Iraq for Sale

bobbyjoe

The Coalition Provisional Authority has been busy making new rules:

Hundreds of thousands of state workers have been laid off.
Over 200 state owned enterprises including electricity, telecommunications have been sold off.
Direct foreign ownership of assets has been made legal for the first time
100% remittance of all profits, dividends, interest and royalties to the overseas owners none of which have to be reinvested in Iraq.
100% private ownership in all sectors (except natural resources)

The contract for the phone system went to MCI who use a system that is incompatible with every other wireless network in the Middle East.
Halliburton and Bechtel who have already gotten contracts (without bidding) worth over $1 billion
The oil revenue is remaining in the hands of the occupiers and used to pay for infrastructure ie: subsidise the privatised industries.

What right does this body have to sell off the property of the people they claim to be liberating?
This violates the Geneva and Hague conventions.

Is there any justification for this other than pure pillage?

Hobbes

Apprantly you can do it if you install a puppet government to implement the laws to allow it beforehand.

And people wonder why Iraqis are joining the insurgents.

Christian_H

I don't think it was ever in doubt that Iraq would be sold to the globalised eltie.

In time if the Iraqs truly unstand the nature of what has just happened they may revolt.

An Iraq revolution and throwing out of the US is the natural process needed now. If it doesn't happen we are all ****ed. If 25 million Iraqs don't throw out their new slave masters then this marks a strengtning of the US and justification of what they have done.

Its now in the hands of the People of Iraq. If they stand up to the Imperical decadence of the US, they will do something we could never do.

PH01

If you're Israeli can you now buy land in Iraq?
Most Arabic countries don't allow this.

Nuttzz

bobbyjoe wrote:

.
Over 200 state owned enterprises including electricity, telecommunications have been sold off.

Like eircom here?

bobbyjoe wrote:

Direct foreign ownership of assets has been made legal for the first time
100% remittance of all profits, dividends, interest and royalties to the overseas owners none of which have to be reinvested in Iraq.
100% private ownership in all sectors (except natural resources)

Like HP, Intel & Dell here?

bobbyjoe wrote:

The contract for the phone system went to MCI who use a system that is incompatible with every other wireless network in the Middle East.

Like NTL's phone system here?

SkepticOne

Nuttzz wrote:

Like eircom here?

Not really a poster-boy for the benefits of the foreign ownership of monopolies.

mike65

I'm not going to excuse the stitch-up involving companies like Haliburton and that said, so what? Iraq introduced to 21st century economics. Not news.

100% private ownership in all sectors (except natural resources)

Whoops they missed a trick!

Mike.

shotamoose

No, this is a scandal. The 'Coalition' Provisional Authority unilaterally forced onto Iraq the kind of shock-therapy economic policies that (a) it would never accept itself, (b) which were so notably succesful at plunging the former Soviet Union countries into massive economic decline, and (c) which rule out precisely the kind of policies used so succesfully by the Asian Tiger economies and other succesful developing countries in the 20th Century.

If it wasn't for one of the few remaining un-marketised policies, i.e. the distribution of free food rations, a pretty large fraction of the population would be starving. Sacking all those soldiers and state workers has also no doubt strengthened the support for anti-Coalition violence and resistance. The Coalition's approach to Iraq's economy has been illegal, short-sighted and deeply stupid.

Captain Trips

shotamoose wrote:

No, this is a scandal. The 'Coalition' Provisional Authority unilaterally forced onto Iraq the kind of shock-therapy economic policies that (a) it would never accept itself, (b) which were so notably succesful at plunging the former Soviet Union countries into massive economic decline, and (c) which rule out precisely the kind of policies used so succesfully by the Asian Tiger economies and other succesful developing countries in the 20th Century.

If it wasn't for one of the few remaining un-marketised policies, i.e. the distribution of free food rations, a pretty large fraction of the population would be starving. Sacking all those soldiers and state workers has also no doubt strengthened the support for anti-Coalition violence and resistance. The Coalition's approach to Iraq's economy has been illegal, short-sighted and deeply stupid.

