NationStates Jolt Archive

We've had a few threads about burning people alive in Iraq, and how its a 'genocide' leaving them there (?!?!?).
But now that we know that there are NO WMD's, NO terrorists, nothing else but oil and barren land, should the coalition just get the F out of there and let them lead their own god damn country?

And for everyone that votes no, I wanna know why, cos I see no point in them staying there.

Maybe to keep the peace until their own elected government is installed into power.

Freud would have said: "You must have been the "break a window & run away" type as a child...But it all leads back to your mothers fallopian tubes..."

We've had a few threads about burning people alive in Iraq, and how its a 'genocide' leaving them there (?!?!?).
But now that we know that there are NO WMD's, NO terrorists, nothing else but oil and barren land, should the coalition just get the F out of there and let them lead their own god damn country?

And for everyone that votes no, I wanna know why, cos I see no point in them staying there.

No WMD, maybe.. no terrorists, not the case.

We've had a few threads about burning people alive in Iraq, and how its a 'genocide' leaving them there (?!?!?).
But now that we know that there are NO WMD's, NO terrorists, nothing else but oil and barren land, should the coalition just get the F out of there and let them lead their own god damn country?

And for everyone that votes no, I wanna know why, cos I see no point in them staying there. oh yes, let the whole goddamn country devolve into chaos and anarchy :roll:

We've had a few threads about burning people alive in Iraq, and how its a 'genocide' leaving them there (?!?!?).
But now that we know that there are NO WMD's, NO terrorists, nothing else but oil and barren land, should the coalition just get the F out of there and let them lead their own god damn country?

And for everyone that votes no, I wanna know why, cos I see no point in them staying there. oh yes, let the whole goddamn country devolve into chaos and anarchy :roll:
*throws a Bushjr action doll at valia*

We've had a few threads about burning people alive in Iraq, and how its a 'genocide' leaving them there (?!?!?).
But now that we know that there are NO WMD's, NO terrorists, nothing else but oil and barren land, should the coalition just get the F out of there and let them lead their own god damn country?

And for everyone that votes no, I wanna know why, cos I see no point in them staying there.

Oh yeah sure. What'll happen then?
-Continued terrorism against new Iraqi Government
-Weak police force and military to stop any terrorism
-Terrible economy
-Pissed off nation
-Possible Civil War between Shiites and Sunnis

that's just the start

I'm tempted to say we should run like all f---, cause I'm sick of the fact that we won't be able to deal with it...
However, I am a decent human being so that just doesn't sit very well with me. We need a reasonable exit strategy. I don't have one, but I bet a good one would involve the UN...

We've had a few threads about burning people alive in Iraq, and how its a 'genocide' leaving them there (?!?!?).
But now that we know that there are NO WMD's, NO terrorists, nothing else but oil and barren land, should the coalition just get the F out of there and let them lead their own god damn country?

And for everyone that votes no, I wanna know why, cos I see no point in them staying there. oh yes, let the whole goddamn country devolve into chaos and anarchy :roll:
*throws a Bushjr action doll at valia* *shoots it down* sorry i neglected the thread, i got really involved in this story; ill try to find a link if yer intetrested. (i guess no one wants to hear how my vacation went :cry: )

YES!

The coalition forces should get out of Iraq, NOW.

I wouldn't extend it to include ALL nations, though. A UN peacekeeping force with real legitimacy could provide for peace there, but once the US occupation ends resistance against it will lessen.

YES!

The coalition forces should get out of Iraq, NOW.

I wouldn't extend it to include ALL nations, though. A UN peacekeeping force with real legitimacy could provide for peace there, but once the US occupation ends resistance against it will lessen.Lessen or just shift to trying to overthrow the government?

YES!

The coalition forces should get out of Iraq, NOW.

I wouldn't extend it to include ALL nations, though. A UN peacekeeping force with real legitimacy could provide for peace there, but once the US occupation ends resistance against it will lessen.

After the UN's failure in Kosovo, Bosnia and Somalia I don't think they'd be able to handle it. Without American troops doing the meat of the work anyway. And they'll never agree to be under UN command. I don't believe the Iraqis would see any difference between an American or UN flag, its not their flag so your one of "them".

