The Rape Of Iraq

[truthaddict11]

link (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=445744)




America puts Iraq up for sale
By Philip Thornton in Dubai and Andrew Gumbel
22 September 2003


Iraq was in effect put up for sale yesterday when the American-appointed administration announced it was opening up all sectors of the economy to foreign investors in a desperate attempt to deliver much-needed reconstruction against a daily backdrop of kidnappings, looting and violent death.

In an unexpected move unveiled at the meeting in Dubai of the Group of Seven rich nations, the Iraqi Governing Council announced sweeping reforms to allow total foreign ownership without the need for prior approval.

The initiative bore all the hallmarks of Washington's ascendant neoconservative lobby, complete with tax cuts and trade tariff rollbacks. It will apply to everything from industry to health and water, although not oil.

But it is still likely to feed concerns that Iraq is being turned into a golden opportunity for profiteering by multinational corporations relying on their political connections.

Already, the biggest reconstruction contracts have been allocated to American firms such as Bechtel and Halliburton, which have ties to the Bush administration. They were selected behind closed doors, with no opportunity for competitors to present bids.

Iraq is far from an ideal environment for business, however, and the new initiative seemed calculated to overcome qualms overseas companies have had about the risks to both people and capital.

It remains to be seen whether the prospect of buying into Iraq's most essential services, pricing those services at will and repatriating profits in their entirety will be a strong enough lure to offset the continuing inability of the US military to make the country secure from resistance fighters and heavily armed criminal gangs.

Wholesale privatisation is a dramatic departure from Saddam Hussein's centralised management of the Iraqi economy, which was reasonably successful in capitalising on the country's oil wealth to build modern hospitals, schools and other infrastructure, at least until the upheavals of the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war, the 1991 Gulf War and the imposition of United Nations sanctions after that conflict.

One Arab expert said: "There's a fear that privatisation of too many things will lead to things being sold off for a mess of potage." Kamel al-Gailani, the Finance Minister in the provisional government, said the moves would open Iraq to free- market competition that would deliver investment, job creation and long-term economic growth.

"We are providing Iraqi citizens with the freedom and opportunities they were denied for so long under the Baath party to realise their economic potential," he said. "The reforms will advance efforts to build a free and open market economy in Iraq, promote Iraq's future economic growth, [and] accelerate Iraq's re-entry into the international economy and reintegration with other countries."

The moves presented by Mr Gailani, approved by the US and UK's coalition provisional authority, include:

• 100 per cent foreign ownership in all sectors except natural resources;

• direct ownership as well as joint ventures and setting up branches;

• full, immediate remittance to the host country of profits, dividends, interest and royalties.

Privatisation of everything from electricity and telecommunications to pharmaceuticals and engineering could see hundreds of previously state-owned companies sold off.

There will be a tax holiday for the rest of this year, and income and business taxes for investors will be capped at 15 per cent from next year.

Trade tariffs will be slashed to show that Iraq is a "country that embraces free trade". A 5 per cent surcharge will be levied on all imports, other than humanitarian goods such as food, medicine and books, to fund the reconstruction effort.

America defended the decision to offer such a generous package of tax breaks to entice investors. "Capital is a coward," said John Snow, US Treasury Secretary. "It doesn't go places where it feels threatened. Companies will not send employees to places that aren't secure." Iraq's vast oil reserves, the world's largest apart from Saudi Arabia's, would remain in government hands. "They're going to run government finances based on oil revenues," Mr Snow said.

Five months after the overthrow of Saddam, there are no visible signs of reconstruction. Clean water and electricity are still not available to most people and entire neighbourhoods are still without phone lines.

Washington is desperately seeking help with footing the $100bn bill it estimates rebuilding Iraq will cost.

[sliverchrist]

yeah, what a move.

sheesh, how can it be for Iraq be for Iraqis if everything is foriegn?

[Exploited Class]

This is simply amazing. First go it alone without backing from the full security council. Sell the war to the American people through 45 minutes of fear predictions. Remove the power structure and then under-estimate the vinacity of the Iraqi people and the cost of re-construction. Say publicly there isn't a quagmire or querrilla war happening in Iraq, then later admit you were wrong. Then go back and ask everybody else to help you out, when that fails and you are left incontrol of an out of control country, open it up to foreign companies with very few restrictions, while the country still seeks just basic internal structures to survive.

