So much for Iraq for the Iraqis

sovtek

...but maybe they will get the envious position of working at McDonalds.

swiss

The measures were disclosed Sept. 21 before International Monetary Fund meetings in Dubai by, fittingly enough, the U.S. delegation. Foreigners will be allowed to own 100 percent interest in any Iraqi company outside the energy industry

This development has not gone unforeseen. During the war and directly after, the US continually talked about the need for finance of the 'reconstruction effort'. Unsurprisingly, they don't want to foot the cost themselves, so they do what any good bully does - make the victim cough up.

Now, in one sense I appreciate the need for foreign investment in Iraq to try to bring their economy out of dire recession. However, on the other hand, the wholesale dumping of Iraqi assets on the international scene is going to erode the soverignty of Iraq. Furthurmore, because this decision was taken by a US delegation, many Iraqis will understandably conclude that the US is not being serious about letting Iraq elect it's own officials to do the job of governing Iraq.

Jobs for Iraqi workers is a laudable ideal, but the price is national self determination. I'm not sure that's a price many Iraqis are willing to pay.

bonkey

Originally posted by swiss
Now, in one sense I appreciate the need for foreign investment in Iraq to try to bring their economy out of dire recession. However, on the other hand, the wholesale dumping of Iraqi assets on the international scene is going to erode the soverignty of Iraq.

Indeed. Working from rusty-memory, doesn't this mirror one of the typical behviours of the IMF which Stiglitz was illustrating does not achieve what it is supposed to achieve? Sure, its great for making the investors rich, but its not in the best interests of the Iraqi economy, nor ultimately of the nation itself.

I could be wrong...I don't have the book to hand...but I'm pretty sure that this was one of his major gripes.

jc

Johnmb

Is it just me or does this stink of history repeating itself. How long do they think it would take for the Iraqi people to get behind a would-be dictator who promised to re-nationalise all the industries that the US and the US backed government in Iraq sold off to foreigners? They are giving any would-be dictators the perfect rallying call. Maybe they are hoping that it would take several decades to get to that stage, and they will have removed all, or most, of Iraq's oil by then so it won't matter.

Victor

On the Auction Block by Edward Wasserman

Most of the Iraqi private sector was put up for sale yesterday.''

I presume the private investors get paid .... the article is a bit silent on the matter.

mr_angry

The article raises some good points, but I got the feeling that the author already had his mind made up before even beginning that article - it was anti-US from the very start.

I appreciate that he's trying to make a point, but I think a more balanced article would have been easier to swallow.

Tito

Dear Mr Angry,
With due respect the only reason Iraq is not the Iraqis at the moment is because they are unable to behave in a respectable manner.Despite this fact people continue to attack America my question is why?
When the anti-war movement protested way back before the start of war they said all America was interested in was oil now over six months on not a drop of oil taken from Iraq all we hear about now is the humanitarian crisis!Well excuse me but nobody has said anything about the humanitarian crisis that has been in Iraq for 30 years.
Why dont these protestor bums for get a job and stop taking advantage of the state.Also one final note the Anti War movement does not have support of the working class which is the class that pays for everything in this country.
It only has support from Noble spoilt brats and peasants who just came out of the off license.

Sleipnir

Originally posted by Tito
Dear Mr Angry,
With due respect the only reason Iraq is not the Iraqis at the moment is because they are unable to behave in a respectable manner.Despite this fact people continue to attack America my question is why?

Who is attacking America? Not any Iraqi's anyway. Not Saddam Hussein.
And DO NOT mention the attacks on the World Trade Centre, there is no evidence, WHATSOEVER, to link Iraq to those attacks.

Behaving in a respectable manner eh?
What about the people America has imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay?American has denied them their human rights and denied them any rights under the Geneva Convention.
Is shackling and blindfolding human beings as you cart them about tied to a rack "behaving in a respectable manner"?

America has not taken a drop of oil? Where are you living?
I would guess that you're in America watching Fox and CNN.
Haliburton, Donnie Rumsfeld's ex-company has been awarded many of the oil rights in Iraq so tell me how that is "Iraq for the Iraqi's"?

I think it likely that people are attacking America because they are tired of having that country's opinions and way of life imposed upon them by military force.

sovtek

Originally posted by Victor
I presume the private investors get paid .... the article is a bit silent on the matter.

That would be handy to know. At the same time it is really suspicious they are making such far reaching economic decisions in Iraq before there is a true government in Iraq.
In the real world respective governments get to intervene when a private company is sold to a foreign company.
[SARCASM]I will be so shocked if the first foreign companies just happen to be large contributors to the Bush election campaign or have ties to his administration. [/SARCASM]

Hobbes

Originally posted by sovtek
[SARCASM]I will be so shocked if the first foreign companies just happen to be large contributors to the Bush election campaign or have ties to his administration. [/SARCASM]

I thought that was a done deal already? Wasn't there uproar because Bush was handing out the contracts and ignoring British firms quotes for rebuilding?

sovtek

Originally posted by Hobbes
I thought that was a done deal already? Wasn't there uproar because Bush was handing out the contracts and ignoring British firms quotes for rebuilding?

