Full Version: Foreign companies out of Iraq
Is it morally justifiable for foreign companies to profit off of the Iraq reconstruction when jobs and money are so scarce in Iraq?
Would removing foreign interests from Iraq and allowing Iraqis to build an economic foundation, by Iraqis and for the benefit of Iraqis,
aid in and increase the chances of democracy in iraq?
Would the act of fully vesting Iraqis in the economic health of their nation decrease the hold the terrorists and insurgents have in Iraq?
Would removing foreign interests from Iraq and allowing Iraqis to build an economic foundation, by Iraqis and for the benefit of Iraqis,
aid in and increase the chances of democracy in iraq?
Would the act of fully vesting Iraqis in the economic health of their nation decrease the hold the terrorists and insurgents have in Iraq?
Is it morally justifiable for foreign companies to profit off of the Iraq reconstruction when jobs and money are so scarce in Iraq?
Yes it is morally justifiable, but it would have been a stronger postwar plan to aim for reemployment as soon as possible. This is where the aweing and shocking would have done the most good.
Would removing foreign interests from Iraq and allowing Iraqis to build an economic foundation, by Iraqis and for the benefit of Iraqis,
aid in and increase the chances of democracy in iraq?
I believe removing foreign interests now, including economic would lead to the balkanization of Iraq and the creation of another area where instability breeds terror systems.
Would the act of fully vesting Iraqis in the economic health of their nation decrease the hold the terrorists and insurgents have in Iraq?
Yes, but I don;t see how this can be done now. I'd love to see a plan that had this instant result, the insurgency would be over after getting foreign jihadists out of the country.
EEYORE
QUOTE
Yes it is morally justifiable, but it would have been a stronger postwar plan to aim for reemployment as soon as possible. This is where the aweing and shocking would have done the most good.
One of the biggest factors for unrest in Iraq is the horrible economic condidtions--right along with 3 years and pathetic progress interms of the grid and water. I am thinking remove the foreign companies altogether and allowing independent Iraqi interests to take control would go a long way towards giving the progress over there a much needed boost of health.QUOTE
I believe removing foreign interests now, including economic would lead to the balkanization of Iraq and the creation of another area where instability breeds terror systems.
I disagree I think you would get a wild cat type of economic growth as Iraqis are allowed to go after control of the rebuilding their homeland. Especially beneficial would be the clear feeling of that their future is truly in their hands and not foregin economic interests. Being so engaged in this pursuit of free economic enterprise it would leave little time for strife and fighting. Self interest would take hold and I firmly believe invigorate the Iraqi people to unseen levels of enthusiasm. Life liberty and the pursuit of Happiness and all that.QUOTE
Yes, but I don;t see how this can be done now. I'd love to see a plan that had this instant result, the insurgency would be over after getting foreign jihadists out of the country.
If the Iraqis are seeing growing employment and rising economic conditions i would make a solid guesstimate that the health and weelfare of the terrorists and insurgents would take a drastic plunge. Iraqis would probably take a very serious interest in assuring that security was the order of the day. I also believe that a healthy economy would drain away insurgents like abroken down van of swimsuit models would empty a highschool football practice.
Is it morally justifiable for foreign companies to profit off of the Iraq reconstruction when jobs and money are so scarce in Iraq?
In theory I would say that making money out off of poor and long-time oppressed people are not justifiable, but on the other hand I believe that economic motives played an important part in the choice to fight a war in Iraq. Of course, liberating people from a brutal dictatorship and making the world a safer place to live in are nice extras, as long as it doesn't collide with the interests of the Bush administration and the U.S. So.... if one of the main reasons for going to war were economical, then American companies making profit out of the whole situation in Iraq is not morally unjustifiable.
Would removing foreign interests from Iraq and allowing Iraqis to build an economic foundation, by Iraqis and for the benefit of Iraqis, aid in and increase the chances of democracy in iraq?
Ideally, yes, but knowing the history of Iraq and the lack of any stable government in that country, I would say that if all foreign interest are removed, there will be a big chance that corruption will dominate the reconstruction of Iraq towards a 'modern' democratic society.
Would the act of fully vesting Iraqis in the economic health of their nation decrease the hold the terrorists and insurgents have in Iraq?
I do not think so unfortunately. Like I said before there is a chance for large scale corruption if al of a sudden we hand over Iraqis the economic health of the nation. Corruption in general does not lead to a decrease in terrorist activities or insurgencies. (look at Russia for instance!) Rather there is a chance that rich Iraqi companies will make a deal with some terroristic groups. Do not forget that a lot of people in Iraq have certain simpathies towards radical fundamentalistic groups, or at least 'understand' why such groups fight their 'holy wars'. An unstable government confronted with corruption, has little in her way to stop the terroristic threats in her country.
In theory I would say that making money out off of poor and long-time oppressed people are not justifiable, but on the other hand I believe that economic motives played an important part in the choice to fight a war in Iraq. Of course, liberating people from a brutal dictatorship and making the world a safer place to live in are nice extras, as long as it doesn't collide with the interests of the Bush administration and the U.S. So.... if one of the main reasons for going to war were economical, then American companies making profit out of the whole situation in Iraq is not morally unjustifiable.