I personnaly don't care if the region falls into chaos. Let the regional powers handle a power vacuum with whatever way they see fit. And if the Kurds decide to fight for their own state then some tacid approval should be handed to them.

Iraqees: Leave our country!

US: Oh alright, screw you. *leaves*

Iraqees: Holy shit, out country is falling apart and people are being killed by bloodthirsty warlords, and our police is unable to protect us. You bastard should have done something!

US: WTF^^?

When will the world realize that Iraq is just the most recent of Americas imperialist wars?

Jim

*I begin to understand you More Coll: I will fight for my own. NO ONE else.

Although I voted YES, I think that was really an emotional response, rather than a rational one.

I really believe that the US occupation was done on trumped up charges of WMD, links to Al-Queda, and that Iraq somehow posed an immediate threat to American security. The reality is that the US finally took out their "puppet" Saddam and can now roll up their sleeves and get that oil flowing. Having got that off my chest, I believe the following will happen:

America has to stay to clean up the mess, restore the infastructure, and ensure an orderly transfer to a new government. This should be done as quickly as possible and then they should leave. However, I foresee a long time presence of American interference, which is nothing new, because it began over 50 years ago. American Army/Air Force bases will be established. America will become part of the Middle East c/w all of the problems of that region. Americans in Iraq will be surrounded by Iran, terrorist hotbed Saudi Arabia, and Syria, and not too far away, Israel, Lebanon, and the homeless Palestinians. Should be interesting.

Although the Iraqis may enjoy an improved standard of living, they will long remember the pain and suffering inflicted upon them by their captors. They will have daily visual reminders when they see the walking wounded.

Americans will still be regarded as "infidels", and American security concerns at home and abroad will be worse than it is today. Why? Simple fact that Arabs have even more reasons to distrust America.

When the oil wells start to dry up in another 15 to 20 years, it will create a whole new set of problems for the region. It is pretty hard to establish a market for sand.

Don't get me wrong, I don't hate America. I have had many nice vacations there. However, I am saddened by the new direction that America is headed towards, and I can't help but feel that it is not in the best interests of her people in the long run.

Well said, CanuckHeaven.

Here's an idea--take some of that money that we're currently spending on bombs and guns over there and turn it into infrastructure building projects and pay the Iraqis to do the jobs instead of giving the money to shitheads like Halliburton. I figure, if they're busy earning money and rebuilding their communities, they'll have less time to shoot at us.

No nation has ever been occupied by the U.S. and *not* benefitted. Well, except, maybe, for Viet Nam. :wink: But nobody's perfect.

If Iraqis co-operate, they could easily become the next Japan, South Korea, Germany, or even Hawaii. Good times could be ahead if the Iraqis would tell this 10% to cool off and let things roll along. We've already taken their unemployment from over 60% down to less than 10%.. things are moving along. :P

Well said, CanuckHeaven.

Here's an idea--take some of that money that we're currently spending on bombs and guns over there and turn it into infrastructure building projects and pay the Iraqis to do the jobs instead of giving the money to shitheads like Halliburton. I figure, if they're busy earning money and rebuilding their communities, they'll have less time to shoot at us.

Huh? We're already doing that, on a massive scale. Iraqis are being employed by the coalition as masons, welders, plumbers, etc., building schools, paving roads and driving trucks, practically since day 1.

Well said, CanuckHeaven.

Here's an idea--take some of that money that we're currently spending on bombs and guns over there and turn it into infrastructure building projects and pay the Iraqis to do the jobs instead of giving the money to shitheads like Halliburton. I figure, if they're busy earning money and rebuilding their communities, they'll have less time to shoot at us.

uhh...they ARE!

Huh? We're already doing that, on a massive scale. Iraqis are being employed by the coalition as masons, welders, plumbers, etc., building schools, paving roads and driving trucks, practically since day 1.Not really--we're blowing shit up as quickly as it's being built, and most of the profitable work is still being done by US companies who are using some Iraqi labor and some labor imported from other Asian countries. Most of the money we're pouring in is coming right back out.