OH yea I forgot...Last I heard Worldcom (yes the one that cooked it's books Enron/Anderson style, and even after a private Iraqi company got the system back online) was given a license for Iraq's wireless network.
That being said, getting reconstruction contracts and buying private Iraqi companies is two different animals...or am I wrong?

mr_angry

Originally posted by Tito
Dear Mr Angry,
With due respect the only reason Iraq is not the Iraqis at the moment is because they are unable to behave in a respectable manner.Despite this fact people continue to attack America my question is why?
When the anti-war movement protested way back before the start of war they said all America was interested in was oil now over six months on not a drop of oil taken from Iraq all we hear about now is the humanitarian crisis!Well excuse me but nobody has said anything about the humanitarian crisis that has been in Iraq for 30 years.
Why dont these protestor bums for get a job and stop taking advantage of the state.Also one final note the Anti War movement does not have support of the working class which is the class that pays for everything in this country.
It only has support from Noble spoilt brats and peasants who just came out of the off license.

Why is this directed at me???

I'm hurt.

*sniff*

jesus_thats_gre

Originally posted by sovtek
OH yea I forgot...Last I heard Worldcom (yes the one that cooked it's books Enron/Anderson style, and even after a private Iraqi company got the system back online) was given a license for Iraq's wireless network.
That being said, getting reconstruction contracts and buying private Iraqi companies is two different animals...or am I wrong?

The Iraqi's rejected the use of the American cellular standard, CDMA, and choose to go with the GSM standard that is in operation in many countries around the world, including all of Europe. Partial proof that it is not the Americans making all the decisions... The CDMA standard was developed by an American company called Qualcomm and an evolved version of this standard is being used for most 3G networks around the world.

Originally posted by tito

Dear Mr Angry,
With due respect the only reason Iraq is not the Iraqis at the moment is because they are unable to behave in a respectable manner.Despite this fact people continue to attack America my question is why?
When the anti-war movement protested way back before the start of war they said all America was interested in was oil now over six months on not a drop of oil taken from Iraq all we hear about now is the humanitarian crisis!Well excuse me but nobody has said anything about the humanitarian crisis that has been in Iraq for 30 years.
Why dont these protestor bums for get a job and stop taking advantage of the state.Also one final note the Anti War movement does not have support of the working class which is the class that pays for everything in this country.
It only has support from Noble spoilt brats and peasants who just came out of the off license.

What did angry do to invoke this response...

now read what he said again:

Originally posted by mr_angry4

The article raises some good points, but I got the feeling that the author already had his mind made up before even beginning that article - it was anti-US from the very start.

I appreciate that he's trying to make a point, but I think a more balanced article would have been easier to swallow.

bonkey

Originally posted by sovtek
OH yea I forgot...Last I heard Worldcom was given a license for Iraq's wireless network.

Can someone explain to me how a wireless network is part of a rebuilding effort????? Did Iraq already have one or something, that its being rebuilt?

Also, am I the only person vaguely sickened to see this level of money and interest in improving Iraq, when their Afghani neighbours are standing there with their bomb-torn begging-plate day after day asking for about triple the rebuilding assisttance they get now, so that they can improve their nation to "poor" status.

jc

It is rather an open unashamed purely business attitude by some American Business sponsored by the Bush administration.
Morally they have a duty to Afghanistan but their business code, ie desire for profit means nope, they won't do it.

Down to the smallest echelons of Business in the capitalist world , you are going to get this attitude and especially from a conservative Republican Whitehouse.

Even the millions committed by them recently to fight aids in Africa falls to that principal

mm

Sparks

When the anti-war movement protested way back before the start of war they said all America was interested in was oil now over six months on not a drop of oil taken from Iraq all we hear about now is the humanitarian crisis!

Is this nut sitting in a cave with his fingers in his ears and singing?
Tankers of oil have been sailing from Iraq for over a month now. Oil has been pumped out by pipeline pretty much uninterrupted since troops rolled past the oilfields. "not a drop taken"?? Sounds like someone's had a drop too many...

Tito

Originally posted by Kananga


I think it likely that people are attacking America because they are tired of having that country's opinions and way of life imposed upon them by military force.

Dear Kananga,
I think the weakness of your arguement is bourne out in the fact that you call me Sergant Pembury when I am in fact Tito/Lenin which were both communists.
Please enlighting me as to who is killiing America,British,Spainish,Polish soldiers over in Iraq at the moment.I never mentioned the Twin Towers that is a seperate issue but your ignorant mind cannot tell the difference between Iraq and Al Queda.Well boo hoo you seem to have ignored the fact that every convention is boken when that country deems it neccessary.For example Ireland has never met its target for third world aid.
America in my opinion has not forced it's opinions on anyone.I mean I have never heard of Americans storming a historic musem
I never heard of Americans running into disabled hospitals and rapeing women like so many Iraqi's.So to say America's opinion is been enforced on Iraq women and children is just not true.
I hate to disappoint you once more but shackling and blindfolding human beings is no where nearly as bad as watching Iraqi soldiers mutilating dead America's so I really think before you lecture about what happens at Guantanamo bay.
I live in Ireland I have visited many countries,I have also spoken to many goveronment officals in these countries even countries who have strained relations with America and even though they do not openly admit it everyone can now say we have seen the end of a tyrant.
You me documentation showings how many gallons of oil has left Iraq to America since the fall of Saddam.You will get your answer,then see who much France and Russia were receiving of Saddam and then think why they would not back America.
To me you seem to be one of these people who only care about what happens in Iraq because you are anti Bush if Bill Clinton was in charge you would not give a damn.
Thank you and good day

Tito

Originally posted by Sparks
Is this nut sitting in a cave with his fingers in his ears and singing?
Tankers of oil have been sailing from Iraq for over a month now. Oil has been pumped out by pipeline pretty much uninterrupted since troops rolled past the oilfields. "not a drop taken"?? Sounds like someone's had a drop too many...

