Michael at Discount Blogger, who I have a lot of time for, is strongly disagreeing with me on this. Who is right?

Well, duh....Me!

In all seriousness though Alan, you can't be right all the time based on popular opinion.

No, I am not looking for support of me. I reserve the right to be wrong even against my own best judgement. I am looking to see if others agree or disagree with me.

It seems I agreed with you a few weeks ago, Alan. It is asking a bit much to have that happen again. No surprise to you, I am sure...

"Strongly Disagree"

Are you suggesting that we should pay money into the system and agree to be excluded for the system - there is a word for people and places that do that. Mook.

I'm going to agree with you on this one Alan, more or less. We didn't send troops when the US wanted troops (though they never actaully asked us if I recall correctly) and we didn't participate in the war (for better reasons than some are willing to give us credit for) so why should we get to share the spoils of the war, which in this case are the contracts. On the surface that makes sense, but as you point out, we've sent aid when it was asked for.

The US can't afford the war and reconstruction- that's clear. People can throw Britain, Australia, etc in there if they want but we know the bulk of the bill is going to the White House. The problem with the contract fiasco is that the American govt wants everyone (the UN and friends) to pay for the mess in Iraq but they don't want anyone to get the benefits except their buddies. What I'm saying, and I think you're saying, is stop going door-to-door asking for financial aid and help to clean up the mess if our companies aren't good enough to actually be paid to help rebuild.

I don't think we should ask for our money back. We gave aid in good faith to an Iraqi people who need it. We didn't have to give anything and I believe we gave with no strings attached.

However, as far as I know the United States of America and her allies in Iraq are 100% obligated as an invading force to pay for the entire occupation and reconstruction themselves. Is that not what the Geneva Convention says? Is that not international law?

So don't ask for help paying your bills if you don't plan to thank anyone for that help.

Another point rarely mentioned- the USA claims that all Iraqi assets are now frozen and in their possesion until further notice. Iraq owes Russia $8 billion. Does that not mean the holders of Iraq's assets now owe Russia $8 billion? Perhaps giving them a piece of the contract pie would be seen as a means of repayment.

The U.S. does not ask a foreign country for something if it has been stated or implied beforehand by that foreign country that the anticipated request will be denied. Neither does the U.S. embarass the foreign country by asking that foreign country to contribute what it cannot provide. (Canada gets a lot of requests for canoes, muscrat hats and large double-doubles involving issues of security)

Iraq owes Kuwait more then any other country on the list. Peace and stability in the region will go a long way in gaining Kuwait's financial assistance in the rebuilding of Iraq. Russia wants all its debt repaid, and will need to stand in line.

Canada will get economic benefit from participating in the reconstruction, in spite of its weak bargaining position.

It is my understanding that the Geneva Convention covers circumstances involving acts of war. I understand that "War" was not declared. But, the U.S. agrees to abide by the "spirit" of the convention...Alan or international law lawyers would be the authority here.

I am not familar with the word "mook" but I suggest it describes the out-going PM quite well.

The fact that they keep talking about being a country at war and the 'war in Iraq' might cancel out the fact that they didn't send flowers and a card to Hussein to let him know they were going to invade his country.

I can't imagine the Geneva convention requires the invading country to declare war before it is a war. If that was the case, WWII might not have been a war.

This just in:

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2003/12/11/284230-cp.html

The funny bit is where Chretien says he and Bush are still good friends.

Remember the outrage over Pearl Harbour...it was because the declaration of war was late(slow typing translators at Japanese embassy in Washington). But, war was declared. The U.S. entry into WWII was started by separate declarations of war delivered on behalf of the governments of Germany and Japan to the government of the United States...not the U.S. declaring war on them.

However, Great Britain opened their participation in the war with their declaration against Germany in '39 after the invasion of Poland.(Canada followed shortly after)

Vietnam was not a war, but a "conflict". N.Korea and S. Korea have not signed a peace treaty, so a state of war actually still exists.

As I said, I am not clear about the Geneva Convention and its requirements for occupying countries, but it was my understanding a declaration of war was required.

I was suggesting that the definition of invading country's oblications in the case of war [in Iraq the US, in WWII Nazi Germany] cannot be dependant on the invading country delaring war. They just wouldn't do it.

"Being at War" is commonly used by the Bush administration to convey the message to the American public about the ongoing struggle against terrorism. The ''War in Iraq'' stuff is no more then media sensationalism for TV ratings. It is hard to keep this in mind, but it is one way the current administration deals with Constitutional wranglings with lawyers over national security issues.

They used to, in the old days. It would be interesting to know for sure about obligations and the convention. If I do find it, I will let you know.

I'm well aware it's done for media effect, but when the presidents says to the public "We are at War in Iraq" it can be taken to mean that there is a war in Iraq. The $80 billion price tag for it might be taken as further evidence that the country is in fact at war.

Here is the Geneva Convention...still working on the legal jargon about requiring a "declared" state of war...it does mention in section 2 something about one of the parties not recognizing a state existing...can one country declare war and the other still not recognize the declaration???

http://www.hrweb.org/legal/geneva1.html

Does the declaration of war stipulation matter matter when the next line says :

"The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance?"

I won the prize in Public International Law in 1991 from Dalhousie University. My prof was a Judge on the European Court of Human Rights. I have no f'ing idea.