Would removing foreign interests from Iraq and allowing Iraqis to build an economic foundation, by Iraqis and for the benefit of Iraqis, aid in and increase the chances of democracy in iraq?
Ideally, yes, but knowing the history of Iraq and the lack of any stable government in that country, I would say that if all foreign interest are removed, there will be a big chance that corruption will dominate the reconstruction of Iraq towards a 'modern' democratic society.
Would the act of fully vesting Iraqis in the economic health of their nation decrease the hold the terrorists and insurgents have in Iraq?
I do not think so unfortunately. Like I said before there is a chance for large scale corruption if al of a sudden we hand over Iraqis the economic health of the nation. Corruption in general does not lead to a decrease in terrorist activities or insurgencies. (look at Russia for instance!) Rather there is a chance that rich Iraqi companies will make a deal with some terroristic groups. Do not forget that a lot of people in Iraq have certain simpathies towards radical fundamentalistic groups, or at least 'understand' why such groups fight their 'holy wars'. An unstable government confronted with corruption, has little in her way to stop the terroristic threats in her country.
Is it morally justifiable for foreign companies to profit off of the Iraq reconstruction when jobs and money are so scarce in Iraq?
This question oversimplifies how foreign companies are actually operating in Iraq. When an American company is given a contract say to feed the troops it of course means money for them. It also means money and jobs for thousands of Iraqis.
You must realize that these companies by and large don't pick up their US operation and drop it in Iraq.
The sub-contract to Iraqi firms. They benefit form US expertise and funding as well as having a secure base of operations across the Atlantic and they employ thousands of Iraqis.
Iraq's infrastructure can't really handle direct Iraqi control of some of the larger reconstruction work and will take some time to recover.
Contracts to US companies are not only morally justifiable, they are employing tens of thousands of Iraqis as we speak.
Would removing foreign interests from Iraq and allowing Iraqis to build an economic foundation, by Iraqis and for the benefit of Iraqis, aid in and increase the chances of democracy in iraq?
Woah no!
Unless there was major aid on the part of the US this would simply prolong the rebuilding process as allow rampant graft and corruption to flourish as it always does in any chaotic situation.
Iraqis don't really have the funds to pull this off and if we are to donate it often it is better to give it to US companies we can keep an eye on.
Would the act of fully vesting Iraqis in the economic health of their nation decrease the hold the terrorists and insurgents have in Iraq?
By and large the insurgents have no rational goals. These are people who have blown up the water main in Baghdad for two years straight, in the middle of summer,.
They are not looking for empowerment folks.
This question oversimplifies how foreign companies are actually operating in Iraq. When an American company is given a contract say to feed the troops it of course means money for them. It also means money and jobs for thousands of Iraqis.
You must realize that these companies by and large don't pick up their US operation and drop it in Iraq.
The sub-contract to Iraqi firms. They benefit form US expertise and funding as well as having a secure base of operations across the Atlantic and they employ thousands of Iraqis.
Iraq's infrastructure can't really handle direct Iraqi control of some of the larger reconstruction work and will take some time to recover.
Contracts to US companies are not only morally justifiable, they are employing tens of thousands of Iraqis as we speak.
Would removing foreign interests from Iraq and allowing Iraqis to build an economic foundation, by Iraqis and for the benefit of Iraqis, aid in and increase the chances of democracy in iraq?
Woah no!
Unless there was major aid on the part of the US this would simply prolong the rebuilding process as allow rampant graft and corruption to flourish as it always does in any chaotic situation.
Iraqis don't really have the funds to pull this off and if we are to donate it often it is better to give it to US companies we can keep an eye on.
Would the act of fully vesting Iraqis in the economic health of their nation decrease the hold the terrorists and insurgents have in Iraq?
By and large the insurgents have no rational goals. These are people who have blown up the water main in Baghdad for two years straight, in the middle of summer,.
They are not looking for empowerment folks.
QUOTE(christopher)
Is it morally justifiable for foreign companies to profit off of the Iraq reconstruction when jobs and money are so scarce in Iraq?
Depends on what your morality allows...Does common western morality really enter into big business any more? Its capitalist practice to exploit any economic weakness for own gain so why should Iraq be any different? There is always money to be made in the wake of chaos and war.
QUOTE(christopher)
Would removing foreign interests from Iraq and allowing Iraqis to build an economic foundation, by Iraqis and for the benefit of Iraqis,
aid in and increase the chances of democracy in iraq?
Isn't this the big question that resides at the centre of the whole occupation? Just how much help or hinderance is the US presence in Iraq? aid in and increase the chances of democracy in iraq?
Its said, time and again, that Iraq's infrastructure can not handle the 'business of Iraq's business' and so American company's must do this on Iraq's behalf, bringing expertise that Iraq doesn't have to get Iraq back on its feet.
What jars with this explanation is the small but uncomfortable fact that it was the American invasion of Iraq, and especially the apparent disregard for maintaining law and order in the weeks of chaos that followed the fall of Saddam Hussein that led to the the collapse of Iraq's infrastructure.
In other words, the US military/government stood by and allowed Iraq's infrastructure to fall to bits when they could easily have prevented it by guarding key ministry buildings.
