NationStates Jolt Archive

http://vega.ice.it/db/cen/amepubblic.nsf/0/C12567BA0032FE4BC1256DD000302084/$FILE/Foreign%20Investment%20Iraq.pdf (the actual order)

International law obliges occupying powers to respect laws already in force in a country "unless absolutely prevented" from doing so.
According to international law experts, that throws doubt on the legality of the CPA's September 19 order opening the Iraqi economy to foreign investment. In what amounted to a blueprint for transforming Iraq into a market economy, Order 39 permitted full foreign ownership of a wide range of state-owned Iraqi assets, barring natural resources such as oil.
(http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1030-02.htm)


A good summary of what this does to Iraq, gonna add some hilights cause most people don't actually go to links).
No money needs to be reinvested locally to service the floundering Iraqi economy. No investment needs to be targeted to help specifically damaged regions, communities, or services. All the profits can go home with the foreign owners and they can take out their investments at any time.
Joseph Stiglitz, the former Vice President of the World Bank, among others, has blamed similar rules imposed by the International Monetary Fund as a primary cause of the East Asian financial crisis of 1997-1988 and the financial collapse of Argentina in 2000. The rules eliminate all government regulation on how much foreign investment can enter an economy, where it can be invested, how long or how much money must stay in the economy. Such rules are critical to ensure that foreign investment in Iraq benefits the Iraqi economy, not just the foreign investors.
this agreement lasts for 40 years.

go to the link, really breaks things down well
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m1548/1_19/112212901/p1/article.jhtml?term=

My own hypothesis, look at whats happening in Venezuela. Chavez chose to nationalize foreign owned industries which led to a split in the country with the rich against hte poor. The rich have turned off the factories and have sent the country into an economic tailspin. If these economic reforms stay, the same thing will happen. In order to have a functional democracy, the government must be free in making its own decisions without fear of an economic meltdown. If foreign corporations own the banks, mining or other industries, the new parliment will have to serve htem over its own people

See... it wasn't just about oil!


It was about taking EVERYTHING!


So an unelected, installed puppet government can hand over what few riches the country has to the very country that invaded it.... good one!



And people wonder why Iraqi's just keep getting more an more pissed off...

-Z-

See... it wasn't just about oil!


It was about taking EVERYTHING!


So an unelected, installed puppet government can hand over what few riches the country has to the very country that invaded it.... good one!



And people wonder why Iraqi's just keep getting more an more pissed off...

-Z-

I posted this because i get the feeling most people haven't heard very much about it. But yeah, really awful shit.

just gotta ensure that this is bumped a few times. I find too often when something like this is posted, all the neo-cons go into hiding and mutter catch phrases like "liberate" and "democracy" which leads to leftwingers muttering "occupation" and "oil." (lets please nto argue that. Go to the links, read for yourself, draw your own conclusions. Venezuela is really my own hypothesis.

First, democracy should not necessarily be the priority in Iraq, so much as establishing rights and stability, eliminating corrupt bureaucrats, and laying the framework for good government down the road.

Second of all, while privatizing the oil fields sounds pretty bad, there's not really any other options, at this point. The former National corporations were both insanely corrupt and are now in tatters, they simply would not be able to do their jobs. Without oil, Iraq has no money to rebuild. Once a government is put into power, I think re-nationalizing COULD be reconsidered, but I'm not sure that's a really good idea, though my only knowledge about these kinds of things is based on PRI era Mexico...

First, democracy should not necessarily be the priority in Iraq, so much as establishing rights and stability, eliminating corrupt bureaucrats, and laying the framework for good government down the road.
Democracy should be a priority in Iraq, sadly it isn't. Democracy goes a lot further in establishing rights than a dictatorship. The stability that is created in a dictatorship is not the type that the "enlightened west" should pursue.

Second of all, while privatizing the oil fields sounds pretty bad, there's not really any other options, at this point. The former National corporations were both insanely corrupt and are now in tatters, they simply would not be able to do their jobs.
As opposed to the corporatiosn that received the contracts, beacons of fairness and transparency :roll: . Haliburton, bechtel, come on, these guys are at least as corrupt as anyone Iraqi they could find.
Without oil, Iraq has no money to rebuild. Once a government is put into power
Did you read the links? Money doesn't have to stay in the country. (BTW, natural resources do not have 100% foreign ownerships). The faciliating of capital fleeing the country is what led to the Asian Currency Crisis. This will force the government to be subservient to foreign ownership and they will be unable to provide for their people. It's the "race to the bottom" but they're starting at the finishing line (i need to use this line in an essay)

I think re-nationalizing COULD be reconsidered, but I'm not sure that's a really good idea, though my only knowledge about these kinds of things is based on PRI era Mexico...
It's kinda like when the government raises taxes, for the most part, once something is gained, it doesnt come back. They will not be renationalized. If that happens, see Venezuela for results.