Here is a country that was the jewel of the middle east at one time. Operas, excellent health care, closer to equal treatment of both sexes than the surrounding nations, progressive social views versus neighboring countries, healthy large middle class.

Then they started a war with Iran, we aided them both at the same time. Then they took over Kuwait which we hinted wouldn't be an issue. Then we went to war with half the world on our side. Decimated internal basic services, then sealed the country up for 10+ years, played games with our UN inspection teams, spied on them illegaly, deystroyed the chemical weapons we supplied them, never lifted the embargo, crippled the country and the innocent people within it, traded valuable fuel for outdated medical equipment to replace the more advanced medical equipment we deystroyed. Millions suffered, we took them over completely, and still 6 months later, most can not have working sewers, uncontaminated water, working phones, working ambulances, no way to call for an ambulance or the police, widespread looting, destruction to priceless artifacts, constant civilian and military deaths.

I can't even imagine the hell we created for those people with our constant intervention into their politics and way of life for the past 30 years.

The world was sure quick to jump on Iraq for invading Kuwait, but it sure is taking its time to jump on America for invading Iraq and not leaving.

Now, once everything there is cleared up, they are going to put hardly any restrictions on foreign markets profiteering on their hardship. Buying in low and almost impossible to get out. What kind of future is that, the present is an attrocity, but what kind of outlook is that for the people of Iraq. A country with borders but everything inside owned by the outside world?

They will have to unburry themselves from a mountain of foreign debt, they will have no national buisness to do so anymore. They will be left for the wolves, that is if they ever get their country back at all. I am sure it will take several decades of elections to remove the puppets we have placed for them to vote on.

[Pete]

This reminds me of a biblical story ^_^ Too bad I left my bible at school when I came home for the weekend eh?

The basics of the story is that Jacob's daughter Dinah gets raped by a Caanite or Hittite or someone like that, and is forced to marry the man. After pretending to be on side two of her brothers (I think one of them is Rueben) sneak into the town and kill every single male during the freeing of thier sister.

Iraq the sister? America the rapist?

[proofisinthepudding]

Yeah, the world should have let Kim Il Sung fix that genocidal mess up or better yet the world should have let Saddam keep up with the absolute destruction of minorities- Kurds, Tuareg etc. Do you ignorant fools even know who the Tuareg are?


Hang on a minute the world did do nothing about Saddam for years and for that matter the champagne socialists of the world united on a grand front, and decided whole-heartedly, to stand around watching whilst pretending it wasnt happening.


The only thing more pitiful than criticism of the U.S. in Iraq is the denial that Saddam is just another Stalin or Pol Pot. Wait let me guess- you think Stalin and Pol Pot were justified in killing MILLIONS.


Dear Commrades
We'd better just forget about the 20 gyroscopes that were caught being smuggled into Iraq in 2000 by the U.N. that were marked `for aircraft'... Ooops, Iraq has no aircraft industry and for that matter they were from a RUSSIAN DEFENCE CONTRACTOR that supplies guidance systems for missiles. Hmmm, if Iraq has no aircraft industry then could those gyrocopes be for missile guidance syste....Oh no. Quickly lets pretend that didnt happen and while were at it lets also pretend that the only nation to ever fire a ballistic missile at Israel wasnt Iraq!


You ignorant fools.
Grow up and go and try living in a place where the fruits of socialism have actually blossomed- after all, the Ba'athists of Iraq were once as naive as yourselves... until they too were murdered in true Machiavellian style by the most ruthless socialist of the lot- just like every other nation that has turned to crap under Marxist fantasy.


P.S.
The contracts for rebuilding Iraq shouldnt be handled by anyone- is that your argument? Do you even know what your argument is??

[Pete]

Those weapons came into Iraq and great genocides in Iraq happened either while America was supporting Iraq and selling them weapons, or after America promoted mass revolutions, and then did nothing to support them. People died. Saddam is guilty. So is America.