When Iraq's infrastructure 'imploded', the only state institution guarded by the US military was Iraq's oil ministry. The reason for this is obvious enough: the oil ministry is the only aspect of Iraq's government that held any use for the US plans for Iraq.
The Bush administration didn't need the rest of Iraq's infrastructure. Indeed, getting rid of it was in America's best interest since the collapse of Iraq's infrastructure justifies the executive order (number 13290 of March 20, 2003) signed by GW Bush for the 'Confiscating and Vesting Certain Iraqi Property' that allows US companies to do as they will in exploiting Iraq's natural resources.
This source claims that the Bush administration has effectively hijacked Iraq's wealth and resources for its own purposes.
QUOTE(A.K. Gupta)
Forget for a moment about quagmire, the growing heaps of U.S. and Iraqi dead, and the rebellious population. George Bush, Paul Bremer, and gang have pulled off the biggest heist in history. They and no one else own 100 billion barrels of crude oil—a windfall of at least $3 trillion—along with the entire assets and resources of Iraq.
Since March 2003, a series of executive orders by Bush, UN documents, and regulations and orders issued by Iraqi Proconsol Paul Bremer have put the U.S. in absolute control of the state of Iraq, its oil industry and monies, all while lifting barriers to repatriating profits.
In the name of reconstruction and security, the Bush administration has essentially granted itself the power to use the wealth of the Iraqi people as it sees fit. Never mind that the new “fiscal matrix” in Iraq violates international law: a fact of little concern to the White House when the war was illegal to begin with.
The largest contracts have gone to corporations like Halliburton, Bechtel, and Fluor, which are big contributors to the Republicans and now enjoy oversight of their Iraq activities by former executives who now sit in the Bush administration. Furthermore, Bush has given the corporate victors the ultimate protection: indemnifying them from liability for any and all activities related to Iraqi oil.
Since March 2003, a series of executive orders by Bush, UN documents, and regulations and orders issued by Iraqi Proconsol Paul Bremer have put the U.S. in absolute control of the state of Iraq, its oil industry and monies, all while lifting barriers to repatriating profits.
In the name of reconstruction and security, the Bush administration has essentially granted itself the power to use the wealth of the Iraqi people as it sees fit. Never mind that the new “fiscal matrix” in Iraq violates international law: a fact of little concern to the White House when the war was illegal to begin with.
The largest contracts have gone to corporations like Halliburton, Bechtel, and Fluor, which are big contributors to the Republicans and now enjoy oversight of their Iraq activities by former executives who now sit in the Bush administration. Furthermore, Bush has given the corporate victors the ultimate protection: indemnifying them from liability for any and all activities related to Iraqi oil.
QUOTE(christopher)
Would the act of fully vesting Iraqis in the economic health of their nation decrease the hold the terrorists and insurgents have in Iraq?
If the old infrastructure was still intact then I don't believe Iraq would have become the terrorists paradise it has become today. The people of Iraq already knew/know how to dig up oil and sell it. They didn't need the Bush administration to help them in the past so I don't see why they should need it today... except for the fact that GW Bush has turned Iraq into a state of near civil war and as I have pointed out before, since the US military effectively controls security in Iraq, then only the US military/government can 'guarantee' security of Iraq's oil producing infrastructure...As for the rest of Iraq's infrastructure, the roads and hospitals and what have you, thats no concern of the Bush administration what so ever. Iraqi's don't have a vote in the USA and any vote they might have in Iraq doesn't count for a pile of camel dren with regards to the reconstruction of their nation when the USA has confiscated Iraq's main source of income.
In other words: No. Due to the state Iraq has been reduced to by the policies of the Bush administration, the Iraqi's are no longer capable of preventing terrorism within their nation.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
QUOTE(turnea)
Contracts to US companies are not only morally justifiable, they are employing tens of thousands of Iraqis as we speak.
And is it morally justifiable for twenty billion dollars of Iraq's oil revenues to simply disappear? QUOTE(Seymour Hersh)
I just don't know that but, you know, when you talk about cash in Iraq, you don't just talk about cash. You talk about pallet loads of cash. There's an awful lot of money. If anybody wanted -- the London Review of Books recently did an amazing -- they took the six last State Department and U.N. reports on the missing cash in Iraq. Twenty billion dollars, much of it Iraqi oil money, has just disappeared, and there's no accounting for it. I shouldn't say all of it has disappeared, but the accounting is very lax.
Link.QUOTE(moif @ Jul 21 2005, 11:53 AM)
Its said, time and again, that Iraq's infrastructure can not handle the 'business of Iraq's business' and so American company's must do this on Iraq's behalf, bringing expertise that Iraq doesn't have to get Iraq back on its feet.
What jars with this explanation is the small but uncomfortable fact that it was the American invasion of Iraq, and especially the apparent disregard for maintaining law and order in the weeks of chaos that followed the fall of Saddam Hussein that led to the the collapse of Iraq's infrastructure.
In other words, the US military/government stood by and allowed Iraq's infrastructure to fall to bits when they could easily have prevented it by guarding key ministry buildings.
What jars with this explanation is the small but uncomfortable fact that it was the American invasion of Iraq, and especially the apparent disregard for maintaining law and order in the weeks of chaos that followed the fall of Saddam Hussein that led to the the collapse of Iraq's infrastructure.