Good find Madrigals, I think people will be hard pressed to defend this. Despite Mallberta trying. It's in my view sick that a country already so rich would rape another country like this. *Shakes Head* :?

Thanks Steph and i totally agree. I first heard about this from a Naomi Klein Article entitled "bring haliburton home," it's available at both zmag.org and nologo.org (her website).

LoL that is rather interesting.

But remember guys, yes the Iraqis are quite angry at the situation, however it is not them who are now fighting the Americans, not in the name of Iraq anyway.

What I now find quite humerous is the fact that what the United States accused Iraq of previously doing, funding terrorism, has now gone out of control and actually exists, unlike before, even though they occupy the country!

The Islamic fundamentalism you see now in Iraq is what Saddam Hussein prevented from happening. This is what he warned the Americans would happen yet they did not listen to him. If anything, the former regime was more of an anti-terrorist one than both Yemen and Saudi-Arabia. See the delights of messing in affairs that do not concern your country. Reap the benefits of death for no good reason.

This ladies and gentlemen is the start and the end of Democracy in Iraq. The Undemocratic mass murdering no civil rights Islamic republic of Iraq will soon be a reality at the expense of the American Taxpayer.

LoL that is rather interesting.

But remember guys, yes the Iraqis are quite angry at the situation, however it is not them who are now fighting the Americans, not in the name of Iraq anyway.

what gave you that impression. Al-Sadr's army is composed entirely of Shia's within Iraq. The US has succeeded in uniting the 2 rivals in resisting occupation, privatization and the soveriegnty they should have.

What I now find quite humerous is the fact that what the United States accused Iraq of previously doing, funding terrorism, has now gone out of control and actually exists, unlike before, even though they occupy the country!
at this point, its no longer terrorism and i'd feel obliged to call it guerilla warfare. It targets military complexes or the military themselves

The Islamic fundamentalism you see now in Iraq is what Saddam Hussein prevented from happening. This is what he warned the Americans would happen yet they did not listen to him. If anything, the former regime was more of an anti-terrorist one than both Yemen and Saudi-Arabia. See the delights of messing in affairs that do not concern your country. Reap the benefits of death for no good reason.
While i was against the war, i don't think Saddam hussein was a preferred option to the IGC
This ladies and gentlemen is the start and the end of Democracy in Iraq. The Undemocratic mass murdering no civil rights Islamic republic of Iraq will soon be a reality at the expense of the American Taxpayer.
Those who even desire an islamic republic won't be givent he chance to impose their "undemocratic mass murdering no civil rights" view onto Iraq. Al-Sadr's newspaper was shut down, so much for freedom of the presses. People are being arrested for wearing all black (the army associates all black with al-sadr's, so much for no arbitrary arrests. The US system of apointmenship for the IGC ensures that those in charge will ultimately be subservient to western businesses. If they don't, the economy is in the shitter. Its not the military occupation that's the biggest problem, its the economic one (another line i should use in an essay)

Most Iraqis don't deserve democracy now.

I'm not talking about the Kurds or the minority Iraqi Sunnis (They deserve democracy), I mean the Shiites, those d*mn fundies, who are the majority of Iraq's people.

A country known as Kurdistan should be formed in Northern Iraq, where democracy seems most likely to take hold.

As far as I'm concerned, I'm just so sick of trying to help people who are blatantly and violently rejecting the kindness we are trying to give them (The Shiites)

Most Iraqis don't deserve democracy now.

I'm not talking about the Kurds or the minority Iraqi Sunnis (They deserve democracy), I mean the Shiites, those d*mn fundies, who are the majority of Iraq's people.

A country known as Kurdistan should be formed in Northern Iraq, where democracy seems most likely to take hold.

As far as I'm concerned, I'm just so sick of trying to help people who are blatantly and violently rejecting the kindness we are trying to give them (The Shiites)

Bullshit, everyone deserves the right of democracy. And the US is not trying to help them. Read the actual links i provided.