Huh? We're already doing that, on a massive scale. Iraqis are being employed by the coalition as masons, welders, plumbers, etc., building schools, paving roads and driving trucks, practically since day 1.Not really--we're blowing shit up as quickly as it's being built, and most of the profitable work is still being done by US companies who are using some Iraqi labor and some labor imported from other Asian countries. Most of the money we're pouring in is coming right back out.

and coming right back in.

And like someone above said. If they cooperated, it'd be a lot easier.

And I'm only seeing things being blown up by the Iraqis now

Huh? We're already doing that, on a massive scale. Iraqis are being employed by the coalition as masons, welders, plumbers, etc., building schools, paving roads and driving trucks, practically since day 1.Not really--we're blowing shit up as quickly as it's being built, and most of the profitable work is still being done by US companies who are using some Iraqi labor and some labor imported from other Asian countries. Most of the money we're pouring in is coming right back out.

I have no idea about what the statistics are concerning this. I get the feeling that neither of us do. Either way, I *do* know that unemployment in Iraq has gone from nearly 60%, pre-war, to less than 10% today. So, somebody's working. If we're importing labor from Asia, then I would guess that those jobs are more specialized than can be easily taught to your average Iraqi. As for projects being blown up, I'm not sure how often this happens as a percentage, but the saying is "guns and butter," not simply one or the other.

As for specialized jobs, Baghdad University (and others) are still open. :wink: We've never prohibited Iraqis from learning, at least during the occupation.

Suddenly leaving...interesting...

We could turn it into a game show - which faction will win and install a regime just like Saddam's once more?

My money is on whichever group buys a nuke off the Russians first...

...noticed the sarcasm yet?

Whatever the reasons for going in, we're there now; my country (UK), America, Japan, and whoever else that has slipped my mind at the moment due to still being half asleep. Whether we were right or wrong to go in, we can't just say "seeyah" and pull out overnight; all the factions would start a full-scale war in that massive power vacumm left by Saddam and currently filled by the US occupying force.

I say no to leaving immeidiately - whatever the reasons for going in, we've gotta stay around and clear up the mess.

Huh? We're already doing that, on a massive scale. Iraqis are being employed by the coalition as masons, welders, plumbers, etc., building schools, paving roads and driving trucks, practically since day 1.Not really--we're blowing shit up as quickly as it's being built, and most of the profitable work is still being done by US companies who are using some Iraqi labor and some labor imported from other Asian countries. Most of the money we're pouring in is coming right back out.

I have no idea about what the statistics are concerning this. I get the feeling that neither of us do. Either way, I *do* know that unemployment in Iraq has gone from nearly 60%, pre-war, to less than 10% today. So, somebody's working. If we're importing labor from Asia, then I would guess that those jobs are more specialized than can be easily taught to your average Iraqi. As for projects being blown up, I'm not sure how often this happens as a percentage, but the saying is "guns and butter," not simply one or the other.

As for specialized jobs, Baghdad University (and others) are still open. :wink: We've never prohibited Iraqis from learning, at least during the occupation.
You might want to check your figures out. 60 to 70% are unemployed, not employed as you would suggest, AND the wages are atrociously low.

This is interesting too:

"The principal beneficiary of reconstruction funds thus far has been the energy giant that Cheney headed for five years before being tapped as the Republican Party’s vice presidential candidate in 2000—the Texas-based Halliburton Co.

The company’s engineering subsidiary, Kellogg, Brown and Root, was awarded a no-bid contract worth up to $7 billion over two years for the reconstruction and management of Iraq’s oilfields. The contract is a “cost-plus” deal, with the government guaranteeing Halliburton all of its expenses plus a 7 percent profit, ensuring that the more the firm spends the more it makes."

No nation has ever been occupied by the U.S. and *not* benefitted. Well, except, maybe, for Viet Nam. :wink: But nobody's perfect.