There is a great article on http://www.harpers.org/BaghdadYearZero.html explaining the "shock and awe" and what it meant in reality: start trying to flog Iraq to a multitude of multinationals very quickly before a) the population realise it and b) the companies realise Iraq is in a load of ****. Reading the above article you could forgive the neocons - they believed Iraqis were as dumb as typical Americans and wouldn't fight back. This explains why Bremer arrived and departed Iraq rather promptly last Spring/Summer, and why selling off someone's country isn't easy when they haven't been conditioned to accept it first (aka USA).

http://www.defenselink.mil/contracts/ shows the daily yes DAILY contracts for absolutely mad sums of money going through the DoD. Have a random click and see how much went on a given day in November - 10 million here, 40 million there and another 30 million somewhere else all in a morning's work.

Memnoch

Nuttzz wrote:

Like eircom here?



Like HP, Intel & Dell here?



Like NTL's phone system here?

the problem is that the CPA has no authority to sell off iraqi's state owned infrastructure.

Its a puppet government installed by the US, and therefore all its actions are in the best interest of the US administration, not the Iraqi's. Even the UN resolution authorising the existence of a transitional government refused to give it the authority to do this. Because this is pillaging, pure and simple.

I find it surprising that somehow you overlook the fact that in Ireland these companies have been allowed in and are operating at the permission of our democratically elected government, as opposed to in Iraq where the CPA has no right (other than america's guns) to do what it is currently doing.

also you are also conveniently ignoring how in fact its not just "telecommunications" that have been sold off but virtually every state owned company barring a small number.

It seems that you are ignoring the most fundamental point in the arguement presented while making your post, and it seems to be either a case of

a) that you are blind to this obvious point, which was what the post was about (i.e. the CPA's authority or lack thereof to sell off iraqi assets and not the fact that western companies are involved).

b) purposefully misleading by throwing in a red herring into the arguement as you have no real debate to offer on the issue.

Memnoch

mike65 wrote:

I'm not going to excuse the stitch-up involving companies like Haliburton and that said, so what? Iraq introduced to 21st century economics. Not news.



Whoops they missed a trick!

Mike.

again you are doing the exact same thing as nuttzz..

the point isn't the TYPE of economics introduced, weather you agree with free market economics or NOT.. the point is... that the

CPA HAS NO AUTHORITY to act in this manner.

Its a puppet government appointed by the US, and so can only be said to be acting in the interests of those that have appointed it. Hence it is not representative of iraq, and does not have the right to sell of iraq.

The analogy here would be if tomorrow the british government, or a british government appointed provisional irish authority were to start deciding to sell of Irish state owned companies. How well would that sit with you?

shotamoose

Might be an opportune moment to mention a book I read recently, "World on Fire" by Amy Chua. She says that introducing 'big bang' free-market reforms and 'shallow democratisation' (i.e. elections without the various other institutions that underpin democracy in practice) in poor countries with sharp ethnic and economic divides is a recipe for disaster. Loads of examples are provided.

But maybe the Iraqis will manage to avoid the worst of it by making the elections as undemocratic as possible.

chill

Yes they have made excellent progres to privatise old failed shambled industries. More power to them, bringing in money, developing infrastructure and making people's lives better off.
I never realised that they had done such brilliant work in such a short time. It took us decades to get rid of Eircom as our monopolist.

Memnoch

chill - out side of your door is reality...

you should step out some time and take a look at it. You might be intrigued

Nuttzz

my point is thta his has happened in the west,long before the iraq invasion

Memnoch wrote:

the problem is that the CPA has no authority to sell off iraqi's state owned infrastructure.

says who?

Its a puppet government installed by the US, and therefore all its actions are in the best interest of the US administration, not the Iraqi's.