LoL that is rather interesting.

But remember guys, yes the Iraqis are quite angry at the situation, however it is not them who are now fighting the Americans, not in the name of Iraq anyway.

What I now find quite humerous is the fact that what the United States accused Iraq of previously doing, funding terrorism, has now gone out of control and actually exists, unlike before, even though they occupy the country!

The Islamic fundamentalism you see now in Iraq is what Saddam Hussein prevented from happening. This is what he warned the Americans would happen yet they did not listen to him. If anything, the former regime was more of an anti-terrorist one than both Yemen and Saudi-Arabia. See the delights of messing in affairs that do not concern your country. Reap the benefits of death for no good reason.

This ladies and gentlemen is the start and the end of Democracy in Iraq. The Undemocratic mass murdering no civil rights Islamic republic of Iraq will soon be a reality at the expense of the American Taxpayer.

I can't say I disagree with a lot of what you have just said, because I don't.

However, it is very much the Iraqi's fighting the Americans at present. I don't discount that terrorists have entered the country since the American invasion. However, what we see happening now is Iraqi's uprising against their occupiers. Granted they might be getting help from outside groups. However it is war. The Americans have a few allies in this venture.. why shouldn't the Iraqi's? After all, it's still war, I don't recall Saddam being reported as signing a surrender order.

What makes me laugh is if you watch American news they call the natives "insurgents" LOL.. umm there is no legitimate government at the moment.. thus there can not be any insurgents.. but in the literal sense of the word, the Americans come a lot close to being the "insurgents" then the Iraqi natives do. They're just fighting for their country against an occupying force. They aren't terrorists. However, it's all propaganda on the American side. I'm sure there is lots on the other side too.. we just don't see it as much as what the Americans are trying to lie..erm.. I mean sell us! ;)

what gave you that impression. Al-Sadr's army is composed entirely of Shia's within Iraq. The US has succeeded in uniting the 2 rivals in resisting occupation, privatization and the soveriegnty they should have.Yes, but they are not fighting in the name of Iraq. They are fighting for Islam.

at this point, its no longer terrorism and i'd feel obliged to call it guerilla warfare. It targets military complexes or the military themselves
I agree, but what I mean is if an Fundamentalist Islamic group ever came to power in Iraq they would fund terrorism.

While i was against the war, i don't think Saddam hussein was a preferred option to the IGC

Why spoil a perfectly good Middle-eastern dictatorship?

Those who even desire an islamic republic won't be givent he chance to impose their "undemocratic mass murdering no civil rights" view onto Iraq. Al-Sadr's newspaper was shut down, so much for freedom of the presses. People are being arrested for wearing all black (the army associates all black with al-sadr's, so much for no arbitrary arrests. The US system of apointmenship for the IGC ensures that those in charge will ultimately be subservient to western businesses. If they don't, the economy is in the shitter. Its not the military occupation that's the biggest problem, its the economic one (another line i should use in an essay)

The former Kingdom did the same thing to the Baath Party, yet they managed to come to power didnt they? Of course however the Baath party is preferable to an Islamic republic because it did actually work for the people. All the people, not just Muslims

Yes, but they are not fighting in the name of Iraq. They are fighting for Islam. [quote]

Tha's like saying the palestinians are fighting for islam. While one can disprove of the ways in which the palestinians fight, it is pretty clear they're fighting for their land. The fact that they're islamic has a correlation with the fightin, it's Iraq they're fighting for.

[quote]I agree, but what I mean is if an Fundamentalist Islamic group ever came to power in Iraq they would fund terrorism.
you're probably right. Once again, i ask you to read the links at the beginning to see why no matter what, the new government will not be pro islamic or pro west, it will be pro business elites ( i can't even call this capitalism, it reminds me more of the serfdom of the middle ages).


Why spoil a perfectly good Middle-eastern dictatorship?
a lack of rights would be a start


The former Kingdom did the same thing to the Baath Party, yet they managed to come to power didnt they? Of course however the Baath party is preferable to an Islamic republic because it did actually work for the people. All the people, not just Muslims

This is ludicrous, Saddam wasn't good for "all the people." It was effectively the Sunnis in charge. The former party came to power with the aid of the US.

Thanks Steph and i totally agree. I first heard about this from a Naomi Klein Article entitled "bring haliburton home," it's available at both zmag.org and nologo.org (her website).
This is "democracy"? This is "freedom"? This is "liberation"?