In other words, the US military/government stood by and allowed Iraq's infrastructure to fall to bits when they could easily have prevented it by guarding key ministry buildings.
Again this really misses the point. The fact is that the initial force into Baghdad left many things unguarded including nuclear material for example because they could not "easily" guard them all (whatever gave you that idea? was this not a war?)
Even if they had guarded the ministries that would have only saved some rather minor points of information. When I say infrastructure I mean mostly tangible goods that far from being concentrated in a few Baghdad ministries is scattered throughout the country. Power plants and office building were ransacked, copper wire was stolen, everything that wasn't nailed down found its way out.
I also mean the various systems that collapsed after the invasion, the legal system, the security forces etc.
The US could not have forced these people to show up the work and act like nothing happened.
The claim that the US had a "disregard" for law and order is pure and utter nonsense. The fact is they could not enforce it and make sure Baghdad was secure form Iraqi forces at the same time.
QUOTE(moif)
If the old infrastructure was still intact then I don't believe Iraq would have become the terrorists paradise it has become today. The people of Iraq already knew/know how to dig up oil and sell it. They didn't need the Bush administration to help them in the past so I don't see why they should need it today...
Again misunderstanding. Iraq always contracted out to foreign companies to develop its oil fields.
What US companies are doing in Iraq is not pumping the oil or selling as both are state functions in Iraq. They are (in the case of Halliburton) repairing the oil fileds which, in case you haven't noticed were the target of intentional sabotage during the initial war and an on going insurgents campaign after.
QUOTE(moif)
As for the rest of Iraq's infrastructure, the roads and hospitals and what have you, thats no concern of the Bush administration what so ever.
Which is why they are spending millions to rebuild it....
QUOTE(moif)
QUOTE(turnea)
Contracts to US companies are not only morally justifiable, they are employing tens of thousands of Iraqis as we speak.
And is it morally justifiable for twenty billion dollars of Iraq's oil revenues to simply disappear? 
No, of course not. The funny thing is that this was discovered and announced by the Administration own audits and is the subject of an ongoing investigation.
QUOTE
Again this really misses the point. The fact is that the initial force into Baghdad left many things unguarded including nuclear material for example because they could not "easily" guard them all (whatever gave you that idea? was this not a war?)
I suppose you'll tell me that the fact that no declaration of war was ever issued is also 'missing the point'?QUOTE
Even if they had guarded the ministries that would have only saved some rather minor points of information. When I say infrastructure I mean mostly tangible goods that far from being concentrated in a few Baghdad ministries is scattered throughout the country. Power plants and office building were ransacked, copper wire was stolen, everything that wasn't nailed down found its way out.
If thats so, then why did the US military guard the Iraqi oil ministry? According to you, there was no need... Tangible goods can be easily replaced when you have the worlds second largest reserves of oil under your sandals.
Records however, easily flammable paper work and computer disks, these cannot be replaced which of course answers the question as to why the US military guarded the oil ministry: Because they needed those records.
QUOTE
I also mean the various systems that collapsed after the invasion, the legal system, the security forces etc.
The US could not have forced these people to show up the work and act like nothing happened.
The claim that the US had a "disregard" for law and order is pure and utter nonsense. The fact is they could not enforce it and make sure Baghdad was secure form Iraqi forces at the same time.
But of course. Its patently absurd to claim that disbanding the entire Iraqi military at the first possible moment could have any sort of impact on the chaos and disorder that quickly followed... The US could not have forced these people to show up the work and act like nothing happened.
The claim that the US had a "disregard" for law and order is pure and utter nonsense. The fact is they could not enforce it and make sure Baghdad was secure form Iraqi forces at the same time.
QUOTE
Again misunderstanding. Iraq always contracted out to foreign companies to develop its oil fields.
As do all nations. Its not 'misunderstanding' as you claim. The difference lies in that formerly it was the Iraqi's who contracted out to foreign companies and not the Bush administration.
Can you spot the difference? ....I guess not these days.
QUOTE
Which is why they are spending millions to rebuild it....
Millions? Apart from the fact that billions are said to be missing, can you actually identify any examples of Iraq's infrastructure being rebuilt? So far I've seen precious little to indicate that Iraq's infrastructure is on the road to recovery so it would be nice to see some sort of examples of how 'they' are spending millions to rebuild it.
...its not the millions I am confused about. I'm sure 'they' spent a lot of dollars, its more the actual rebuilding bit I'm not to sure about.
QUOTE
No, of course not. The funny thing is that this was discovered and announced by the Administration own audits and is the subject of an ongoing investigation.
Yeah, thats hilarious. Whats even more side splitting is that plenty of Iraqi's and international NGO's made this claim from the get go, but now suddenly its kosher because the administration own audits 'discovered and announced' it.
Its a bit like the missing WMD's, the abuse of Iraqi prisoners and all the other small voices that keep 'missing the point'. They just don't seem to matter until its become to obvious to ignore.
editted for spelling
QUOTE(moif @ Jul 21 2005, 12:42 PM)
QUOTE
Again this really misses the point. The fact is that the initial force into Baghdad left many things unguarded including nuclear material for example because they could not "easily" guard them all (whatever gave you that idea? was this not a war?)