If Iraqis co-operate, they could easily become the next Japan, South Korea, Germany, or even Hawaii. Good times could be ahead if the Iraqis would tell this 10% to cool off and let things roll along. We've already taken their unemployment from over 60% down to less than 10%.. things are moving along. :P

Actually, they won't.

Because it will be a colonial regime that is established, not a democratic one.

No nation has ever been occupied by the U.S. and *not* benefitted. Well, except, maybe, for Viet Nam. :wink: But nobody's perfect.

If Iraqis co-operate, they could easily become the next Japan, South Korea, Germany, or even Hawaii. Good times could be ahead if the Iraqis would tell this 10% to cool off and let things roll along. We've already taken their unemployment from over 60% down to less than 10%.. things are moving along. :P

Actually, they won't.

Because it will be a colonial regime that is established, not a democratic one.

And your source for this?...Why on the green earth would we want ANYTHING in that desert-forsaken country...the oil?...neglible..we get enough from other sources...besides...it will take billions to even upgrade the equipment of the Iraqi oil industry...and it was old even BEFORE the sanctions...even so...they are still producing more oil for their country then before the war, thanks to US engineers...since Oil is their only commodity worth trading on the international market..it makes sense to get it up and running...but a colonial regime?...it ain't worth the hassle, the security concerns...etc..etc...and foreign policy changes every 4 yrs, 8 tops..it's just not possible that Administrations would cooperate for the length of time necessary in a colonial government.

I say no. We're there now, we may as well make the best of the situation, and if we leave now, any control that we do have over the violence will be gone if we leave, and it would be a civil war in which far more people die. It is (ALMOST) better that the violent people attack coalition troops so they die, than to attack civilians and to kill lots of them before they die. Its not actually better but almost. I fully support British troops in Iraq, but would rather they didn't have to be there.
We should leave as soon as it is safe though.

The coalition should get out. Now their just selaying the inevitable :?

I say no. We're there now, we may as well make the best of the situation, and if we leave now, any control that we do have over the violence will be gone if we leave, and it would be a civil war in which far more people die. It is (ALMOST) better that the violent people attack coalition troops so they die, than to attack civilians and to kill lots of them before they die. Its not actually better but almost. I fully support British troops in Iraq, but would rather they didn't have to be there.
We should leave as soon as it is safe though.

But obviously something has to change. Because continuing to do things as before will just make the Iraqi's more pissed. And they all are. I think its the Occuppied Territory-esque Tactics they have adopted. Its become apparent that Arabs dont respond well to them.

Why on the green earth would we want ANYTHING in that desert-forsaken country...the oil?...neglible..we get enough from other sources...besides...it will take billions to even upgrade the equipment of the Iraqi oil industry...and it was old even BEFORE the sanctions...
"The principal beneficiary of reconstruction funds thus far has been the energy giant that Cheney headed for five years before being tapped as the Republican Party’s vice presidential candidate in 2000—the Texas-based Halliburton Co.

The company’s engineering subsidiary, Kellogg, Brown and Root, was awarded a no-bid contract worth up to $7 billion over two years for the reconstruction and management of Iraq’s oilfields. The contract is a “cost-plus” deal, with the government guaranteeing Halliburton all of its expenses plus a 7 percent profit, ensuring that the more the firm spends the more it makes."

even so...they are still producing more oil for their country then before the war, thanks to US engineers...since Oil is their only commodity worth trading on the international market..it makes sense to get it up and running....
I do believe you answered your own question.

Iraq has the world's 2nd largest reserves of oil. Oil = $$$$$

Even when the military leaves, the US will still occupy the country through economic means because of bill c 38 (or 39, one or the other). It allows for complete foreign ownership of most industries (including the banks)without any sort of requirement to keep the money in the country. Look at what's going on in Venezuela, if a simlar sitution where a leader reclaims a privatized asset, similar results will arrive. Because of the mass privatization, Iraq will remaina slave to outside (read american) interests.

The Iraqis don't seem to hate the Brits very much. Where do our and their tactics differ so radically?

Yes.