No this is obscene and I agree with Steph.....this is RAPE!! This is absolutely criminal and immoral.

However, I do like the suggested remedy:

First, the military occupation of Iraq must end, and with its end a UN-commanded multilateral peacekeeping force should return to Iraq.

As belligerent powers who initiated the war, the United States and the UK are obligated to provide for the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people and to pay the continuing costs of Iraq's reconstruction, including the bulk of the cost of UN humanitarian and peacekeeping deployments.

The additional reconstruction funds should not come from ordinary tax-payers. They should be raised from (a) an excess profits tax on corporations benefiting from the war and post-war privatization in Iraq; (b) the Pentagon budget lines currently directed at continuing war in Iraq; and (c) a restored tax on the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans.

If the US believes in democracy, I do hope that justice to the Iraqi people is served to the fullest extent of the law.

Somehow, I have my doubts. :x

Iraqis don't deserve freedom or democracy cause they didn't have the balls to get it for themselves....

Iraqis don't deserve freedom or democracy cause they didn't have the balls to get it for themselves....
Perhaps they liked it the way it was and/or prefer it to having the US come and shoot up their people?

From the looks of it, they won't have democracy in Iraq, under Bremer Orders. They will be subservient to their US masters.

This is a travesty!! I hope the UN can do something for these people in Iraq.

If America wants to be the beacon to the "free" world, they better start demonstrating a benevolent attitude to their captives.

Iraqis don't deserve freedom or democracy cause they didn't have the balls to get it for themselves....

Now I know what Chomsky referred to when he discusses the narowness of debates. In this thread we vary from "it's really awful that the US is limiting true sovereignty of the iraqi people" (perpetuated by 3 canadians, myself, canuckheaven and stephistan) to the assinine "they don't deserve freedom." Can't someone legitematly defend this?

I read your links. Thank you.

To me it looks like some war profiteers have got Mr. Bremer in there back pocket.(War profiteers to me are the most despicable group of people throughout history.)I don't think the man can get the job done and should be replaced. The oil feilds I would nationalize,and impose some pretty heavy anti-curruption laws upon government officals.

Just my opinion.

I read your links. Thank you.

To me it looks like some war profiteers have got Mr. Bremer in there back pocket.(War profiteers to me are the most despicable group of people throughout history.)I don't think the man can get the job done and should be replaced. The oil feilds I would nationalize,and impose some pretty heavy anti-curruption laws upon government officals.

Just my opinion.
It's a pretty nauseating thing to be profitting off causing suffering for others. I wonder how they sleep at night...
Maybe they tell themselves that they are spreading freedom :roll:

bump
People need to read about this.

Profiteers do not concern themselves with the suffering of others.You'll find them throughout history.There's a faction of them in every nation.corporation,and political idelology that exists and will exist even after were dead and gone.

I'm not left wing nor am I right wing,and yes I beleive in freedom.

I'm young enough to have ideals ,but the reality of human nature is starting to kick in.

If you get a chance check out a book called "Dr. Seusse goes to war"

It' his early works as a political cartoonist.a good read.

Democracy should be a priority in Iraq, sadly it isn't. Democracy goes a lot further in establishing rights than a dictatorship. The stability that is created in a dictatorship is not the type that the "enlightened west" should pursue.

Democracy should not really be the current priority in Iraq, IMO. I don't think Iraq is currently ready or able to decide peacefully and fairly on a government. Look at it this way, would you rather see Iraq end up like Kuwait/Cuba or the Balkans? Stability, building of infrastructure, and gradual democratization should be much more important than a rapid full democratization. Also, IF the Iraqis wanted a theocratic state, providing it was limited in terms of powers by the constitution, I don't see how we could ethically deny it to them, given that we're not trying to impose western secular values on them.


As opposed to the corporatiosn that received the contracts, beacons of fairness and transparency :roll: . Haliburton, bechtel, come on, these guys are at least as corrupt as anyone Iraqi they could find.

I think you'd be very, very suprised. The level of corruption in these kinds of industries in nationalized despotic contexts is really mind boggling. More importantly, the Iraqi's have never actually dealt with the oil itself, but rather contracted out to European firms, so it's not like there is any loss in employment. Since the Iraqis are being paid for the oil that's being extracted, what exactly bothers you about this?

As a side note, I don't think Hussein's laws should be considered legitimate anyways, given that they were made by fiat without any popular consultation.