Memnoch wrote:

Even the UN resolution authorising the existence of a transitional government refused to give it the authority to do this. Because this is pillaging, pure and simple.

forgive my ignorance but germay 1945 wasnt much different

Memnoch wrote:

I find it surprising that somehow you overlook the fact that in Ireland these companies have been allowed in and are operating at the permission of our democratically elected government, as opposed to in Iraq where the CPA has no right (other than america's guns) to do what it is currently doing.

surely there is eu restrictions>

Memnoch wrote:

also you are also conveniently ignoring how in fact its not just "telecommunications" that have been sold off but virtually every state owned company barring a small number.

telecommunications is one of the few profit making compaines in the ME

Memnoch wrote:

It seems that you are ignoring the most fundamental point in the arguement presented while making your post, and it seems to be either a case of

a) that you are blind to this obvious point, which was what the post was about (i.e. the CPA's authority or lack thereof to sell off iraqi assets and not the fact that western companies are involved).

b) purposefully misleading by throwing in a red herring into the arguement as you have no real debate to offer on the issue.

from your POV but I have seen many irish assets sold off to irish compaines or sffer undue infleuence like NTR, connex, dublin bus.....

SkepticOne

Memnoch wrote:

Even the UN resolution authorising the existence of a transitional government refused to give it the authority to do this.

If the UN recognises the authority of the transitional government then it means that that transitional governmnet has the authority to privatise or nationalse industries as it sees fit. I'm fully aware of the reality of this body and the fact that it is under the thumb of the US, but afaik, the UN has no official say in what is now - as far as the UN is concerned - an internal matter.

chill

Memnoch wrote:

chill - out side of your door is reality...

you should step out some time and take a look at it. You might be intrigued

Not by your warped sense of reality. Hurrah for the Iraqi successes, all of which wuold have remained in the personal hands of Saddam who was milking every person in Iraq, if the anti war agenda had their way. Now the people are getting the benefit. It's good news all the way.

billy the squid

chill wrote:

Yes they have made excellent progres to privatise old failed shambled industries. More power to them, bringing in money, developing infrastructure and making people's lives better off.

You should really read that Year Zero Doccument which was linked above. The reason we have insurgents is that people, who have been put out of work by the occupiers of Iraq, have no other hope of feeding their families other than taking on those occupiers.

The only direction money is going is out of Iraq, Haliburton has been given umteen no contest contracts to do whatever they do in Iraq.

Really you should take a trip to guantanimo bay, where there are thousands of people being held without trial for the past several years. How is their life any better.

chill wrote:

Hurrah for the Iraqi successes,

If Iraq has been such a success then Why on God's green earth are the americans sending even more troops over there.

chill wrote:

all of which wuold have remained in the personal hands of Saddam who was milking every person in Iraq, if the anti war agenda had their way.

The only thing that has changed is the person doing the milking of the people.

bobbyjoe

Now the people are getting the benefit.

How are the people getting the benefit from their national industries being sold off?

BuffyBot

Now the people are getting the benefit.

Tell us more. This I'd love to hear..

chill

billy the squid wrote:

You should really read that Year Zero Doccument which was linked above. The reason we have insurgents is that people, who have been put out of work by the occupiers of Iraq, have no other hope of feeding their families other than taking on those occupiers.

The insurgents are not Iraqi's so your point is moot. Freedom is far better than work.

The only direction money is going is out of Iraq, Haliburton has been given umteen no contest contracts to do whatever they do in Iraq.

Wrong. Money is being spent in billions on rebuilding projects and infrastructure projects in Iraq employing many people. Your obsession with the dubious nature of Halliburtons delaings blinds you to the realities.

Really you should take a trip to guantanimo bay, where there are thousands of people being held without trial for the past several years. How is their life any better.

I hope they never get out. They will only go back to killing and murdering.

If Iraq has been such a success then Why on God's green earth are the americans sending even more troops over there.

Because they are need to ensure the people of Iraq get the right to vote. Somehting that you clearly don't value on their behalf. I do.

The only thing that has changed is the person doing the milking of the people.

Well considering you were happy to see Saddam continue in power.. I don't see how you give a sh1t one way of the other then.