With all due respect you must have been in a coma when saddam was in power for over two decades because you certainly did not protest then and when innocent people died in Kosovo you were not seen either so please do not take the moral high ground with me because you are just a fashion if good old cheating Bill as American president you would not look twice at what was happening in Iraq.
Fashion tart

Sparks

Fashion tart

Well, spank my bottom and call me alice. I've been well rebuffed by that comment there tito, and shall hereby revoke my right to ever have a political opinion ever again, and shall in fact never again vote, protest or do anything that might be seen as moral, all because when I was twelve, I didn't protest our beef deal with saddam.

Sleipnir

First of all, the line "ready when you are, Sargeant Pembury"
is my signature, it's on the end of all my posts. It's not directed at you (how could it possibly make any sense to!)
it's from a movie I'm sure you'll have heard of called
"The Silence of the Lambs"


Is it not a fact that
a.) Halliburton has been awarded oil contracts in Iraq?
b.) Halliburton is an American company?

"You me documentation showings how many gallons of oil has left Iraq to America since the fall of Saddam."

I honestly can't BELIEVE that you think America get's no oil whatsoever from the country which has the 2nd largest oil reserves in the world?
Where do you think America get's it's oil from, space???
You want numbers? Here are your numbers:

"Q. Who buys Iraqi oil?
A. The United States tends to be the biggest importer of Iraqi crude, buying 366,000 barrels a day during December 2002. Iraq was the seventh-biggest supplier of U.S. crude imports that month, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Iraq's other customers include France, Italy, Spain and the Netherlands. "

Last month, about two-thirds of Iraq's exports went to importers in North and South America. More than half of this amount ended up in the United States.

Source: http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/special/iraq/1826218

So that's one of your points blown out of the water. You're doing fine.

"Please enlighting me as to who is killiing America,British,Spainish,Polish soldiers over in Iraq at the moment."

Please enlighten me as to whether or not coalition soldiers would be killed in Iraq if America and Britian had not invaded Iraq?

"Well boo hoo you seem to have ignored the fact that every convention is boken when that country deems it neccessary"

Like America ignoring the U.N. resolution objecting to them going in without the support of the U.N.?
There's one broken convention.


"America in my opinion has not forced it's opinions on anyone.I mean I have never heard of Americans storming a historic musem"

Museums? I thought we were talking about the geo-politics of the recent war, not bits of bone.
So what about the Iraqi Council, chosen & appointed by the U.S. administration to run Iraq?

"I hate to disappoint you once more but shackling and blindfolding human beings is no where nearly as bad as watching Iraqi soldiers mutilating dead America's so I really think before you lecture about what happens at Guantanamo bay."

Oh, so it's ok then? I thought America was "the leader of the free world"?


I'm not even going to go through your other points, they are the idle ratings of someone who get's their news from Fox, NBC and ABC.
You're opinion has been created for you by the media coverage you've seen, not by forming it yourself.
You're opinions have no merit and no basis whatsoever in fact.
They are so non-sensical that I really am starting to believe that this is just a troll.

Sparks

I hate to disappoint you once more but shackling and blindfolding human beings is no where nearly as bad as watching Iraqi soldiers mutilating dead America's so I really think before you lecture about what happens at Guantanamo bay.

Someone doesn't seem to be taking too much note of the current accusations of torture in Guantanamo, or the documented murder of people in US custody just outside Kabul. Nor of the comments by US military officers that prisoners get routinely shipped overseas to "less squeamish nations" - effectively outsourcing torture.

And do we have to remind everyone that this is being done in violation of the Geneva Convention and that it's so bad that the Red Cross has actually made complaints about it? The Red Cross, don't forget, very rarely make such comments to avoid the perception of political bias, which would comprimise their work, but when people are being murdered just outside Kabul and the ICRC are denied access to them, it's just pissing on the Geneva conventions from so high up that they can't afford to ignore it.

Which makes you pause - the ICRC think that it's less comprimising to their work to condemn US actions and be seen as siding with the "suspected terrorists"???

Sleipnir

That is because, According to America, the inmates in Guantanemo Bay do not have the rights accorded to them under the Geneva convention.
They refuse to treat them as POW's, preferring to treat them as terrorists, even though most of the inmates belonged to an army of an internationally recognized government.

jesus_thats_gre

Originally posted by bonkey
Can someone explain to me how a wireless network is part of a rebuilding effort????? Did Iraq already have one or something, that its being rebuilt?