Did you read the links? Money doesn't have to stay in the country. (BTW, natural resources do not have 100% foreign ownerships). The faciliating of capital fleeing the country is what led to the Asian Currency Crisis. This will force the government to be subservient to foreign ownership and they will be unable to provide for their people. It's the "race to the bottom" but they're starting at the finishing line (i need to use this line in an essay)
I don't think there's any capital to 'flee', to be frank. Asia 97 is a good deal more complicated than this, and I don't really see very much relation. As far as I know, there's been no attributable currency shock or anything like that. As far as governments being 'subservient', I don't see why you would think that. It's not like an EPZ or something, if Halliburton starts pushing them around (down the road) they can always contract to the Europeans again anyays (ironically, most of the current wells are being run by Europeans subcontracted by Halliburton and company). I also don't see how this has anything to do with a race to the bottom, especially given that the wells have never been operated domestically, AFAIK.


It's kinda like when the government raises taxes, for the most part, once something is gained, it doesnt come back. They will not be renationalized. If that happens, see Venezuela for results.

No, it's more because nationalized industries, especially with something like oil, don't tend to be very efficient, and neither are they more profitable for the country in question than simply allowing investors to do it. It certainly was a disaster in Mexico, that's for sure.

first thanks for responding, i think the privatization of iraq to foreign interests is a really important subject. Unfortunately i've noticed people are less interested in globalization than hte politics of Iraq


Democracy should not really be the current priority in Iraq, IMO. I don't think Iraq is currently ready or able to decide peacefully and fairly on a government. Look at it this way, would you rather see Iraq end up like Kuwait/Cuba or the Balkans? Stability, building of infrastructure, and gradual democratization should be much more important than a rapid full democratization. Also, IF the Iraqis wanted a theocratic state, providing it was limited in terms of powers by the constitution, I don't see how we could ethically deny it to them, given that we're not trying to impose western secular values on them.

Here is where we'll chose to disagree. I think Iraq should be a democracy. In the same way you can compare it Kuwait/Cuba as varied degrees of benevolent dictatorships, i could bring up failed dictatorships such as Saudia Arabia.


I think you'd be very, very suprised. The level of corruption in these kinds of industries in nationalized despotic contexts is really mind boggling. More importantly, the Iraqi's have never actually dealt with the oil itself, but rather contracted out to European firms, so it's not like there is any loss in employment. Since the Iraqis are being paid for the oil that's being extracted, what exactly bothers you about this?
actually, this is covered in the links. Oil, and other natural resources cannot be 100% privatized. I suppose its my mistake for mentioning haliburton, oh well. However, its a different form of corruption. The reason i brought up venezuela is because of Chavez's renationalizing policies, the elites have effectively shut down the economy, closing factories and called a general strike. If an Iraqi President goes against the wishes of those who control its banks, a similar situation coudl happen.

As a side note, I don't think Hussein's laws should be considered legitimate anyways, given that they were made by fiat without any popular consultation.
There is a strong argument to be made there, but international law gets in the way. It's part of the geneva conventions. Go to the commondreams link i provided.


I don't think there's any capital to 'flee', to be frank. Asia 97 is a good deal more complicated than this, and I don't really see very much relation. As far as I know, there's been no attributable currency shock or anything like that. As far as governments being 'subservient', I don't see why you would think that. It's not like an EPZ or something, if Halliburton starts pushing them around (down the road) they can always contract to the Europeans again anyays (ironically, most of the current wells are being run by Europeans subcontracted by Halliburton and company). I also don't see how this has anything to do with a race to the bottom, especially given that the wells have never been operated domestically, AFAIK.

I wasn't the person to say this. Joseph Stiglitz did, the ex vice president of the WB. The contracts are locked in for the next 40 years (its the following bill). It's a race to the bottom in the sense that any future Iraqi government will be unable to tax them.


No, it's more because nationalized industries, especially with something like oil, don't tend to be very efficient, and neither are they more profitable for the country in question than simply allowing investors to do it. It certainly was a disaster in Mexico, that's for sure.
I got my counter example, California energy crisis. Certain essential industries should remain nationalized. Mail, health, energy are good examples. There will be certain parts that aren't profitable, obviously. In a privatized industry, they would be cut. That would mean that small towns wouldn't get mail or energy. A nationalized industry ensures that everyone gets irrespective of profit

first thanks for responding, i think the privatization of iraq to foreign interests is a really important subject. Unfortunately i've noticed people are less interested in globalization than hte politics of Iraq

No problem ;)



Here is where we'll chose to disagree. I think Iraq should be a democracy. In the same way you can compare it Kuwait/Cuba as varied degrees of benevolent dictatorships, i could bring up failed dictatorships such as Saudia Arabia.