Huh? We're already doing that, on a massive scale. Iraqis are being employed by the coalition as masons, welders, plumbers, etc., building schools, paving roads and driving trucks, practically since day 1.Not really--we're blowing shit up as quickly as it's being built, and most of the profitable work is still being done by US companies who are using some Iraqi labor and some labor imported from other Asian countries. Most of the money we're pouring in is coming right back out.

I have no idea about what the statistics are concerning this. I get the feeling that neither of us do. Either way, I *do* know that unemployment in Iraq has gone from nearly 60%, pre-war, to less than 10% today. So, somebody's working. If we're importing labor from Asia, then I would guess that those jobs are more specialized than can be easily taught to your average Iraqi. As for projects being blown up, I'm not sure how often this happens as a percentage, but the saying is "guns and butter," not simply one or the other.

As for specialized jobs, Baghdad University (and others) are still open. :wink: We've never prohibited Iraqis from learning, at least during the occupation.
You might want to check your figures out. 60 to 70% are unemployed, not employed as you would suggest, AND the wages are atrociously low.

This is interesting too:

"The principal beneficiary of reconstruction funds thus far has been the energy giant that Cheney headed for five years before being tapped as the Republican Party’s vice presidential candidate in 2000—the Texas-based Halliburton Co.

The company’s engineering subsidiary, Kellogg, Brown and Root, was awarded a no-bid contract worth up to $7 billion over two years for the reconstruction and management of Iraq’s oilfields. The contract is a “cost-plus” deal, with the government guaranteeing Halliburton all of its expenses plus a 7 percent profit, ensuring that the more the firm spends the more it makes."

Too bad that's patently false. Unemployment in Iraq is down to under 10% now. Wages are up to the market.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22236-2004Mar24_2.html

This is a *recent* article. Unemployment was up shortly after the war, but is back down now. This article pre-dates the most recent statistics. Bremer was on t.v. last week, reporting unemployment around or under 10%.

Your link's not working, Roy.

Your link's not working, Roy.


It works for me, except I screwed it up and linked to page 2 of 2, which could be confusing. I'm not really interested in debating this either way, but I felt it'd be best to clear up that one point.

Edit -- You don't have to subscribe to the Washington Post, if that's the error message. I'm not a subscriber and I got it without incident.

Your link's not working, Roy.


It works for me, except I screwed it up and linked to page 2 of 2, which could be confusing. I'm not really interested in debating this either way, but I felt it'd be best to clear up that one point.

Edit -- You don't have to subscribe to the Washington Post, if that's the error message. I'm not a subscriber and I got it without incident.But it does look like it's in the archives now--after 14 days, you have to pay for the article, I guess. I'm registered for the WaPo as well--I read E J Dionne's columns every week.

I am curious though--How could Bremer get realistic numbers considering the current state of chaos in Iraq? And how trustowrthy can they be seeing as his job is to make Iraq look the best he possibly can? I'm not talking about lying here--I'm talking about spin.

Your link's not working, Roy.


It works for me, except I screwed it up and linked to page 2 of 2, which could be confusing. I'm not really interested in debating this either way, but I felt it'd be best to clear up that one point.

Edit -- You don't have to subscribe to the Washington Post, if that's the error message. I'm not a subscriber and I got it without incident.But it does look like it's in the archives now--after 14 days, you have to pay for the article, I guess. I'm registered for the WaPo as well--I read E J Dionne's columns every week.

I am curious though--How could Bremer get realistic numbers considering the current state of chaos in Iraq? And how trustowrthy can they be seeing as his job is to make Iraq look the best he possibly can? I'm not talking about lying here--I'm talking about spin.

To be fair, the "under 10%" numbers were from a day or so before the recent outburst of fighting in Iraq. Still, even if 100% of Fallujians quit their jobs immediately after the violence started, it wouldn't amount to more than an 8% addition, not that this is the case. There's probably room for spin, but it's ridiculous to say, as someone else did, that unemployment has gone from 60 to 70%. True enough, unemployment went from about 50 to 60% right after the war, but it's down far below Saddam-era levels. That's the main point, whether the true number today is 10 or 12 or 14%.