I suppose you'll tell me that the fact that no declaration of war was ever issued is also 'missing the point'?Entirely.
QUOTE(moif)
If thats so, then why did the US military guard the Iraqi oil ministry? According to you, there was no need...
No I said it was relatively minor compared to what was going on outside Baghdad and I was right even in the case of the oil ministry. It took months to restart oil production despite protecting the ministry and it's still at a fraction of capacity.
Why did they guard the oil ministry? Perhaps because it was the most important being the country's main source of wealth. They couldn't guard everything so they picked the critical points.
You could ascribe malicious motives and there's really nothing I can do to dissuade from a theory that requires so little evidence.
Believe it if you like but it isn't a foregone conclusion.
QUOTE(moif)
Tangible goods can be easily replaced when you have the worlds second largest reserves of oil under your sandals.
Ha! That's thinking optimistically, the fact is they can't and it has been enormously difficult to get things like power up and running despite earnest efforts.
QUOTE(moif)
But of course. Its patently absurd to claim that disbanding the entire Iraqi military at the first possible moment could have any sort of impact on the chaos and disorder that quickly followed...
Seeing as much of the chaos took place before the disbanding patently absurd wouldn't be too far off.
The CPA judged it would be pointless to pay the old Army if it could not control and use it. The collapse of the Iraqi army was an unavoidable fact, the official dissolution was a budgetary flourish.
As do all nations.
QUOTE(moif)
Its not 'misunderstanding' as you claim. The difference lies in that formerly it was the Iraqi's who contracted out to foreign companies and not the Bush administration.
Can you spot the difference? ....I guess not these days.
Can you spot the difference? ....I guess not these days.
The difference is relatively minor. The US did not contract long-term development deals but emergency rebuilding.
QUOTE(moif)
QUOTE
Which is why they are spending millions to rebuild it....
Millions? Apart from the fact that billions are said to be missing, can you actually identify any examples of Iraq's infrastructure being rebuilt? So far I've seen precious little to indicate that Iraq's infrastructure is on the road to recovery so it would be nice to see some sort of examples of how 'they' are spending millions to rebuild it.
...its not the millions I am confused about. I'm sure 'they' spent a lot of dollars, its more the actual rebuilding bit I'm not to sure about.
Certainly.
Here's an article that covers much of the gamut of this discussion.
QUOTE
Some critics say the window for the U.S. government to make a positive impression on Iraqis has long closed.
But even the most skeptical acknowledge tangible progress, particularly in the Shiite south and the Kurdish-controlled north, which elected leaders from their dominant groups to top posts in the new government.
More than 3,000 schools have been renovated nationwide, according to the Iraqi Reconstruction Management Office, and 40 new buildings have gone up in the south to replace mud huts that served as schools.
At least three water treatment plants, including an enormous project near Nasiriyah, are scheduled to open in the south in the next year. They will supply clean water to more than a half-million people.
More than 70 electricity projects have been completed, officials say. But a surge in demand has made power less available to many than before the 2003 invasion, and officials are eager to start work on at least three southern power plants in the next year to serve over 400,000 households.
But even the most skeptical acknowledge tangible progress, particularly in the Shiite south and the Kurdish-controlled north, which elected leaders from their dominant groups to top posts in the new government.
More than 3,000 schools have been renovated nationwide, according to the Iraqi Reconstruction Management Office, and 40 new buildings have gone up in the south to replace mud huts that served as schools.
At least three water treatment plants, including an enormous project near Nasiriyah, are scheduled to open in the south in the next year. They will supply clean water to more than a half-million people.
More than 70 electricity projects have been completed, officials say. But a surge in demand has made power less available to many than before the 2003 invasion, and officials are eager to start work on at least three southern power plants in the next year to serve over 400,000 households.
U.S. Aims to Speed Up Iraq Reconstruction
The Post has a whole section on reconstruction.
Iraq Reconstruction
QUOTE(moif)
Whats even more side splitting is that plenty of Iraqi's and international NGO's made this claim from the get go
Really? They announced that the CPA had loss track of billions of dollars before the audits were completed? Love the check the documentation to see if we're on the same page here.
QUOTE(turnea)
Entirely
Very well, but then why ask me if this was not a war? Obviously it is called a war when it is in America's best interests (as these are perceived by GW Bush) to be called a war, but its not war in any constitutional sense of the word since no declaration of war has been issued.
Is this beside the point? I don't think so. It demonstrates the regard with which the Bush administration has for the law.
QUOTE(Seymour Hersh)
This President has decided that any action that is involved with the war does not have to go to Congress because he is Commander in Chief. This is a legal determination they have made, has the right as Commander in Chief, as I said, to authorize anything in -- any operation that supports the war.
Link.What confidence can the average citizen of Iraq have that GW Bush is acting in their best interests when they can hear him tell the people of America, that "We are at war" whilst 130,000 US troops are in Iraq?
QUOTE(turnea)
No I said it was relatively minor compared to what was going on outside Baghdad and I was right even in the case of the oil ministry. It took months to restart oil production despite protecting the ministry and it's still at a fraction of capacity.
