While some Russian & European officials continue to blast the US for months on end not to start a war, now they are bitching that they are not getting a fair shot at the US rebuilding contracts for Iraq. Which is it guys??

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration is preparing to invest billions of dollars in Iraqi hospitals, schools, and roads immediately after the end of hostilities against Baghdad, in part to assure the Arab world that America's drive for war is about political change, not profits.

Officials must now also assure the Europeans and Russians, who say they've been locked out of the bidding....

.... ''This is economic unilateralism,'' said Mikhail V. Margelov, chairman of the Russian Parliament's Committee for Foreign Affairs. ''It is not wise to award all that money to [US contractors]. The only possible way to rebuild is for a new Marshall Plan'' that includes multilateral participation and transparent bids.

Anyone else find this REALLY backasswards?

The rest of the article: http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/079/nation/US_is_accused_of_hoarding_contracts_to_rebuild+.sh tml

Hopefully George will tell them to go pound the sand they are not willing to fight on.

Kind of weird, still, to hear a Russian Foreign Minister referring to the Marshall Plan---anyone else old enough to get the irony in that?

Then again, whoever thought they'd see the day when the President of Russia, an ex-KGB man, would field questions from American high school kids at a news conference held at the ranch of a US President?

Carl---do you really think the Russians would ever agree to submit their troops to US command? Unless a country is willing to do that, we don't want, let alone need, their help.

Bottom line---Russia is going to get a piece of the pie in Iraq. Bush has treated them with kid gloves in his public statements lately, deflecting all the criticism to the French.

Screw them - the ink is still drying from all of the signed oil deals we made for their oil last year. This is a few things lumped in together, light jabs of revenge for the US being vocal over Chechnya (would be heavy jabs if not for our coming together over terrorism) but mainly an opportunity to boost Russia's global prominience a bit in conjunction with France & Germany while at the same time knocking us down a peg or two.

The ironic bit is not only their refference to the Marshall Plan but also their vocal critism of "Might makes Right". If it was not for that, the SU would never have been the dominant force that they were..

Carl - good line!

Mike,

I agree, I don't think the Russians would ever let their troops be led by U.S. leadership. I was just using a sarcastic response to show that not only will they not fight, not only will they not politically support our cause, but they do want a piece of our capitalistic opportunities when it comes to suit their purse strings.

Next thing you know, Russian politicians will be quoting Ronald Reagan :D

I guess if I was illegally selling Iraq military equipment, I wouldn't want anyone to go in either.

I think the Russians got exposed a little bit... my original opposition to the war was based on waiting to get more global support in hopes that Saddam might give it up more easily faced with overwhelming opposition. Now I could give a crap what France thinks, and I think China would publicly badmouth us no matter what. And I don't think anyone wants to hear China's opinion on humanitarian issues b/c they are the worst.

I was mainly hoping to sway the Russians. I think we need to work on our relationship with them and they scare me the most for alot of reasons. They need to strengthen their gov't because IMO, their organized crime and military leaders our just as big a threat to sell WMD to terrorists as Saddam. There is alot of corruption over there and they have alot of leftovers from the Cold War era.

I also think they would be a strong ally in the fight against terror.

But I think I was way off base here. I think that Russia's motives are becoming more clear. Between the post-war contract stuff and them selling to Iraq. That is really disappointing and I hope the global community doesn't just brush all this aside.

We (US) need to find a way to better our relationship with Russia. They have been duplicitous in their foreign policy with the US for some time now. Selling advanced systems to Iraq has/will make our mission much more difficult I fear. More American lives lost then would be the case without Iraqi having Russian support.

I firmly beleive it is time for the US to become fiscal isolationist. Let's pull back all our monetary support to all these countries, and then we'll see how they will all kill each other off......they are all WAR HUNGRY lunatics.

Originally posted by Homerun04
I firmly beleive it is time for the US to become fiscal isolationist. Let's pull back all our monetary support to all these countries,

It was time to do that a long time ago......like when it first began....

Free trade with all.....but monetary support, i.e. taxpayer dollars for foreign aid....no way....