Sure lets pull out and leave the country in ruins so that another dictator comes to power and then has even more of a reason to hate America. All he'll have to proclaim is that America and the coalition attacked Iraq, destroyed Iraq, and left it in ruins. That's about as smart an idea as drinking gasoline and having a cigarette.

How about we finish the job we started, turn Iraq into a stable and non-threatening nation, defeat the Al-Qaida, Fedayeen, Bathist, etc. groups fighting in Iraq, remove another base of operations out from under terrorist organizations and go about our business.

I see what you're saying. It still sounds like a lot of spin, mainly because the numbers are likely for Iraq as a whole but don't specifically deal with the areas that have been restless since the early days of the invasion. In other words, the numbers from the Kurdish areas may be skewing the nation as a whole to make things seem better than they really are. And the reverse can be true as well--the fact that there has been little reporting from the Kurdish areas can make Iraq look worse on the whole than it really is.

Remember that "list of successes" that was bandied about a couple of months ago? I'd be interested in a breakdown of where those successes happened. I'd be willing to bet that a large percentage of them were in places where we really were welcomed as liberators instead of as occupiers.

Everyone should get the fuck out of Iraq, including the Iraqis. It's clearly not a safe place to be. :shock:

http://www.eunos.com/keith/brb/images/brb_sm.gif (http://fua.board.dk3.com/2/index.php)
DO NOT PRESS
THIS BUTTON

http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/contrib/geno/mofo.gif

Hey, cool! NS has an automatic naughty-word editor-out. I wonder if it also edits out obscene pictures and radical political opinions... :?

http://www.eunos.com/keith/brb/images/brb_sm.gif (http://fua.board.dk3.com/2/index.php)
DO NOT PRESS
THIS BUTTON

http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/contrib/geno/mofo.gif

Hey, cool! NS has an automatic naughty-word editor-out. I wonder if it also edits out obscene pictures and radical political opinions... :?

http://www.eunos.com/keith/brb/images/brb_sm.gif (http://fua.board.dk3.com/2/index.php)
DO NOT PRESS
THIS BUTTON

http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/contrib/geno/mofo.gif AND bad websites, like rotten.com, see? it doesnt make a link

Fuck
Titties
Bum
Shit
****

God, this could keep me amused for hours! :D

http://www.eunos.com/keith/brb/images/brb_sm.gif (http://fua.board.dk3.com/2/index.php)
DO NOT PRESS
THIS BUTTON

http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/contrib/geno/mofo.gif

Now you're spamming.

But it's so much fun! http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/contrib/tweetz/spam4.gif

http://www.eunos.com/keith/brb/images/brb_sm.gif (http://fua.board.dk3.com/2/index.php)
DO NOT PRESS
THIS BUTTON

http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/contrib/geno/mofo.gif

Your link's not working, Roy.
Neither are the Iraqis 8)

Your link's not working, Roy.
Neither are the Iraqis 8)

*bangs head on wall*

The coalition with the evil Us as a pointhead can't just butt out, they have actually a resposabilty to rebuild it before they leave, even if they are there for the wrong reasons.
Actually, we can blaim the whole war on the brits that drew a lot of the maps in the middle east without regarding how and where the various "tribes" actually lived, and then they put a "king" on the throne in Iraq...

Huh? We're already doing that, on a massive scale. Iraqis are being employed by the coalition as masons, welders, plumbers, etc., building schools, paving roads and driving trucks, practically since day 1.Not really--we're blowing shit up as quickly as it's being built, and most of the profitable work is still being done by US companies who are using some Iraqi labor and some labor imported from other Asian countries. Most of the money we're pouring in is coming right back out.

I have no idea about what the statistics are concerning this. I get the feeling that neither of us do. Either way, I *do* know that unemployment in Iraq has gone from nearly 60%, pre-war, to less than 10% today. So, somebody's working. If we're importing labor from Asia, then I would guess that those jobs are more specialized than can be easily taught to your average Iraqi. As for projects being blown up, I'm not sure how often this happens as a percentage, but the saying is "guns and butter," not simply one or the other.