Yes of course it did. The Bush plan has failed in Iraq and the rebels are far more potent than any one imagined. Two years down the line and the oil production is sporadic, not because Iraq's infrastructure is collapsed but because the rebels keep blowing stuff up!
QUOTE(turnea)
Why did they guard the oil ministry? Perhaps because it was the most important being the country's main source of wealth. They couldn't guard everything so they picked the critical points.
100,000 soldiers and they could only guard one ministry building... sure...
QUOTE(turnea)
You could ascribe malicious motives and there's really nothing I can do to dissuade from a theory that requires so little evidence.
Ha ha ha ha... so little evidence? 25,000 dead Iraqi's, two years of sectarian violence and near civil war, the complete disbanding of the Iraqi military and its officer corps, the disregard of all ministry buildings and hospitals and power stations whilst US soldiers guarded the oil ministry... The US military/government did nothing to prevent the anarchy that followed the fall of Saddam Hussein. The evidence that the country fell into anarchy whilst only one ministry was guarded speaks for itself... especially when that ministry had been confiscated by the US government thanks to Executive Order 13290.
And just how many soldiers do you suppose it would have taken to guard the other ministry buildings? ...the ones not protected by Executive Order 13290 and Executive Order 13303?
QUOTE(Wikipedia)
Executive Order 13303 was issued on May 22, 2003 by United States President George W. Bush to protect the Iraq Development Fund for the rebuilding of Iraq from any legal attachments or liens. Further, it protects Iraqi oil products and interests and ownership by US persons (defined to include US corporations) from attachment as well. EO 13303 also terminates sanctions specified in EO 12722, EO 12724, EO 13290, as it applies to the development fund. In effect, EO 13303 provides an extraordinarily broad legal shield for any and all contractors and mercenaries working in Iraq on behalf of US corporations in any oil related enterprise.
Link.QUOTE(turnea)
Ha! That's thinking optimistically, the fact is they can't and it has been enormously difficult to get things like power up and running despite earnest efforts.
Yes, of course it has. The Rebels keep blowing stuff up and all the executive orders in the world can't change that. That doesn't mean that the executive orders don't exist or aren't being used, right now, to finance clandestine US operations against terrorism and fund large US based oil company's outside of congressional influence. I don't understand why you keep arguing against the facts. Its all there, its the same basic pattern as has been repeated throughout western history. Are you really so patriotic as to be blind to whats happening right in front of your eyes? Western nations have been doing this sort of thing for decades, centuries even. Its divide and conquer all over again. Keep the natives fighting amongst themselves whilst you fleece their land/gold/silver/oil/what ever.
Do you really believe that Iraq will emerge from this 'war' as a free democratic nation?
Do you truly believe that the government of Iraq could cancel a US executive order that grants the right to oil revenues and resources to an American company and transfer a contract to, say, a Russian or French company?
QUOTE(turnea)
Certainly.
Here's an article that covers much of the gamut of this discussion.
[snip]
U.S. Aims to Speed Up Iraq Reconstruction
The Post has a whole section on reconstruction.
Iraq Reconstruction
Thanks for the links though I don't see much to change my mind... reconstruction seems to be happening at a terribly slow, almost non existent pace. Here's an article that covers much of the gamut of this discussion.
[snip]
U.S. Aims to Speed Up Iraq Reconstruction
The Post has a whole section on reconstruction.
Iraq Reconstruction
QUOTE(turnea)
]Really? They announced that the CPA had loss track of billions of dollars before the audits were completed? Love the check the documentation to see if we're on the same page here.
Are you kidding? You've never seen or heard any one complaining that US corporations were fleecing Iraqi oil money until it was admitted by this audit?
This is one of those complaints has been made so often, so many times by so many different people at various times in the last two years that I never even bothered to save the urls because it never occurred to me that one day some one would claim ignorance to it.
Next you'll be telling me that no one in Iraq ever complained about Abu Graib until the pentagon was so good as to tell the public about those nasty photographs...
...wait a second... it was Seymour Hersh that told us about those!
My mistake.
Is it morally justifiable for foreign companies to profit off of the Iraq reconstruction when jobs and money are so scarce in Iraq?
No it is not, while I wouldn't mind the foreign companies help with reconstruction. Like showing them better techniques of construction and such or working along side them. I am completely against foreign companies coming in and taking over for profit.
Would removing foreign interests from Iraq and allowing Iraqis to build an economic foundation, by Iraqis and for the benefit of Iraqis,
aid in and increase the chances of democracy in iraq?
Not completely. Like I said above helping them by working along side them and showing them better ways to do things I don't have a problem with at all and would in theory help speed up the reconstruction.
Would the act of fully vesting Iraqis in the economic health of their nation decrease the hold the terrorists and insurgents have in Iraq?
I would agree with this from things I have seen and read, because if they have a bigger role in their future then sitting on the side lines then it becomes part of their future. As well some things I have read where some of the support for the the Iraq-in-state insurgency comes from either a family member dying in whatever way, and retailating. Or when a job you had before the war is taken away by either a foreign company coming and taking it over or the job not existing for various reasons anymore.
I read a good article that explains alot of what this topic is about and shows some shady things that went on under Bremer's CPA and has some evidence of cause and actions based on the reactions to what was happening. It's a long read but worth it.