Hobbes

chill wrote:

Yes they have made excellent progres to privatise old failed shambled industries. More power to them, bringing in money, developing infrastructure and making people's lives better off.

No seriously.. what reality are you in? The laws in place are tantamount to criminal. I would be surprised any other country in the world had the same rules for companies.

For example, bringing money in? They are allowed remove 100% of profit without reinvesting in Iraq and they can't be taxed on it.

Or a good example was the concrete companies. More then enough in Iraq to fill the reconstruction orders, but none were allowed tender on the contracts. So those companies go out of business or left to rot and then picked up by forigen companies for pittance and basically stripped of its assets.

There is absolutly no comparison to Eircom what so ever.

But maybe your right.. please cite sources.

bobbyjoe

The insurgents are not Iraqi's so your point is moot. Freedom is far better than work

You really think this? A tiny proportion of the insurgents are non-iraqi.
Out of 1000 captured in Fallujah 15 were not Iraqi.
Sounds like that "they hate our freedom" bs its actualy "they hate our foreign policy"

I hope they never get out. They will only go back to killing and murdering.

Many of those in there were rounded up are innocent even top US intelligence people think so. If they weren't terrorist before being captured they are now.

Well considering you were happy to see Saddam continue in power.. I don't see how you give a sh1t one way of the other then.

Stupid arguement. Anyone who critisises whats going on is a "Sadamm Lover".
Sadamms worst atrocity was the gassing of the Kurds which killed 5,000 the "coalition of the willing" have killed an estimated 100,000.

shotamoose

bobbyjoe wrote:

Sadamms worst atrocity was the gassing of the Kurds which killed 5,000 the "coalition of the willing" have killed an estimated 100,000.

You're not really comparing like with like there. The gassing of the Kurds was Saddam's single biggest atrocity, but certainly not the only one. I might be wrong, but I don't think the Coalition have killed 5,000 people in a single act at any stage. If they've caused 100,000 extra deaths (and the evidence for that seems pretty strong) in around 18 months (or whatever the timespan has been), then that may or may not be more than Saddam's 'best' 18 months.

But we're getting off-topic here ...

chewy

"The insurgents are not Iraqi's"
"The insurgents are not Iraqi's"
"The insurgents are not Iraqi's"
"The insurgents are not Iraqi's"

Redleslie2

chewy wrote:

"The insurgents are not Iraqi's"
"The insurgents are not Iraqi's"
"The insurgents are not Iraqi's"
"The insurgents are not Iraqi's"

I think I know where he gets his information from. Is this man working for Mr.Allawi's government now?

chill

Hobbes wrote:

No seriously.. what reality are you in? The laws in place are tantamount to criminal. I would be surprised any other country in the world had the same rules for companies.

They are not crimimal and are necessary for the success of the country and it's people.

For example, bringing money in? They are allowed remove 100% of profit without reinvesting in Iraq and they can't be taxed on it.

I see no problem with removing their profit ... that's standard for any investing company ina free market society and thankfull they are starting with good free market systems. The benefits to the country are more imnportant than taxes right now and I am sure taxation will be sorted out by the elected government in due course.

Or a good example was the concrete companies. More then enough in Iraq to fill the reconstruction orders,

There is ? Really ? Are you sure ? Who would supply this ? what companies could manage the scale involved ? Are there any such companies that have the capability and logistics to do so ? I would love to know.

So those companies go out of business or left to rot and then picked up by forigen companies for pittance and basically stripped of its assets.

What companies ? How can they be stripped of their assets when there are virtually no such assets to strip ? I would love to know what companies these are ?

But maybe your right.. please cite sources.

With all of these claims about companies being stripped and al of these capable Iraqi companies... how about citing some yourself ?

Magnolia_Fan

mike65 wrote:

I'm not going to excuse the stitch-up involving companies like Haliburton and that said, so what? Iraq introduced to 21st century economics. Not news.



Whoops they missed a trick!

Mike.