Also, am I the only person vaguely sickened to see this level of money and interest in improving Iraq, when their Afghani neighbours are standing there with their bomb-torn begging-plate day after day asking for about triple the rebuilding assisttance they get now, so that they can improve their nation to "poor" status.

jc

Surely you have to agree that for any economy to grow or this case actually start, you need a telecommunications infrastructure. Obviously they are not going to start laying miles and miles of fibre because it will probably be sabotaged or stolen, so a cellular network makes alot of sense.

jesus_thats_gre

Originally posted by Tito
Dear Mr Angry,
With due respect the only reason Iraq is not the Iraqis at the moment is because they are unable to behave in a respectable manner.Despite this fact people continue to attack America my question is why?
When the anti-war movement protested way back before the start of war they said all America was interested in was oil now over six months on not a drop of oil taken from Iraq all we hear about now is the humanitarian crisis!Well excuse me but nobody has said anything about the humanitarian crisis that has been in Iraq for 30 years.
Why dont these protestor bums for get a job and stop taking advantage of the state.Also one final note the Anti War movement does not have support of the working class which is the class that pays for everything in this country.
It only has support from Noble spoilt brats and peasants who just came out of the off license.

Any chance of addressing this TITO??????

Hobbes

That is because, According to America, the inmates in Guantanemo Bay do not have the rights accorded to them under the Geneva convention.

Except that they do. Lets call it by it's real name, a concentration camp.

Oh I'm sure some people will grab thier handbags and say "ooh aah well I never!" but a prison where people are detained without rights and sentanced to death in the place without having to show any evidence is called a concentration camp.

they had a show on BBC last night (early morning) about the concentration camp. Quite frightning that people are letting this happen in the US. I can only assume the US media has thier heads up thier asses.

US people speaking were going on about "They are all evil men" (sic) in the camp, however they fail to mention the children (which are in fact innocent, thier parents are being detained there in some instances) or some of the other people who were released after being in what amounts to an animal cage for nearly a year (one of them, thier only fault was being a baker who sold bread to the Taliban).

Absolutly beyond comprehension, and Bush and his group are no better then Saddam.

Q. Who buys Iraqi oil?

Not sure about after the war, but before it the US was the biggest exporter of Iraqi oil. They even upped the amount they took just before starting the war. Oh the irony.

but nobody has said anything about the humanitarian crisis that has been in Iraq for 30 years.

Hmm, not sure about that time frame, but the US put Saddam in power to help fight Iran and there wasn't any uproar when they supplied the goods to help him gas the Kurds.

Sparks

That is because, According to America, the inmates in Guantanemo Bay do not have the rights accorded to them under the Geneva convention.

Lovely idea, but the convention specifically denies them the right to make that assertion.

Sparks

Oh I'm sure some people will grab thier handbags and say "ooh aah well I never!" but a prison where people are detained without rights and sentanced to death in the place without having to show any evidence is called a concentration camp.

Actually, just to nitpick, that's not what the definition of a concentration camp is. But you're completely correct, Guantanamo Bay (and it's siblings run by the US in Afghanistan and Iraq, away from those pesky cameras and human rights activists), are our generation's take on 1938's Dachau.

bonkey

Gents - a little less of the poster-attacking, and a little more of the post-attacking wouldn't go astray in general here.

bonkey

Originally posted by Kananga
That is because, According to America, the inmates in Guantanemo Bay do not have the rights accorded to them under the Geneva convention.

But the Geneva Convention itself denies the US the right to make that decision.

In the event of there being any question about whether or not someone is covered, as would clearly be the case with any detainees from at least Iraq and Afghanistan, then the decision rests with the relevant UN-appointed authorities, not with the nations involved.

Imagine if the US had not set Gitmo up during a time of war. Imagine if they announced a war on terror without a military war, and then proceeded to round up suspects across the US and "export" them off to foreign soil to avoid sticky issues like having to give them rights. Imagine other nations extraditing criminal suspects to this no-mans land. Do you think that would be considered acceptable? I don't, and yet these are the only detainees in Guantanamo where it is even arguable that the US can decide whether or not the GC applies. In the rest of the cases, once there is any doubt, it is supposed to be referred to the UN.

jc



jc

Victor

Originally posted by Tito
Please enlighting me as to who is killiing ... Spainish,Polish soldiers over in Iraq at the moment.

Please tell me how many Spanish soldiers are in Iraq and how many Polish soldiers have been killed in Iraq?

Originally posted by Tito
For example Ireland has never met its target for third world aid.

Yes it has, however it hasn't met the UN target, but then again neither has any other country outside Scandanavia.

sovtek

Originally posted by Victor
Please tell me how many Spanish soldiers are in Iraq and how many Polish soldiers have been killed in Iraq? Yes it has, however it hasn't met the UN target, but then again neither has any other country outside Scandanavia.

As well it's higher, as a percentage of GNP, than America.

Sleipnir

It would appear that many Americans do not support Tito's views on Guantanamo Bay.
From today's independant.


"A group of former American judges, diplomats and military officers has called on the US Supreme Court to issue a ruling in relation to around 600 foreign inmates being detained at Guantanamo Bay. Hundreds of al Qaida and Taliban suspects have languished at the military prison on the island of Cuba, beyond the reach of legal process. The group is questioning the legality of their detention at the Cuban Base having being held now for a period of almost 2 years without trial. Former Appeals Court judge, John Gibbons, says justice denied is having the effect of tarnishing America's global reputation."