[proofisinthepudding]

Yeah tell me something original- you've stated the facts on a topic that has nothing to do with what's been written.
I never wrote that every policy by every U.S. Presidential administration is for the bennefit of mankind. Unfortunately that's the problem with you and for that matter Chomsky's flawed rhetoric because you see all administrations as being the same- that ammounts to conspiracy theory hooplah.


I mock anyone that points the finger at Bush/Rumsfeld/Powell/Blair for actually stopping the ongoing genocide of minorities in Iraq. Back in 1992 Colin Powell stated that Bush Snr and the 91 Gulf War had achieved little because Saddam was still empowered and terrorising minorities. Of course Clinton did nothing about that but good on Bush for draining the sewer.


So who should contract to fix Iraq? Can you not answer that question??

[Vinny Rafarino]

I mock anyone that points the finger at Bush/Rumsfeld/Powell/Blair for actually stopping the ongoing genocide of minorities in Iraq. Back in 1992 Colin Powell stated that Bush Snr and the 91 Gulf War had achieved little because Saddam was still empowered and terrorising minorities. Of course Clinton did nothing about that but good on Bush for draining the sewer.



Didn't this "person" just ask for something original from us? He then babbles on with this tired old rhetoric. How silly.

[Rastafari]

I mock anyone that points the finger at Bush/Rumsfeld/Powell/Blair for actually stopping the ongoing genocide of minorities in Iraq. Back in 1992 Colin Powell stated that Bush Snr and the 91 Gulf War had achieved little because Saddam was still empowered and terrorising minorities. Of course Clinton did nothing about that but good on Bush for draining the sewer.



"Occupying Baghdad comes at an unpardonable expense in terms of money, lives lost, and ruined relationship."
-Colin Powell, Foreign Affairs Essay, 1992

Would this be said statement?

[Rastafari]

guess we shut him down

[Hampton]

Man, I didn't know you were a member of Onyx:

http://64.95.118.51/images/opti/46/d0/271636-resized200.JPG

[Rastafari]

I was, but then I became too "hardcore" and "hip-hoppy"

They kicked me out for some reason

[LuZhiming]

Yeah, the world should have let Kim Il Sung fix that genocidal mess up or better yet the world should have let Saddam keep up with the absolute destruction of minorities- Kurds, Tuareg etc. Do you ignorant fools even know who the Tuareg are?

Absolute destruction? Yeah right, he's offered them tons of autonomy plans that were rejected. :rolleyes: Saddam Hussein didn't attack any Kurds until many of them supported Iran in the war. He wasn't committing genocide, he was just attacking them after years of rebellion, whining about their want for autonomy,(Even though they were nomadic tribesmen, that were pacified in the 6h century. I don't recall the Kurds asking Chingis Khan for autonomy.) supporting Iran in the Iraq/Iran war, and even at times fighting amongst themselves. And if the U.S. should bomb any country that mistreats Kurds they should start with the country Clinton gave 80% of the arms used against the Kurds to: Their ally Turkey.

[proofisinthepudding]

Ha ha ha ha,
Oh you guys kill me- You complain about the U.S. policy on rebuilding Iraq and yet none of you can answer the simple question of `Who should rebuild Iraq?' :P .

Look, if it's too difficult a question to answer just keep overlooking it and maybe it will go away :D !


This site is like a Fabian society for university freshman- lots of emotion and very little logic!

[proofisinthepudding]

["Occupying Baghdad comes at an unpardonable expense in terms of money, lives lost, and ruined relationship."
-Colin Powell, Foreign Affairs Essay, 1992
QUOTE]

Yeah, funny how policy changes over time isnt it- but I agree with your argument. Leaders must never change policy ever no matter what circumstances arise and whilst were talking about never being able to change; Marxist `worker' dogma is still relevant :blink: in the 21st century.... Ha aha ha ha ha ha ah ah ahhh oohhh.

Oh you guys are funny. Keep on `shutting me down' please- its most amusing.

[Vinny Rafarino]

No one has bothered to answer your question because it's actually quite.....juvenile.

"Who do you think should rebuild Iraq"?