The only one I'd be p!ssed at is Halliburton cus of Cheneys influence plus the fact that that company is selling supplys to the troops..well not supplys just luxurys like Sweets,Drink etc. and its come out that they were charging almost double price for a can of coke!, I unlike everyone else here don't have a problem with Bush but Cheney certainly gets under my skin and I feel he probably has alot of sway with Bush

Magnolia_Fan

Redleslie2 wrote:

I think I know where he gets his information from. Is this man working for Mr.Allawi's government now?

Didn't he hang himself?...maybe I'm wrong and isn't his son a dentist in Dublin?

bobbyjoe

Chill: They are not crimimal and are necessary for the success of the country and it's people.

It is actually illegal
Article 55 of the Hague Regulations, the US-UK are "regarded only as administrator and usufructuary" of Iraq's resources and immovable property, which it must administer "in accordance with the rules of usufruct."

Usufruct means: "The right of enjoying a thing, the property of which is vested in another, and to draw from the same all the profit, utility and advantage which it may produce, provided it be without altering the substance of the thing."

As Naomi Klein points out, "What could more substantially alter 'the substance' of a public asset than to turn it into a private one?"

Its also against the Geneva conventions

Article 53: Any destruction by the occupying power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the state, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organisations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.
Article 54: The occupying power may not alter the status of public officials or judges in the occupied territories, or in any way apply sanctions to or take any measures of coercion or discrimination against them, should they abstain from fulfilling their functions for reasons of conscience.

Also
“In a leaked March 26 memo that caused a stir in the UK, attorney general Lord Peter Goldsmith advised prime minister Blair that the invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq was illegal. "My view is that a further security council resolution is needed to authorise imposing reform and restructuring of Iraq and its government," Lord Goldsmith wrote. He added that in his view "the imposition of major structural economic reforms would not be authorised by international law," and that "the longer the occupation of Iraq continues, and the more the tasks undertaken by an interim administration depart from the main objective [of disarming Saddam], the more difficult it will be to justify the lawfulness of the occupation."

Its also against the Armys own rules
The US army's Law of Land Warfare states that "the occupant does not have the right of sale or unqualified use of [non-military] property".


There are also stories about companies getting contracts then subcontracting them to Iraqi companies for a fraction and pocketing the difference. This must be a cause of huge resentment in Iraq.

A lot of these contracts could be invalid anyway
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1030-02.htm

Halliburton is scandal ridden.

Companies buying national industries will be slow to invest in them and, as usually happens be tempted to asset strip rather than at wealth creation.

Interesting article
http://www.bday.co.za/bday/content/direct/1,3523,1549208-6096-0,00.html

Chill: What companies ? How can they be stripped of their assets when there are virtually no such assets to strip ? I would love to know what companies these are ?

Iraq has a well educated population and a large middle class. Do you believe that there are no companies capable to bid? Iraq has a strong private sector and a strong business culture.

Chill: “I see no problem with removing their profit ... that's standard for any investing company ina free market”

In a free market. This is not a free market though. Capital leaving the country is the last thing Iraq needs. Also wouldn’t a country who claim to be there to help rebuild Iraq have rules to make sure that investment and capital stay in the country.


This proves that America is treating Iraq like a colony.

chill

bobbyjoe wrote:

It is actually illegal

No it's not actually......

Article 55 of the Hague Regulations, the US-UK are "regarded only as administrator and usufructuary" of Iraq's resources and immovable property, which it must administer "in accordance with the rules of usufruct."

Firstly the Hague Regulations only apply to war between nations. This was a liberation of a people from a mass murdering disctator. Secondly the privatisation process is being applied by the Iraqi government, not the US government. So these laws from 1910 don't apply.
The Security Council has recognised the Iraqi gov since June 8th.
Recognition of Iraqi Gov

Its also against the Geneva conventions
Article 53: Any destruction by the occupying power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the state, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organisations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.
Article 54: The occupying power may not alter the status of public officials or judges in the occupied territories, or in any way apply sanctions to or take any measures of coercion or discrimination against them, should they abstain from fulfilling their functions for reasons of conscience.