Wrong! The US probably has the best balance of foreign aid in the world. It does give the most - far more than anyone else, but it doesn't absorb as high a percentage of the GDP that many other countries do. Now, I'm not against rethinking some of this foreign aid but isolationism will be nice short term for a couple years but will certainly screw us up long term...

Then how about fiscal isolationism toward the global community, but free trade and financial support with known countries that support democracy only??

Originally posted by Homerun04
Then how about fiscal isolationism toward the global community, but free trade and financial support with known countries that support democracy only??

I think a blanket approach like that is too restrictive. Half the countries receiving aid from us that are democratic or are moving towards democracy could probably do with less aid then they get or none at all. But there are countries that really need assistance regardless of style of government, that would likely perish without it. But there are mistakes that happen too. When the Taliban were running Afghanistan, the US was STILL the largest supplier of aid, would more aid have helped? And offered a different path? Or should they have been cut off entirely? Would we have had this all occur sooner than it did? If some aid from the US can cause a nation not to starve, should we ignore because they are not democratic? Or should we offer aid that if managed properly, a generation later might produce a class of individuals that have been schooled enough to promote their own democrativ movement?

I would like to see aid really thought out more than it is but not to use a blanket approach of if you are democratic, you get money and if you are not, you don't - too restrictive and it certainly will not foster any move towards deomocritisation.

Guys....a typical leftist response would be (not that I am advocating this..in fact, just the opposite.....;))

"Why should we use taxpayer dollars to provide aid to foreign countries when there is so much poverty, anguish and suffering right here in America?"

I think my point is that using taxpayer money (read yours and mine) to do some so-called good (whether it be domestic or foreign) FORCES people to pay for it, whether they agree that motive is good or not, is wrong.

Hey, you wanna send aid to the poor people of Afganistan....good for you (seriously).....write out a check.....

You wanna help the poor people of Roxbury....good for you (seriously).....write out a check......

You wanna help the middle class working guy with three jobs in Randolph that has trouble paying his rent and putting food on the table for his kids.....stop making him pay taxes to support the causes that YOU (YOU, meaning the politicians) think deserve them.....

Man, I (WE) really need to go fishing.....this last two weeks is really the first time I got caught up in these politcal discourses....(well on THIS site, anyway....;))

But there are countries that really need assistance regardless of style of government, that would likely perish without it.

So, wouldn't that be an incentive to move towards a democratic style of government? Staring starvation in the face has the tendency to focus the collective mind.......

When the Taliban were running Afghanistan, the US was STILL the largest supplier of aid, would more aid have helped? And offered a different path? Or should they have been cut off entirely?

Cut off entirely. Period.

If some aid from the US can cause a nation not to starve, should we ignore because they are not democratic?

Probably. Communism, dictatorships and tyrannical regimes are the natural enemies of democracy. Why would we assist our enemies? Like a child, withholding a reward to incent proper behavior can be quite enticing. And conversely, rewarding proper behavours (with aid, etc.) can be quite powerful.

Or should we offer aid that if managed properly, a generation later might produce a class of individuals that have been schooled enough to promote their own democrativ movement?

Great idea, but history has shown that mankind is not wise enough to understand to not bite the hand that feeds them. Iran is most interesting right now with their recent attempts towards democracy based partly on warming US-relations in part due to US aid attempts. Most middle east experts are watching Iranian develoments very closely, and this could serve as a model for future (peaceful) nation building attempts by the US. I agree, let's lead the horse to water (as the horse will THINK it found the water on it's own), but if the horse refuses to drink when it gets there, then we need to give it a "reason" to drink.....Let's hope Iran works out....

too restrictive and it certainly will not foster any move towards deomocritisation.

Not sure I agree with this stance -- although I am not too against it either. As I have said before, a review of history will show clearly how focused the collective mind can become when facing perilous decisions. Once we get them democratized, they will get the taste for it.

Ever notice how NO country in history of mankind has EVER willingly abandoned democracy for another form of government, yet MANY, MANY countries have abandoned other forms of government for democracy?

I think I like Steve in Mass' idea the best....both the fishing part and the individual contribution part to other countries........;)