.

If Canada, France, Germany, Syria and North Korea want to have difficult, strained or even bad relations with us -- that is their choice. It is not up to us to mend a fence that Chretien broke. Canada was in the wrong. It is up to Canada (or any of the others) to apologize and make amends.

We are rewarding those who stood with us. It is as simple as that. It is my hope that Secratary Baker informs the French and the Germans not to expect Iraq to honor debts incurred by the vicious dictator, Saddam Hussein. I hope he simply informs them of that, smiles and walks out.