As for specialized jobs, Baghdad University (and others) are still open. :wink: We've never prohibited Iraqis from learning, at least during the occupation.
You might want to check your figures out. 60 to 70% are unemployed, not employed as you would suggest, AND the wages are atrociously low.

This is interesting too:

"The principal beneficiary of reconstruction funds thus far has been the energy giant that Cheney headed for five years before being tapped as the Republican Party’s vice presidential candidate in 2000—the Texas-based Halliburton Co.

The company’s engineering subsidiary, Kellogg, Brown and Root, was awarded a no-bid contract worth up to $7 billion over two years for the reconstruction and management of Iraq’s oilfields. The contract is a “cost-plus” deal, with the government guaranteeing Halliburton all of its expenses plus a 7 percent profit, ensuring that the more the firm spends the more it makes."

Too bad that's patently false. Unemployment in Iraq is down to under 10% now. Wages are up to the market.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22236-2004Mar24_2.html

This is a *recent* article. Unemployment was up shortly after the war, but is back down now. This article pre-dates the most recent statistics. Bremer was on t.v. last week, reporting unemployment around or under 10%.
I guess the Washington Post is not a very good source?

Dr AlI ALLAWI:
(Iraqi Trade Minister)
Last Updated: Tuesday, 6 January, 2004, 18:14 GMT

"We have a dire unemployment situation now. Unemployment, underemployment is up to 50 or 60% of the total labour force, and there are no serious investment programmes currently being undertaken apart from those that are related to emergency reconstruction."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/3372029.stm

BTW wages are severely low to boot.

A little story about over indulgence?

Operation Sweatshop Iraq

http://www.corpwatch.org/issues/PID.jsp?articleid=9928

Ahhhh democracy.

Huh? We're already doing that, on a massive scale. Iraqis are being employed by the coalition as masons, welders, plumbers, etc., building schools, paving roads and driving trucks, practically since day 1.Not really--we're blowing shit up as quickly as it's being built, and most of the profitable work is still being done by US companies who are using some Iraqi labor and some labor imported from other Asian countries. Most of the money we're pouring in is coming right back out.

I have no idea about what the statistics are concerning this. I get the feeling that neither of us do. Either way, I *do* know that unemployment in Iraq has gone from nearly 60%, pre-war, to less than 10% today. So, somebody's working. If we're importing labor from Asia, then I would guess that those jobs are more specialized than can be easily taught to your average Iraqi. As for projects being blown up, I'm not sure how often this happens as a percentage, but the saying is "guns and butter," not simply one or the other.

As for specialized jobs, Baghdad University (and others) are still open. :wink: We've never prohibited Iraqis from learning, at least during the occupation.
You might want to check your figures out. 60 to 70% are unemployed, not employed as you would suggest, AND the wages are atrociously low.

This is interesting too:

"The principal beneficiary of reconstruction funds thus far has been the energy giant that Cheney headed for five years before being tapped as the Republican Party’s vice presidential candidate in 2000—the Texas-based Halliburton Co.

The company’s engineering subsidiary, Kellogg, Brown and Root, was awarded a no-bid contract worth up to $7 billion over two years for the reconstruction and management of Iraq’s oilfields. The contract is a “cost-plus” deal, with the government guaranteeing Halliburton all of its expenses plus a 7 percent profit, ensuring that the more the firm spends the more it makes."

Too bad that's patently false. Unemployment in Iraq is down to under 10% now. Wages are up to the market.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22236-2004Mar24_2.html

This is a *recent* article. Unemployment was up shortly after the war, but is back down now. This article pre-dates the most recent statistics. Bremer was on t.v. last week, reporting unemployment around or under 10%.
I guess the Washington Post is not a very good source?

Dr AlI ALLAWI:
(Iraqi Trade Minister)
Last Updated: Tuesday, 6 January, 2004, 18:14 GMT

"We have a dire unemployment situation now. Unemployment, underemployment is up to 50 or 60% of the total labour force, and there are no serious investment programmes currently being undertaken apart from those that are related to emergency reconstruction."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/3372029.stm

BTW wages are severely low to boot.