Okay, just keep in mind that a democracy can be a pretty shitty place to live if it's not stable and well-run. Democratization is not a cure-all; the people have to be ready and willing or things can get very nasty very quickly.


actually, this is covered in the links. Oil, and other natural resources cannot be 100% privatized. I suppose its my mistake for mentioning haliburton, oh well. However, its a different form of corruption. The reason i brought up venezuela is because of Chavez's renationalizing policies, the elites have effectively shut down the economy, closing factories and called a general strike. If an Iraqi President goes against the wishes of those who control its banks, a similar situation coudl happen.

Which isn't really at that bad, when you think about it. It actually acts as a check on government power. Still, it's somewhat different in terms of natural resources versus manufacturing, since as you said you can never entirely privatize natural resource economies. It's also kind of deceptive in Iraq, since at no point were the oil wells domestically operated.


There is a strong argument to be made there, but international law gets in the way. It's part of the geneva conventions. Go to the commondreams link i provided.

Yeah I know, I'm just pointing it out. This is another area where I think international law is deeply flawed, but I won't hijack the thread ;)


I got my counter example, California energy crisis. Certain essential industries should remain nationalized. Mail, health, energy are good examples. There will be certain parts that aren't profitable, obviously. In a privatized industry, they would be cut. That would mean that small towns wouldn't get mail or energy. A nationalized industry ensures that everyone gets irrespective of profit[/quote]
Actually they're two very different situations; Iraq is effectively a price taker on the international market; it cannot greatly effect the price of oil as there is a reasonable level of competition. In California, the energy companies were price setters, and as such could greatly effect and exploit the market. The only time industries should remain public, IMO, is in situations of natural monopoly, such as (arguably) mail, military, and energy, and obviously social programs like welfare or health care.

[No problem ;)
uh cheers



Okay, just keep in mind that a democracy can be a pretty shitty place to live if it's not stable and well-run. Democratization is not a cure-all; the people have to be ready and willing or things can get very nasty very quickly.
Agreed, shitty democracies due suck. I think i'd take my chances in a democracy over a dictatorship. I'm not saying that at the current moment it's ready. But gutting Iraq's economy to the highest bidder (not even that when you consider no bid contracts) does not encourage stability.


actually, this is covered in the links. Oil, and other natural resources cannot be 100% privatized. I suppose its my mistake for mentioning haliburton, oh well. However, its a different form of corruption. The reason i brought up venezuela is because of Chavez's renationalizing policies, the elites have effectively shut down the economy, closing factories and called a general strike. If an Iraqi President goes against the wishes of those who control its banks, a similar situation coudl happen.

Which isn't really at that bad, when you think about it. It actually acts as a check on government power. Still, it's somewhat different in terms of natural resources versus manufacturing, since as you said you can never entirely privatize natural resource economies. It's also kind of deceptive in Iraq, since at no point were the oil wells domestically operated.[/quote]
In this case its not a check against government corruption, but governments ability to provide to its people. Controlling the banks of a country gives someone enormous political clout.


There is a strong argument to be made there, but international law gets in the way. It's part of the geneva conventions. Go to the commondreams link i provided.

Yeah I know, I'm just pointing it out. This is another area where I think international law is deeply flawed, but I won't hijack the thread ;) [/quote]
agreed. I do think, however, that an occuping power should not be able to radically change teh economy of a state without the consent of those being occupied, irrespective of the former leader


Actually they're two very different situations; Iraq is effectively a price taker on the international market; it cannot greatly effect the price of oil as there is a reasonable level of competition. In California, the energy companies were price setters, and as such could greatly effect and exploit the market. The only time industries should remain public, IMO, is in situations of natural monopoly, such as (arguably) mail, military, and energy, and obviously social programs like welfare or health care.
There are definetly differences. I more offered it asa situation where privatization has gone awry. I could also bring up Burmese privatization of water to bechtel, which led to revolution. That was a situation where it was more for the people there (Bechtel actually owned the rainwater believe it or not) than a global price. In terms of Iraq, oil being owned by haliburton and its subsidies doesn't affect global oil prices as much as it affects US oil prices.