Now, does that sound like the 'justice' the U.S. administration keeps harping on about?

Tito

Originally posted by Sparks
Well, spank my bottom and call me alice. I've been well rebuffed by that comment there tito, and shall hereby revoke my right to ever have a political opinion ever again, and shall in fact never again vote, protest or do anything that might be seen as moral, all because when I was twelve, I didn't protest our beef deal with saddam.

The fact you did not protest about our beef deal with Saddam does not bother me but you were not twelve all your life and when Bill Clinton bombed innocent children in bus'es going to school in yugosalvia you and your great life saving friends were no where to be seen.Last year in Cuba six or more people were shot dead for opposing Castro's goveronment yet no one protested about that.This is why I believe you views are fundamentally inmoral because you are saying an Iraqi life outweighs that of a serb or that of a cuban and this is why I have no time for the anti war movement.

Tito

Originally posted by Kananga
It would appear that many Americans do not support Tito's views on Guantanamo Bay.
From today's independant.


"A group of former American judges, diplomats and military officers has called on the US Supreme Court to issue a ruling in relation to around 600 foreign inmates being detained at Guantanamo Bay. Hundreds of al Qaida and Taliban suspects have languished at the military prison on the island of Cuba, beyond the reach of legal process. The group is questioning the legality of their detention at the Cuban Base having being held now for a period of almost 2 years without trial. Former Appeals Court judge, John Gibbons, says justice denied is having the effect of tarnishing America's global reputation."


Now, does that sound like the 'justice' the U.S. administration keeps harping on about?

It would appear not everyone supports the anti war movement by the fact goveronment allowed US planes stop over.At the end of the day someone's nose is always out of joint but you brought my first point back up here again.The people who have called on the supreme court are judges,military officers etc spoilt brats in other words and not working class people.I would like to see how they would be treated in Jordan or Iran etc if arrested.
Midnight Express springs to mind

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Tito
The people who have called on the supreme court are judges,military officers etc spoilt brats in other words and not working class people.

What the Hell are you trying to say there? The anti-War movement is part of a middle class conspiracy? Anyone who’s not working class (whatever the Hell that means anymore) isn’t worth listening to? Or you’re a time traveller sent by Lenin to convince us that the last century didn’t happen and that the whole class struggle wasn’t just a load of rubbish invented by middle-class intellectuals with silly beards as a means to meet girls?

Sleipnir

Originally posted by Tito
It would appear not everyone supports the anti war movement by the fact goveronment allowed US planes stop over.At the end of the day someone's nose is always out of joint but you brought my first point back up here again.The people who have called on the supreme court are judges,military officers etc spoilt brats in other words and not working class people.I would like to see how they would be treated in Jordan or Iran etc if arrested.
Midnight Express springs to mind

I find it quite amazing that you call yourself a communist, and yet appear to unwaveringly support the greatest capitalist country in the world.

You never did reply to my facts about American oil imports from Iraq. Where you said America has never received a drop of oil from Iraq, and it was shown that, in fact, America imports half of what Iraq (the country with the 2nd largest reserves in the world) exports?
Would you like to offer a complete retraction of that part of your statement? And perhaps admit that you were wrong?
If you have a position on something, you must be in a position to defend it.

Anyway, onto your points on the inmates of Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

"The people who have called on the supreme court are judges,military officers etc spoilt brats in other words and not working class people"

So what you're saying is that the people of America might take more notice of the atrocities that are taking place in their own name if the guy cleaning tables at McDonalds and a bus driver stand up and say they disagree with the prisoners' treatment?

Let's go through the article again;

"The group is questioning the legality of their detention...."

So you're saying that a Former Appeals Court judge is not the right person who should be questioning the legality of the dententions.
You're saying someone who has no knowledge of U.S. or International law (or any legal experience at all) would be better?

"The people" can't call on Supreme Court, they use representatives such as judges to do this for them.

How the prisoners would be treated in another country is irrelevant.
They are being detained by "the land of the free" where "justice for all" is repeated by every schoolchild in America every morning.
Their rights under the Geneva Convention are being denied them and this is wrong, in any country.

Read this before you go back to being brainwashed.

"WASHINGTON - The more commercial television news you watch, the more wrong you are likely to be about key elements of the Iraq War and its aftermath, according to a major new study released in Washington on Thursday.

And the more you watch the Rupert Murdoch-owned Fox News channel, in particular, the more likely it is that your perceptions about the war are wrong, adds the report by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA).

Based on several nationwide surveys it conducted with California-based Knowledge Networks since June, as well as the results of other polls, PIPA found that 48 percent of the public believe US troops found evidence of close pre-war links between Iraq and the al-Qaeda terrorist group; 22 percent thought troops found weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq; and 25 percent believed that world public opinion favored Washington's going to war with Iraq. All three are misperceptions.

The report, Misperceptions, the Media and the Iraq War, also found that the more misperceptions held by the respondent, the more likely it was that s/he both supported the war and depended on commercial television for news about it.