A little story about over indulgence?

Operation Sweatshop Iraq

http://www.corpwatch.org/issues/PID.jsp?articleid=9928

Ahhhh democracy.

Still false. My numbers are accurate. Wages are not our arena. The market, and eventually the government, will set wages where they belong. "Underemployment" can mean anything, depending on your source. If you don't like facing facts, just say so.

"Newsnight can accept no responsibility for any factual inaccuracies." Peachy.

Hey Roy, Canuck--isn't it possible you're both right, depending on what part of Iraq you're looking at? I still maintain that more US money is coming out of Iraq and into the pockets of KBR and Bechtel than is staying in, but that doesn't mean that you aren't both right, depending on what part of Iraq is being examined.

I mean--it doesn't make any sense that unemployment is high in the peaceful parts of the Kurdish north and it makes equally little sense that there's plenty of employment and good wages in Fallujah and Kut and Baghdad. It seems to me that you're both being spun and neither of you is willing to look at why the numbers say what they do.

NOT ALL OF THEM, JUST JAPAN! :x

Hey Roy, Canuck--isn't it possible you're both right, depending on what part of Iraq you're looking at? I still maintain that more US money is coming out of Iraq and into the pockets of KBR and Bechtel than is staying in, but that doesn't mean that you aren't both right, depending on what part of Iraq is being examined.

I mean--it doesn't make any sense that unemployment is high in the peaceful parts of the Kurdish north and it makes equally little sense that there's plenty of employment and good wages in Fallujah and Kut and Baghdad. It seems to me that you're both being spun and neither of you is willing to look at why the numbers say what they do.
Well I kinda take this statement for what it is worth:

Dr AlI ALLAWI:
(Iraqi Trade Minister)
Last Updated: Tuesday, 6 January, 2004, 18:14 GMT

"We have a dire unemployment situation now. Unemployment, underemployment is up to 50 or 60% of the total labour force, and there are no serious investment programmes currently being undertaken apart from those that are related to emergency reconstruction."

You would think the Trade Minister would know?

Look at the dates, Canuck--yours is from January 6 and Roy's is from March 24, so his is more recent. I don't think there's been enough employment in three and a half months to warrant such a huge swing in emloyment numbers, but the time difference combined with a spin factor might be enough to make that sound reasonable. The Trade Minister might have been speaking about a specific area in Iraq, or might not have been including the parts where there was less need for reconstruction. And I'm willing to concede that Bremer might just be pulling numbers out of his ass--I'm in no position to know and neither are you or Roy. So rather than just throwing news reports at each other, why not try to figure out why they're conflicting and maybe we can get to the bottom of it.

Look at the dates, Canuck--yours is from January 6 and Roy's is from March 24, so his is more recent. I don't think there's been enough employment in three and a half months to warrant such a huge swing in emloyment numbers, but the time difference combined with a spin factor might be enough to make that sound reasonable. The Trade Minister might have been speaking about a specific area in Iraq, or might not have been including the parts where there was less need for reconstruction. And I'm willing to concede that Bremer might just be pulling numbers out of his ass--I'm in no position to know and neither are you or Roy. So rather than just throwing news reports at each other, why not try to figure out why they're conflicting and maybe we can get to the bottom of it.
Well it does say total labour force, and if anything, the past few months has seen heavier fighting throughout Iraq, which would actually weaken the job market?

Look at the dates, Canuck--yours is from January 6 and Roy's is from March 24, so his is more recent. I don't think there's been enough employment in three and a half months to warrant such a huge swing in emloyment numbers, but the time difference combined with a spin factor might be enough to make that sound reasonable. The Trade Minister might have been speaking about a specific area in Iraq, or might not have been including the parts where there was less need for reconstruction. And I'm willing to concede that Bremer might just be pulling numbers out of his ass--I'm in no position to know and neither are you or Roy. So rather than just throwing news reports at each other, why not try to figure out why they're conflicting and maybe we can get to the bottom of it.
Well it does say total labour force, and if anything, the past few months has seen heavier fighting throughout Iraq, which would actually weaken the job market?