From day one the Iraqis were chanting "No to Saddam, No to the US".
Nobody listened then or now.

Is it so hard to understand that they want to control the destiny of their own country, free of the occupation forces of foreigners who they regard with suspicion.

As for the resistance, we were told that it was Saddam loyalists, led by him and his sons. After that were killed or captured, it was fanatical members of the Baath party. After they were killed, the resistance was led by Al Qaeda. Then it was just a few radical imams. Then it was a sole unrepresentative Shiite cleric and his "personal army". And that was provoked by shutting down his newspaper, and issuing arrest warrants for him.

The "march to democracy" might not be happening, but the US has certainly managed to unite the once opposed factions in Iraq - unfortunately that unity is against the occupying forces.

And one has to wonder as to why it is that the US forces seem to have been the focus of so much of the hostility. The British occupting forces do not seem to have generated the same amount of resistance.

*said in best Haiku reading voice*

Reading this article I am reminded of an old quote I heard before the war. "Sewing the seeds of Democracy in the middle east." I come now to see this view is taken literally...given all the fertalizer this administration is spreading around.

*said in best Haiku reading voice*

Reading this article I am reminded of an old quote I heard before the war. "Sewing the seeds of Democracy in the middle east." I come now to see this view is taken literally...given all the fertalizer this administration is spreading around.
lol

bumps so more people can read the commondreams link

Thanks Steph and i totally agree. I first heard about this from a Naomi Klein Article entitled "bring haliburton home," it's available at both zmag.org and nologo.org (her website).
This is "democracy"? This is "freedom"? This is "liberation"?

No this is obscene and I agree with Steph.....this is RAPE!! This is absolutely criminal and immoral.

However, I do like the suggested remedy:

First, the military occupation of Iraq must end, and with its end a UN-commanded multilateral peacekeeping force should return to Iraq.

As belligerent powers who initiated the war, the United States and the UK are obligated to provide for the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people and to pay the continuing costs of Iraq's reconstruction, including the bulk of the cost of UN humanitarian and peacekeeping deployments.

The additional reconstruction funds should not come from ordinary tax-payers. They should be raised from (a) an excess profits tax on corporations benefiting from the war and post-war privatization in Iraq; (b) the Pentagon budget lines currently directed at continuing war in Iraq; and (c) a restored tax on the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans.

If the US believes in democracy, I do hope that justice to the Iraqi people is served to the fullest extent of the law.

Somehow, I have my doubts. :x

I really like this idea, where'd you get it from?

Can prowar people really ignore this thread?
Come on, only one person has defended this. Read the links. There is no way democracy is being formed here.

Why would an Orwellian dictator like Bush promote democracy in a country hes actively looting while at the same time hes subverting democracy and free elections at home?

Why would an Orwellian dictator like Bush promote democracy in a country hes actively looting while at the same time hes subverting democracy and free elections at home?
So he can enrich his friends in haliburton, bechtel and co.
It's not even neo-conservative ideolology, its the ideology of money. That's it

Thanks Steph and i totally agree. I first heard about this from a Naomi Klein Article entitled "bring haliburton home," it's available at both zmag.org and nologo.org (her website).
This is "democracy"? This is "freedom"? This is "liberation"?

No this is obscene and I agree with Steph.....this is RAPE!! This is absolutely criminal and immoral.

However, I do like the suggested remedy:

First, the military occupation of Iraq must end, and with its end a UN-commanded multilateral peacekeeping force should return to Iraq.

As belligerent powers who initiated the war, the United States and the UK are obligated to provide for the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people and to pay the continuing costs of Iraq's reconstruction, including the bulk of the cost of UN humanitarian and peacekeeping deployments.

The additional reconstruction funds should not come from ordinary tax-payers. They should be raised from (a) an excess profits tax on corporations benefiting from the war and post-war privatization in Iraq; (b) the Pentagon budget lines currently directed at continuing war in Iraq; and (c) a restored tax on the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans.

If the US believes in democracy, I do hope that justice to the Iraqi people is served to the fullest extent of the law.