Baghdad Year Zero
Just a few passages I will add
No it is not, while I wouldn't mind the foreign companies help with reconstruction. Like showing them better techniques of construction and such or working along side them. I am completely against foreign companies coming in and taking over for profit.
Would removing foreign interests from Iraq and allowing Iraqis to build an economic foundation, by Iraqis and for the benefit of Iraqis,
aid in and increase the chances of democracy in iraq?
Not completely. Like I said above helping them by working along side them and showing them better ways to do things I don't have a problem with at all and would in theory help speed up the reconstruction.
Would the act of fully vesting Iraqis in the economic health of their nation decrease the hold the terrorists and insurgents have in Iraq?
I would agree with this from things I have seen and read, because if they have a bigger role in their future then sitting on the side lines then it becomes part of their future. As well some things I have read where some of the support for the the Iraq-in-state insurgency comes from either a family member dying in whatever way, and retailating. Or when a job you had before the war is taken away by either a foreign company coming and taking it over or the job not existing for various reasons anymore.
I read a good article that explains alot of what this topic is about and shows some shady things that went on under Bremer's CPA and has some evidence of cause and actions based on the reactions to what was happening. It's a long read but worth it.
Baghdad Year Zero
Just a few passages I will add
QUOTE
The tone of Bremer’s tenure was set with his first major act on the job: he fired 500,000 state workers, most of them soldiers, but also doctors, nurses, teachers, publishers, and printers. Next, he flung open the country’s borders to absolutely unrestricted imports: no tariffs, no duties, no inspections, no taxes. Iraq, Bremer declared two weeks after he arrived, was “open for business.”
One month later, Bremer unveiled the centerpiece of his reforms. Before the invasion, Iraq’s non-oil-related economy had been dominated by 200 state-owned companies, which produced everything from cement to paper to washing machines. In June, Bremer flew to an economic summit in Jordan and announced that these firms would be privatized immediately. “Getting inefficient state enterprises into private hands,” he said, “is essential for Iraq’s economic recovery.” It would be the largest state liquidation sale since the collapse of the Soviet Union.
But Bremer’s economic engineering had only just begun. In September, to entice foreign investors to come to Iraq, he enacted a radical set of laws unprecedented in their generosity to multinational corporations. There was Order 37, which lowered Iraq’s corporate tax rate from roughly 40 percent to a flat 15 percent. There was Order 39, which allowed foreign companies to own 100 percent of Iraqi assets outside of the natural-resource sector. Even better, investors could take 100 percent of the profits they made in Iraq out of the country; they would not be required to reinvest and they would not be taxed. Under Order 39, they could sign leases and contracts that would last for forty years. Order 40 welcomed foreign banks to Iraq under the same favorable terms. All that remained of Saddam Hussein’s economic policies was a law restricting trade unions and collective bargaining.
snipet
Some of the holdup had to do with the physical risks of doing business in Iraq. But there were other more significant risks as well. When Paul Bremer shredded Iraq’s Baathist constitution and replaced it with what The Economist greeted approvingly as “the wish list of foreign investors,” there was one small detail he failed to mention: It was all completely illegal. The CPA derived its legal authority from United Nations Security Council Resolution 1483, passed in May 2003, which recognized the United States and Britain as Iraq’s legitimate occupiers. It was this resolution that empowered Bremer to unilaterally make laws in Iraq. But the resolution also stated that the U.S. and Britain must “comply fully with their obligations under international law including in particular the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the Hague Regulations of 1907.” Both conventions were born as an attempt to curtail the unfortunate historical tendency among occupying powers to rewrite the rules so that they can economically strip the nations they control. With this in mind, the conventions stipulate that an occupier must abide by a country’s existing laws unless “absolutely prevented” from doing so. They also state that an occupier does not own the “public buildings, real estate, forests and agricultural assets” of the country it is occupying but is rather their “administrator” and custodian, keeping them secure until sovereignty is reestablished. This was the true threat to the Year Zero plan: since America didn’t own Iraq’s assets, it could not legally sell them, which meant that after the occupation ended, an Iraqi government could come to power and decide that it wanted to keep the state companies in public hands, or, as is the norm in the Gulf region, to bar foreign firms from owning 100 percent of national assets. If that happened, investments made under Bremer’s rules could be expropriated, leaving firms with no recourse because their investments had violated international law from the outset.
By November, trade lawyers started to advise their corporate clients not to go into Iraq just yet, that it would be better to wait until after the transition. Insurance companies were so spooked that not a single one of the big firms would insure investors for “political risk,” that high-stakes area of insurance law that protects companies against foreign governments turning nationalist or socialist and expropriating their investments.
snipet
But Bremer didn’t give up. International law prohibits occupiers from selling state assets themselves, but it doesn’t say anything about the puppet governments they appoint. Originally, Bremer had pledged to hand over power to a directly elected Iraqi government, but in early November he went to Washington for a private meeting with President Bush and came back with a Plan B. On June 30 the occupation would officially end—but not really. It would be replaced by an appointed government, chosen by Washington. This government would not be bound by the international laws preventing occupiers from selling off state assets, but it would be bound by an “interim constitution,” a document that would protect Bremer’s investment and privatization laws.