The study is likely to stoke a growing public and professional debate over why mainstream news media - especially the broadcast media - were not more skeptical about the Bush administration's pre-war claims, particularly regarding Saddam Hussein's WMD stockpiles and ties with al-Qaeda. "

Tito

Originally posted by The Corinthian
What the Hell are you trying to say there? The anti-War movement is part of a middle class conspiracy? Anyone who’s not working class (whatever the Hell that means anymore) isn’t worth listening to? Or you’re a time traveller sent by Lenin to convince us that the last century didn’t happen and that the whole class struggle wasn’t just a load of rubbish invented by middle-class intellectuals with silly beards as a means to meet girls?

Please let me explain in our society here we have four level of societies.The peasants of which there are many good with the few bad apples who claim as much as they can from the state.Then comes the working classs who pay face heavy tax's and are cannot receive any grants.Then the final two layers are middle class and Nobles who because they are from the same stock as the present minister face modest tax's per capita income and thus concludes the working class pay for everything and you receive no reward for living an honest life.
When we live in a fair society I will then gladly listen to middle class people and maybe then I will listen to the Thrills but not till that day

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Tito
Please let me explain in our society here we have four level of societies.The peasants of which there are many good with the few bad apples who claim as much as they can from the state.Then comes the working classs who pay face heavy tax's and are cannot receive any grants.Then the final two layers are middle class and Nobles who because they are from the same stock as the present minister face modest tax's per capita income and thus concludes the working class pay for everything and you receive no reward for living an honest life.
When we live in a fair society I will then gladly listen to middle class people and maybe then I will listen to the Thrills but not till that day

I’ll admit this is off topic, but I’m fascinated. Your ideology seems to be based upon a rigid clas, or perhaps more correctly cast, system of your invention. You identify peasants as effectively the long term unemployed. You then assume that the working class (I assume you mean anyone below middle management in occupation) is the sole contributor to an economy. Then you seem to lump together the middle and noble classes together (I can only assume that the latter are the idle rich) as some parasitic group that contributes nothing to society.

It sounds vaguely like the ideology of someone who once read a leaflet about class struggle but never bothered to find out what it was and has subsequently made up his own version. You seem grossly ill informed on the topic as well as the fundamentals of macroeconomics. Many of your terms are even incorrect.

I recommend you read a few books on economics; including the Wealth of Nations and Das Kapital, then you may be taken seriously at the grown-up table yourself.

bonkey

C'mon...I've asked once, and I don't intend to ask again. Play nice.

jc

Sparks

Originally posted by Tito
The fact you did not protest about our beef deal with Saddam does not bother me but you were not twelve all your life and when Bill Clinton bombed innocent children in bus'es going to school in yugosalvia you and your great life saving friends were no where to be seen.

Factually incorrect. Not only do you know where I was, you don't know what I thought about yugoslavia. And I happened to think it was wrong, FYI.

Where were you tito?

Hobbes

OMG on the BBC2 just now, they were talking to the business people about how the US are taking all the contracts.

One of the people they spoke to was an Iraqi official who is put in place by the US. The conversation was something like this (sic).

Reporter: Do you think when Iraq elects a government they will cancel or renegotiate the contracts?

Woman: No, they won't be changing the contracts.

Reporter: How do you know this?

Woman: Well they are contracts.

Reporter: So you are saying when Iraqi has a government they will not be allowed change the contracts they had no say on signing?

Woman: (Smiling) Yes that is correct.

Sleipnir

She didn't mention how long the contracts were for I suppose?
Not a year I'd imagine, more like 10. Or 50!

bonkey

Originally posted by Hobbes
Reporter: So you are saying when Iraqi has a government they will not be allowed change the contracts they had no say on signing?

The correct answer to this one is apparently "that depends on who made it in the first place".

If it was made by Saddam et al, then obviously it can be removed or replaced as needed. If it was made by the US since the deposing of SAddam, then it won't be touchable.

Isn't freedom strange like that...

jc

Tito

Originally posted by Kananga
I find it quite amazing that you call yourself a communist, and yet appear to unwaveringly support the greatest capitalist country in the world.

You never did reply to my facts about American oil imports from Iraq. Where you said America has never received a drop of oil from Iraq, and it was shown that, in fact, America imports half of what Iraq (the country with the 2nd largest reserves in the world) exports?
Would you like to offer a complete retraction of that part of your statement? And perhaps admit that you were wrong?
If you have a position on something, you must be in a position to defend it.

Anyway, onto your points on the inmates of Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

"The people who have called on the supreme court are judges,military officers etc spoilt brats in other words and not working class people"

So what you're saying is that the people of America might take more notice of the atrocities that are taking place in their own name if the guy cleaning tables at McDonalds and a bus driver stand up and say they disagree with the prisoners' treatment?

Let's go through the article again;

"The group is questioning the legality of their detention...."

So you're saying that a Former Appeals Court judge is not the right person who should be questioning the legality of the dententions.
You're saying someone who has no knowledge of U.S. or International law (or any legal experience at all) would be better?

"The people" can't call on Supreme Court, they use representatives such as judges to do this for them.

How the prisoners would be treated in another country is irrelevant.
They are being detained by "the land of the free" where "justice for all" is repeated by every schoolchild in America every morning.
Their rights under the Geneva Convention are being denied them and this is wrong, in any country.

Read this before you go back to being brainwashed.