The privatisation process is being applied by the Iraqi government, not the US government. The enterprises are being sold for the benefit of the Iraqi people. All perfectly legal and for the good of the people.

Also
“In a leaked March 26 memo that caused a stir in the UK, attorney general Lord Peter Goldsmith advised prime minister Blair that the invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq was illegal. "My view is that a further security council resolution is needed to authorise imposing reform and restructuring of Iraq and its government," Lord Goldsmith wrote. He added that in his view "the imposition of major structural economic reforms would not be authorised by international law," and that "the longer the occupation of Iraq continues, and the more the tasks undertaken by an interim administration depart from the main objective [of disarming Saddam], the more difficult it will be to justify the lawfulness of the occupation."

Only a personal view that carries no weight whatsoever and is disagreed with by many. There was nothing illegal about the liberation.

Its also against the Armys own rules
The US army's Law of Land Warfare states that "the occupant does not have the right of sale or unqualified use of [non-military] property".

The army isn't involved in the privatisation process which is being executed by the Iraqi government.

There are also stories about companies getting contracts then subcontracting them to Iraqi companies for a fraction and pocketing the difference. This must be a cause of huge resentment in Iraq.

Sounda brilliant idea. Providing employment, providing income back into Iraq. Excellent.

A lot of these contracts could be invalid anyway
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1030-02.htm

Yea right. More opinion. It's extremely unlikely that any of these contracts will ever be reversed by any legal argument.

Halliburton is scandal ridden.

Old news and irrelevant.

Companies buying national industries will be slow to invest in them and, as usually happens be tempted to asset strip rather than at wealth creation.

Rediculous. There are almost no assets of any value to strip.

Interesting article
http://www.bday.co.za/bday/content/direct/1,3523,1549208-6096-0,00.html

Wow... a Zambian trash newspaper is now a source of reference. Amazing.

Iraq has a well educated population and a large middle class. Do you believe that there are no companies capable to bid? Iraq has a strong private sector and a strong business culture.

No it doesn't. Though if you have any evidence of this I would be delighted to read it.

In a free market. This is not a free market though. Capital leaving the country is the last thing Iraq needs. Also wouldn’t a country who claim to be there to help rebuild Iraq have rules to make sure that investment and capital stay in the country.

No capital is leaving the country, only profits. Profits leave free market countries every day. Your characterisation and facts are wrong from start to finish.

In summary every single assertion except one is inacurate and factually wrong. Not much of a contribution in my view.

This proves that America is treating Iraq like a colony.

It proves no such thing. It demonstrates that they are treating it like a liberated nation.

shotamoose

Chill, you don't have a clue what you're talking about. Let's take some of your points one by one:

chill wrote:

Firstly the Hague Regulations only apply to war between nations. This was a liberation of a people from a mass murdering disctator.

It was a 'liberation' by means of war, as anyone knows. If one nation's army attacking and occupying another nation isn't war, what exactly is?

The privatisation process is being applied by the Iraqi government, not the US government.

Wrong. The relevant laws were brought in by Orders of the Coalition Provisional Authority (i.e. the US government) in 2003 and the first half of 2004, well before any so-called Iraqi 'government' came into being.
CPA Order No. 39 on Foreign Investment (September 2003), which heralded the privatisation of Iraqi assets, simply declares that "This Order replaces all existing foreign investment law."

The enterprises are being sold for the benefit of the Iraqi people.

Maybe they are, maybe they're not. But I know I wouldn't like it if another country invaded mine and proceeded to illegally flog all its assets. Presumably you'd be okay with that though.

Only a personal view that carries no weight whatsoever and is disagreed with by many.

Bwahahahaha. I like the way you don't even try to explain why you're right and the British Attorney General is wrong. His view just "carries no weight whatsoever", that's all. How convincing.

The army isn't involved in the privatisation process which is being executed by the Iraqi government.

As I've already pointed out, this is wrong and proof that you haven't got a clue.