Somehow, I have my doubts. :x

I really like this idea, where'd you get it from?
I found it on the same page as Bremer's Orders at the following site:

http://www.earthisland.org/project/newsPage2.cfm?newsID=550&pageID=177&subSiteID=44

However, it looks like 5 (c) has been removed. It should go down this way, but clearly it won't :x

Democracy still has a shot at happening. Not in the next few days and months, but with a little negotiating, it may happen. The problem is, however, that negotiations are far from peaceful. al-Sadr, al-Qaeda, and the Ba'athist leftovers are engaged against us, but more importantly they are fighting eachother. This deal where they are uniting against America is a farce--they're paying lip service to the idea, but nothing else.
I think, however, that the side winning in Iraq is the side of apathy. If the entire Iraqi population sided with the US, far more would've been done to build a nice, stable democracy, and the civil defense forces would've been swelling in size (although membership isn't exactly low). If the entire population sided with the various factions, then thousands of troops would be dead in these past two weeks. But they are primarily on the sidelines now, waiting to see who wins. And that's okay--we can win with local apathy.
It's also important to remember that, even now, al-Sadr's forces are relatively small, about 3,000-4,000. He is a cleric that belives the end of the world is imminent, and that the poor will triumph over the rich, which is why his biggest support base is among the very poor Shi'ites. Early Christianity used a similar tactic, but it wasn't effective. After all, the Roman Empire only had widespread Christianity after we snatched Emperor Constantine. Unless al-Sadr gets both Bush and Kerry as his followers, he can't win. In fact, he's been beaten back to Najaf and Karbala. As for Fallujah, I don't see what the big uproar is about. If we really wanted to destroy the city, a few artillery shells and a nice carpet-bombing campaign would've done the trick. Instead, a cease-fire has been declared, and I still think it is successful. Civilians have had the chance to flee Fallujah (as they have been), and vehicular acsess has been opened to the hospital. The Iraqis trust other Iraqis more than the US, I agree to that, but they don't trust al-Sadr and the others in the group to run Iraq.

Euclid, the war that is being fought in Iraq is inconsequencial in the long run. The contracts have been drawn up. They're locked in for 40 years. If the Iraqi's are lucky, they'll have an illusion of democracy. The rape of Iraq's industry is frankly disgusting.

Euclid, the war that is being fought in Iraq is inconsequencial in the long run. The contracts have been drawn up. They're locked in for 40 years. If the Iraqi's are lucky, they'll have an illusion of democracy. The rape of Iraq's industry is frankly disgusting.
Foreign corporations don't equal dictatorships. Unless they find a way to move the oilfields out of Iraq, at least some of the money will end up in Iraqi hands.
Besides, the difference between Iraq and Argentina is that Iraq has little expirience in managing its own resources. For years, Iraq has been a possesion of either Hussein or the others before him. As they were mostly concerned about personal wealth, they saw no need to support the Iraqi economy, and for years, kept the populace idle and inexpirienced. Argentina was different. They've always had a decent economy and a second-world infrastructure. They've could've managed themselves
So, foreign corporations are needed to help the Iraqi infrastructure. Unlike Hussein, their idea of wealth is to keep their holdings productive. They are not gonna staff the facilities in Iraq with Americans, but Iraqis, who need less to live off. Thus, it's resonable to conclude that what makes Halliburton rich is what makes Iraqis rich as well.
Democracy will also not be threatened. If that was true, we'd be the least democratic country in the world. Foreign corporations will free the government of economic concerns, so they'll turn to other matters: security, basic survival of the country, etc. It's like what's happening in Africa. African nations have a lot wrong, but one thing wrong is that the economy of these nations is nearly nonexistent. Most companies are state-owned, but one'd never know it, they hardly have enough money to exist. Therefore, they're turning to US, European, and South African companies to help their economies. De Beers has helped Bostwana mined its diamonds, and now, they're one of the richest nations on the continent. That wealth didn't exist ten years ago.

Euclid, the war that is being fought in Iraq is inconsequencial in the long run. The contracts have been drawn up. They're locked in for 40 years. If the Iraqi's are lucky, they'll have an illusion of democracy. The rape of Iraq's industry is frankly disgusting.
Given the situation on the ground, this discussion seems to be of academic interest only, but... since you insist on misdirecting your ire at the at the Foreign Investment Order (perhaps the more benign of many things that the Americans have done in Iraq), here's a quote (p.3 of that PDF file):

"The duration of any license to use property shall be determined by the duration of operations related to the foreign investment. The initial term of the license shall not exceed 40 years, but may be renewed fir [sic] further such periods. Licenses may be reviewed by the internationally recognized, representative government established by the people of Iraq upon its assumption of the responsibilities of the CPA."