"WASHINGTON - The more commercial television news you watch, the more wrong you are likely to be about key elements of the Iraq War and its aftermath, according to a major new study released in Washington on Thursday.

And the more you watch the Rupert Murdoch-owned Fox News channel, in particular, the more likely it is that your perceptions about the war are wrong, adds the report by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA).

Based on several nationwide surveys it conducted with California-based Knowledge Networks since June, as well as the results of other polls, PIPA found that 48 percent of the public believe US troops found evidence of close pre-war links between Iraq and the al-Qaeda terrorist group; 22 percent thought troops found weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq; and 25 percent believed that world public opinion favored Washington's going to war with Iraq. All three are misperceptions.

The report, Misperceptions, the Media and the Iraq War, also found that the more misperceptions held by the respondent, the more likely it was that s/he both supported the war and depended on commercial television for news about it.

The study is likely to stoke a growing public and professional debate over why mainstream news media - especially the broadcast media - were not more skeptical about the Bush administration's pre-war claims, particularly regarding Saddam Hussein's WMD stockpiles and ties with al-Qaeda. "

Looking for closure on this issue I will try answer all query's here.
Yes I am communist,was Saddam communist?the answer is no aside from that he was a butcher who on the meeting in which he took power he sent 30 men to their death.Force was the only way for removal of such a tyrant and the logical way for this to occur was to have a country with major military options to carry it out,sadly America is a superpower and I would say only superpower,thus this is the best way of removal of Saddam.Also just because America is capitalist does not mean their are no communist's in America in fact Paul Robeson was one famous communist made a scapegoat during communost witch hunts.

In relation to facts you present I feel it is a bit like the No To Nice movement who tossed out alot of misleading information.In fact if you read the Sunday Independent sunday the 12th there was an article which stated 84% of Iraq is functioning normally and 68% of Iraq people want the Americans to stay,it also states RTE of giving a bad representation of the facts.

People lost lives in Iraq and it is sad I cant deny that but in the long term a nation can prosper and grow.A nation where people can live free from fear.

Now I hate to dissappoint you but I do have a telly at home and the only telly I see is if a friend of mine has one on when I visit their house and when I do we have better things to discuss than looking at telly.I listen to RTE radio one alright and I do have a pc.So I hope that issue is put to bed.

Finally to the other person who says my idealogy is weak I disagree with him totally.I have read many books and met many people that have shaped my idealogy.In fact I once met Ivan Stambolic.

Once again time runs out on me but its good to listen

Sleipnir

Now you have ignored all posts regarding Guantanemo Bay; I will assume that is because you are in an indefensible position and cannot argue against the points myself and other posters have stated.

I still see nothing on your "America has not taken a drop of oil from Iraq" remarks.
This really proved to me that you really know nothing about the conflict in Iraq. You're are quite misinformed about the whole thing.
How you could not have known that America gets oil from Iraq, at all, is beyond comprehension.

Nor do you mention anything about the fact the the U.S. (along with other western countries) supplied weapons to Iraq in the past.
Oil was the lynchpin of the war in Iraq (both times)
Saddam has been in power for the past two decades. During that period he has commited many atrocities. Why was it only in 2003 that it was decided to remove him?
Don't mention the "imminent threat of WMD's" because there aren't any.
So why the rush?
They didn't rush in to save the Iraqi's when it was shown that he had used chemical weapons on the Kurds (in the 70's or 80's?)
Why didn't they do it then?

The reason it wasn't done then was because it didn't really effect the West. Their oil was secure.

"In relation to facts you present I feel it is a bit like the No To Nice movement who tossed out alot of misleading information.In fact if you read the Sunday Independent sunday the 12th there was an article which stated 84% of Iraq is functioning normally and 68% of Iraq people want the Americans to stay,it also states RTE of giving a bad representation of the facts"

WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE NICE CAMPAIGN. Please try to stay on topic.
Are these women happy?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=118177

"People lost lives in Iraq and it is sad I cant deny that but in the long term a nation can prosper and grow. A nation where people can live free from fear."

And controlled by the United States. Owned by the United States.

have a read of this and tell me America had no serious economic reasons for going to war.
Essay

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Tito
Yes I am communist,was Saddam communist?the answer is no aside from that he was a butcher who on the meeting in which he took power he sent 30 men to their death.

So what you’ve just said is that you are a communist and Saddam was not, outside of his ability to commit atrocities. I invite you to rephrase that statement, as what it is currently saying in English would not be terribly flattering to the ideology you claim to support.

Finally to the other person who says my idealogy is weak I disagree with him totally.I have read many books and met many people that have shaped my idealogy.In fact I once met Ivan Stambolic.

I once attended a dinner party with Gore Vidal, but it hardly makes me a writer. Or homosexual for that matter.

I made an observation based upon your misuse of terms and rather original interpretation of class struggle. You can refute this by describing where you’re coming from socially and economically, with the use of references to relevant sources. Feel free to start another thread on the subject. As I said; I’m fascinated to know more...

Originally posted by bonkey
The correct answer to this one is apparently "that depends on who made it in the first place".

If it was made by Saddam et al, then obviously it can be removed or replaced as needed. If it was made by the US since the deposing of SAddam, then it won't be touchable.