Ovbiously the imperialist nations that felt the need to illegally invade and occupy the nation should provide to the people if Iraq whatever amount of money is required for the citizens of Iraq to rebuild their own country.

After providing these funds to the people of Iraq, the imperialist occupation forces should completely withdraw from the nation. These pigs deserve NOTHING in return. Yes that's correct sonny-boy, they deserve NOT A DROP of Iraqi crude.

Good enough for you kiddo?

Now run along son.

[proofisinthepudding]

Now while I'm still visiting this abominable site I shall further pose another question for you small-minded victims.


Today Samsung Electronics unveiled a new super flash memory chip. The chip can handle incredible ammounts of data and what is most interesting is the target market Samsung are aiming this product at.
They (Samsung) quoted the term `Prosumers' - meaning consumers that take the technology and make money for themselves by utilising the tech for THEMSELVES. Now my question is where exactly does Marxist ideology sit with `Prosumers' :unsure: ?

Please answer me- I need a good laugh and make it quotable so I can mock it in print.

Thanks

[redstarshining]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2003, 06:21 PM


You ignorant fools.
Grow up and go and try living in a place where the fruits of socialism have actually blossomed- after all, the Ba'athists of Iraq were once as naive as yourselves... until they too were murdered in true Machiavellian style by the most ruthless socialist of the lot- just like every other nation that has turned to crap under Marxist fantasy.


Since when is the Ba'ath party marxist? :blink:

[Vinny Rafarino]

Mr. pudding is a troll. Ignore the boy and he will eventually go away.

[proofisinthepudding]

In reply to the question since when was the Baathist party Marxist? you can read for yourself-

After the Baath takeover, Bakr became president of the regime, and he initiated programs aimed at the establishment of a "socialist, unionist, and democratic" Iraq. This was done, according to the National Action Charter, with scrupulous care for balancing the revolutionary requirements of Iraq on the one hand and the needs of the "Arab nation" on the other. According to a Baath Party pronouncement in January 1974, "Putting the regional above the national may lead to statism, and placing the national over the regional may lead to rash and childish action."

If you actually read the history of the Baathists from the Baathists themselves you'd find varied attempts to mingle leftist objectives without a Soviet backed takeover. When it was discovered that the Soviets were using the ICP the Baathists executed them- whilst still maintaining an `intellectual' socialist dogma.


Good question though- I like interesting questions and I always answer them- unlike other twats that merely call them...`juvenile' and then rattle off some trite swill in parrot fashion.

[redstarshining]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2003, 12:09 PM
In reply to the question since when was the Baathist party Marxist? you can read for yourself-

After the Baath takeover, Bakr became president of the regime, and he initiated programs aimed at the establishment of a "socialist, unionist, and democratic" Iraq. This was done, according to the National Action Charter, with scrupulous care for balancing the revolutionary requirements of Iraq on the one hand and the needs of the "Arab nation" on the other. According to a Baath Party pronouncement in January 1974, "Putting the regional above the national may lead to statism, and placing the national over the regional may lead to rash and childish action."

If you actually read the history of the Baathists from the Baathists themselves you'd find varied attempts to mingle leftist objectives without a Soviet backed takeover. When it was discovered that the Soviets were using the ICP the Baathists executed them- whilst still maintaining an `intellectual' socialist dogma.


Good question though- I like interesting questions and I always answer them- unlike other twats that merely call them...`juvenile' and then rattle off some trite swill in parrot fashion.
I still don't see how that makes Ba'ath a marxist ( scientific-socialist ) party, I have other information.
I would have pasted something from the official homepage of the party ( www.albaath.com ), but unfortunately it's temporarily down. Anyway, the iraqi branch of Al Ba'ath always allowed private ownership of the means of production, and except for some land reforms, the nationalization of the crude oil industry, and a general pro-union policy, I don't see much that resembles traits of scientific socialism. Furthermore, Al Ba'ath never claimed to be marxist, and neither referred to itself as such. The post-revolutionary iraqi Ba'ath party, as well as the original syrian branch are both clearly anti-marxist.

If you have any documents that prove that Al Ba'ath follows or followed a marxist programme, I'd like to ask you to share them with us.