One month later, Bremer unveiled the centerpiece of his reforms. Before the invasion, Iraq’s non-oil-related economy had been dominated by 200 state-owned companies, which produced everything from cement to paper to washing machines. In June, Bremer flew to an economic summit in Jordan and announced that these firms would be privatized immediately. “Getting inefficient state enterprises into private hands,” he said, “is essential for Iraq’s economic recovery.” It would be the largest state liquidation sale since the collapse of the Soviet Union.
But Bremer’s economic engineering had only just begun. In September, to entice foreign investors to come to Iraq, he enacted a radical set of laws unprecedented in their generosity to multinational corporations. There was Order 37, which lowered Iraq’s corporate tax rate from roughly 40 percent to a flat 15 percent. There was Order 39, which allowed foreign companies to own 100 percent of Iraqi assets outside of the natural-resource sector. Even better, investors could take 100 percent of the profits they made in Iraq out of the country; they would not be required to reinvest and they would not be taxed. Under Order 39, they could sign leases and contracts that would last for forty years. Order 40 welcomed foreign banks to Iraq under the same favorable terms. All that remained of Saddam Hussein’s economic policies was a law restricting trade unions and collective bargaining.
snipet
Some of the holdup had to do with the physical risks of doing business in Iraq. But there were other more significant risks as well. When Paul Bremer shredded Iraq’s Baathist constitution and replaced it with what The Economist greeted approvingly as “the wish list of foreign investors,” there was one small detail he failed to mention: It was all completely illegal. The CPA derived its legal authority from United Nations Security Council Resolution 1483, passed in May 2003, which recognized the United States and Britain as Iraq’s legitimate occupiers. It was this resolution that empowered Bremer to unilaterally make laws in Iraq. But the resolution also stated that the U.S. and Britain must “comply fully with their obligations under international law including in particular the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the Hague Regulations of 1907.” Both conventions were born as an attempt to curtail the unfortunate historical tendency among occupying powers to rewrite the rules so that they can economically strip the nations they control. With this in mind, the conventions stipulate that an occupier must abide by a country’s existing laws unless “absolutely prevented” from doing so. They also state that an occupier does not own the “public buildings, real estate, forests and agricultural assets” of the country it is occupying but is rather their “administrator” and custodian, keeping them secure until sovereignty is reestablished. This was the true threat to the Year Zero plan: since America didn’t own Iraq’s assets, it could not legally sell them, which meant that after the occupation ended, an Iraqi government could come to power and decide that it wanted to keep the state companies in public hands, or, as is the norm in the Gulf region, to bar foreign firms from owning 100 percent of national assets. If that happened, investments made under Bremer’s rules could be expropriated, leaving firms with no recourse because their investments had violated international law from the outset.
By November, trade lawyers started to advise their corporate clients not to go into Iraq just yet, that it would be better to wait until after the transition. Insurance companies were so spooked that not a single one of the big firms would insure investors for “political risk,” that high-stakes area of insurance law that protects companies against foreign governments turning nationalist or socialist and expropriating their investments.
snipet
But Bremer didn’t give up. International law prohibits occupiers from selling state assets themselves, but it doesn’t say anything about the puppet governments they appoint. Originally, Bremer had pledged to hand over power to a directly elected Iraqi government, but in early November he went to Washington for a private meeting with President Bush and came back with a Plan B. On June 30 the occupation would officially end—but not really. It would be replaced by an appointed government, chosen by Washington. This government would not be bound by the international laws preventing occupiers from selling off state assets, but it would be bound by an “interim constitution,” a document that would protect Bremer’s investment and privatization laws.
The Naomi Klein Article is excellent. We linked it to our site when it came out. I thought this paragraph also should have been quoted.
QUOTE
The physical risks of doing business in Iraq seemed to be spiraling out of control. This, once again, was not part of the original plan. When Bremer first arrived in Baghdad, the armed resistance was so low that he was able to walk the streets with a minimal security entourage. During his first four months on the job, 109 U.S. soldiers were killed and 570 were wounded. In the following four months, when Bremer’s shock therapy had taken effect, the number of U.S. casualties almost doubled, with 195 soldiers killed and 1,633 wounded. There are many in Iraq who argue that these events are connected—that Bremer’s reforms were the single largest factor leading to the rise of armed resistance.
Klein Article Is it morally justifiable for foreign companies to profit off of the Iraq reconstruction when jobs and money are so scarce in Iraq?
No it wasn't moral and it was extremely destructive of any lasting solution.
Would removing foreign interests from Iraq and allowing Iraqis to build an economic foundation, by Iraqis and for the benefit of Iraqis, aid in and increase the chances of democracy in iraq?
No, it's too late for any kind of real democracy in Iraq. You can't reassemble broken eggs. However, a real effort to work through local organization to begin reconstruction coupled with a defined plan for withdrawal might reduce the violence and help with the development of some kind of stable government (or governments).
Would the act of fully vesting Iraqis in the economic health of their nation decrease the hold the terrorists and insurgents have in Iraq?
Yes, but this has to be done as part of an American withdrawal and transfer of rebuilding assistance to international agencies with U.S. funding.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.