Isn't freedom strange like that...

jc

Wouldn't it be interesting if there was a loophole whereby they could tax non Iraqi corporations profits by lets say a liberal amount (100%)...
They could call it a reconstruction levy

mm

shotamoose

Originally posted by Hobbes
OMG on the BBC2 just now, they were talking to the business people about how the US are taking all the contracts.

One of the people they spoke to was an Iraqi official who is put in place by the US. The conversation was something like this (sic).

Reporter: Do you think when Iraq elects a government they will cancel or renegotiate the contracts?

Woman: No, they won't be changing the contracts.

Reporter: How do you know this?

Woman: Well they are contracts.

Reporter: So you are saying when Iraqi has a government they will not be allowed change the contracts they had no say on signing?

Woman: (Smiling) Yes that is correct.

I notice the World Bank is thinking of loaning Iraq around £1bn this year. Presumably if and when Iraq gets its own democratic government it will have to honour this loan, despite it having no say in the original decision.

Tito

Originally posted by Kananga
Now you have ignored all posts regarding Guantanemo Bay; I will assume that is because you are in an indefensible position and cannot argue against the points myself and other posters have stated.

Oh yes!I know very little about Iraq?Strange that your point is based around Guantanemo Bay.Last I checked Guantanemo Bay was not part of Iraq?


I still see nothing on your "America has not taken a drop of oil from Iraq" remarks.
This really proved to me that you really know nothing about the conflict in Iraq. You're are quite misinformed about the whole thing.
How you could not have known that America gets oil from Iraq, at all, is beyond comprehension.

The fact I am merely stating is before the war when the Anti War movement took to the streets it was all about America going after oil.What I tried to point out is production has not increased and America receieves oil in larger quanitites from many different countries eg Suadi.I did not type this in the right manner maybe!please excuse me


Nor do you mention anything about the fact the the U.S. (along with other western countries) supplied weapons to Iraq in the past.
Oil was the lynchpin of the war in Iraq (both times)
Saddam has been in power for the past two decades. During that period he has commited many atrocities. Why was it only in 2003 that it was decided to remove him?
Don't mention the "imminent threat of WMD's" because there aren't any.
So why the rush?
They didn't rush in to save the Iraqi's when it was shown that he had used chemical weapons on the Kurds (in the 70's or 80's?)
Why didn't they do it then?

As I have stated in last message I wanted to see the removal of Saddam and the best way of seen this achieved is to have the biggest power in the world remove him.I think it is a bit harsh on your behalf to attack America on suppling Iraq years ago,it was a Regan not Bush that did that mostly.So Bush is correcting a wrong



The reason it wasn't done then was because it didn't really effect the West. Their oil was secure.

"In relation to facts you present I feel it is a bit like the No To Nice movement who tossed out alot of misleading information.In fact if you read the Sunday Independent sunday the 12th there was an article which stated 84% of Iraq is functioning normally and 68% of Iraq people want the Americans to stay,it also states RTE of giving a bad representation of the facts"

WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE NICE CAMPAIGN. Please try to stay on topic.
Are these women happy?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=118177

I said you have misleading information and made reference to Nice campaign and I find it quite hard to stomach this when you harp on about Guantanemo Bay

"People lost lives in Iraq and it is sad I cant deny that but in the long term a nation can prosper and grow. A nation where people can live free from fear."

And controlled by the United States. Owned by the United States.

have a read of this and tell me America had no serious economic reasons for going to war.
Essay

The removal of Saddam was the only reason I back America.It is also a fact France and Russia were against war was for economic reasons.
I do not believe America went to war for economic reasons and that is reflected in the fact 68% of Iraq people still want them there.
Please stop providing links to your flashy anti-war sites.
Thank you

Sleipnir

So you didn't even read it?
You're trying to stay with your blinkered views.
You have no desire to learn or to question your own views and for that reason, have no place attempting to debate with people who research and question what they see and hear.

Your 'beliefs' about why America went to war are irrelevant. This isn't about beliefs, it's about facts; what happened and why?
Not some airy-fairy
"I believe America went to war because Mickey Mouse told them to. That's my belief"
You can believe whatever you want.

Flashy anti-war sites? Are you serious? What a ridiculous attitude you really have.
If you have no to desire to be inform yourself that's up to you. But don't expect any of us to listen to your unverifiable twaddle.

QUIT POSTING ABOUT SUBJECTS YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT!

.Also, please edit where you have what I said in quotes above. You added your own comments to my posting within the quote marks. It looks like I said those ridiculous things. You should know not to edit when you 'quote' people

<EDIT> This is that last time I will reply to your posts. I'm not interested in getting into a flaming war with one such as yourself.
I simply will not read your posts and will only reply to those who have something of importance/relevance to say

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Tito
It is also a fact France and Russia were against war was for economic reasons.

How is it a fact? Please back that up with evidence (not hearsay).

I do not believe America went to war for economic reasons and that is reflected in the fact 68% of Iraq people still want them there.

How is this reflected by that statistic? Seriously, how do you logically connect one to the other? Correlation does not imply causation.

Please stop providing links to your flashy anti-war sites.

His links may potentially lead to poor evidence, but it’s a Hell of a lot more evidence than you appear to be providing.