Wow... a Zambian trash newspaper is now a source of reference. Amazing.

Gee, where to start ...

(a) .za means South Africa, not Zambia.
(b) Business Day is not a trash newspaper.
(c) You obviously didn't even bother to give the piece a cursory glance, because if you did you'd know it was written by Joseph Stiglitz. Y'know, the Noble-winning economist and former "economic advisory council chairman to former US president Bill Clinton, and chief economist and senior vice-president at the World Bank"? But wait, I guess you'd simply say you know more about economics than Stiglitz, just like you know more about international law than Peter Goldsmith.

Yeah, it's amazing alright.

You clearly have no intention of actually debating any of this with anyone here. Please stop ruining perfectly good threads and leave them to people who have at least a basic grip on reality.

Redleslie2

Magnolia_Fan wrote:

Didn't he hang himself?...maybe I'm wrong and isn't his son a dentist in Dublin?

He's living in the UAE. His son is a doctor in Beaumont hospital I believe.

bobbyjoe

What shotamoose said.

Plus

Chill “The enterprises are being sold for the benefit of the Iraqi people”

You were asked before about this could you explain it for me I really can’t see it, enlighten me.

Haliburton has several investigations being run into dodgy practices, it’s getting no bid contracts worth billions, and the vice president used to work for them.
This is irrelevant?

Chill “It's extremely unlikely that any of these contracts will ever be reversed by any legal argument”

Any back up for that?

Coalition Provisional Authority transferred sovereignty to the Interim Government. Provisional and interim are words I would associate with temporary or hold the status quo until the real Government is elected. This wouldn’t involve selling off the countries industries.

Iraq built its own roads bridges buildings, power stations, telecommunications etc etc have these skills suddenly disappeared and only foreign owned companies can supply them? Bollix.

Who’s running Iraq then? go to the CPA website on the homepage you get this message.
http://www.cpa-iraq.org/
Current information for the new sovereign Iraq may be found on the U.S. Embassy-Iraq Web site at:
http://iraq.usembassy.gov/
Draw your own conclusions

If your neighbors house catches fire, you’d be right to break in and put out the fire. It wouldn’t give you the right to sell all his furniture though.

Chill not much of a contribution in my view.

Redleslie2

chill wrote:

Wow... a Zambian trash newspaper is now a source of reference. Amazing.

Shotamoose has made you look a bit ignorant on this point already but even if it was a Zambian newspaper, why would that automatically mean it's "trash"?

Captain Trips

If your neighbors house catches fire, you’d be right to break in and put out the fire. It wouldn’t give you the right to sell all his furniture though.

That's the funniest thing I've read all week

sovtek

bobbyjoe wrote:

Chill not much of a contribution in my view.

...but very entertaining...

chewy

The women's defense argued that they could not be charged with aggravated trespass, 'the of disruption of a lawful event' as infact the Iraq Procurement conference was unlawful as it was facilitating the pillage of Iraq which was under occupation by the US and the UK at the time of their action

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/11/301892.html

Bunny

everyone is wrong, chill is right

Hobbes

Bunny wrote:

everyone is wrong, chill is right

If everyone is wrong and chill is right, wouldn't that mean you are also wrong which would mean chill is wrong?

MeatProduct

Hobbes wrote:

If everyone is wrong and chill is right, wouldn't that mean you are also wrong which would mean chill is wrong?

LOL, nice one. That would mean that that comment you just made is wrong making Chill right again.

Chill, you regularly accuse of people, who are somewhat anti-war, of being happy with keeping Sadam in power. I actually haven't seen anyone state that here so could I request that you stop making these accusations as I find it rather tiresome.

Thank you,

Nick

sovtek

Anybody here know the McLaughlin Group?

John: Cokie...your comments
Cokie: John...I
John: WRONG!!!!!!!!

carl_

Hobbes wrote:

If everyone is wrong and chill is right, wouldn't that mean you are also wrong which would mean chill is wrong?

haha, good work

bonkey

Enough with Bunny's distraction already.