Mosaic News - 10/26/09: World News From The Middle East

[psychospores]

Bremmer rewrote Iraq's economic policies, reducing corporate tax from 45% to 15% and allowing foreign companies to own 100% of Iraq's assets without any obligation to hire Iraqi workers or reinvest in the economy. 500,000 workers were laid off, 400,000 or which were soldiers who took their guns home with them. The idea was to "privatize" the country but even private Iraqi firms couldn't get a contract in their own country.

[psychospores]

Mystic

I think the first 9 minutes really ties together a lot of what we have both been saying and gives evidence for both arguments. The people causing unrest in Iraq are funded by Iraq's neighbors (like Iran), but the Americans opened the door for those groups by overthrowing Saddam with no plan for what to do next. Would you agree that when it comes to issues like Iraq, it is impossible to blame only one side of the conflict because at this point everybody is guilty?

[mysticx0]

lol i come here and there is already a message for me :)

you know me well lol

im going to watch this and ill post again. sorry i havent been around much lately im dealing with swine flu. before you ask, yes it is the real swine flu. :(

[psychospores]

I still have to ask: Really? Swine Flu? Are you okay? Part of me is concerned and part of me is suspicious that you're trying to make me look gullible, but mostly the former. Get better, then come back and argue with me!

[mysticx0]

nah man, i got the real thing....

:(

[mysticx0]

what your not understanding is that many countries agreed to help dethrone saddam and when it came time to back up those words on the final resolution regarding iraq, they bitched out. we were not going to stop because the countries did. the plan had to be modified so the responsibility lies mostly with those countries who backed out. had they been brave and honorable, the war would have been much much different. planning means more talks and time that brings nothing. bush acted and i love it.

[mysticx0]

by saying america opened the door for terror in iraq is ridiculous considering there was terrorism (sunni vs shia) and mass murder (kurds) before we got there. im not saying we are blameless because we didnt get the help that was promised, but i wont apologize for any of it. we are dealing with very self centered people who have no problem blowing up their own mosques but whine when we fire back at one.

[psychospores]

Shouldn't they have the right to blow up their mosques in their own country without you shooting at them while they're doing it?

No, I don't exactly mean that. I know that terrible things happened in Iraq before the war but the U.S. didn't have a comprehensive plan to make a dramatic improvement, nor did they have sufficient evidence that Iraq was a threat to national security, so why get involved? And don't say Al Qaeda.

[mysticx0]

please dont bring up the "threat" issue or wmd's. the cease fire had been broken hundreds of times before clinton left office so those points are always moot. we had every right to end the cease fire and just attack years before 9/11.how quickly the world forgets what iraq did to the kurds and the kuwaitis and iran...the list goes on

we had a plan not as good as the one we could have had if all the signees had some courage but we werent waiting anymore. u fight with what u have not what u want.

[psychospores]

What did Iraq do to break the ceasefire? and what countries are you referring to when you talk about the countries that promised help and backed out?

[mysticx0]

wow man, no offense but im not gonna give a history lesson. the quick of it is: no fly zone infractions, scamming oil-for-food program, shooting at our planes and drones, kicked out UN inspectors from the country, on and on....

as for who backed out...its easier to just name who helped us. the UN signed the 1441 resolution, some argue it didnt give rights to attack (though it did if you read it) but it didnt matter, the cease fire had been pissed on for years by then.

[psychospores]

I know. You have said all of those things already. I know about resolution 1441, as it was cited by Jacques Chirac in Feb./03 as he was explaining why France, Germany and Russia would not be joining the war, but they had never really promised anything. Turkey withdrew their support at the last second, but it had only been assumed, never confirmed ... a lot of NATO countries such as Canada refused to get involved in any military action. Overall, it seemed like everybody wanted to talk it out.

[psychospores]

I guess that's why I asked which countries you're referring to, because from my perspective there wasn't really a solid commitment. I will fill in the blind spots from what you've mentioned ... when Clinton was President I was an idiot schoolgirl, so I wasn't paying attention to things like ceasefires. That's kind of why I argue, it points out my blind spots. But everything you've mentioned, like scamming aid programs, is common practice for third world dictators, why hang Saddam?

[psychospores]

I guess my real issue is the opportunism of the U.S. and Britain as they preyed on the economy and the energy sector. To me, that was what made Saddam different from other dictators. Then (for example), once Iraq was bombed and bakrupted they forced Iraq to pay Kuwait for damages they had inflicted with money that was desperately needed for reconstruction. It was kind of an ugly way of achieving a goal.

[mysticx0]

preyed on the economy??? wow, learn what your talking about. we gave them infrastructure, business deals and so much more. we benefitted nothing. we gave, gave, gave. if it was oil why are we paying almost 4 dollars for gas while iraq pays not even 40 cents.

bombed and bankrupted? your pity is horribly misplaced. when a problem becomes our problem we end it. period. our way.iraq had years to fix its own issues.

yes they must pay for kuwait with oil profits,money isnt their prob, its patriotism.

[mysticx0]

re-read the last sentence you wrote and then consider if you really wanted to ask that. to even say it suggests that was his only crime and big bad usa hung him for it. the short answer is other dictators didnt have a cease fire with us after an assinine attack on kuwait.

at the same time, your using an arguement used by minimalists all the time...why punish saddam if someone else is doing it? it doesnt face the problem, it avoids it.

[mysticx0]

what countries?every country in the UN who signed 1441,thats who.including russia, france,germany,turkey,etc.

"If the Security Council fails to act decisively in the event of a further Iraqi violation, this resolution does not constrain any member state from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq, or to enforce relevant UN resolutions and protect world peace and security"

that means shoot at one more of our planes, cross that no fly zone one more time, etc and here we come.

[mysticx0]

and turkey did help us, they let us use bases there. alot of countries still quietly helped without sending troops. south korea helped until Kim Sun-Il got beheaded. spain helped until they got the 3/11 train bombings. so the wording of the document was pretty clear to most countries except russia and france for example because they were making much money from saddam. the weapons we found in iraq after invading: french. dated and sent after sanctions. still wondering why france didnt help? lol.

[mysticx0]

im trying to give you places to start fact finding for yourself, dont just take my word for it, otherwise it becomes just me feeding you what i want you to know, not allowing you to find your own truth.

[psychospores]

I didn't know about the French weapons and I am now reading up on the ceasefire. Thank you for that. I am not completely uninformed, so don't picture me with a dunce cap yet. And you'd better not start referring to me as "young grasshopper!"

[psychospores]

I am looking at resolution 1441 right now and the quote you provided is nowhere in it. Even if it was, all that quote says is that the U.S. was within its rights to act against Iraq, nobody else was obligated. Paragraph 13 does say that Iraq "will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations ..." You say you love how Bush acted. Perhaps if he had shown more patience he would have had the support he needed a few months later.

[mysticx0]

as for the quote, i dont kno what to say, its there. and your right it didnt force everyone to help. but give me some reasons why they shouldnt have helped dispose saddam after everything he did to his neighbors for 20+ yrs.

and if bush waited then he would have been the same bullshitter whos been voted in time and again and i wanted just one pres to freakin act for once. become what the world calls us anyway. he spoke of taking out saddam b4 he was elected which is why i voted for him.

[psychospores]

The economy. Since you're the expert, you know who Paul Bremmer is. He opened the borders to unrestricted imports: no tariffs, no duties, no inspections, no taxes. The foundation of Iraq's econmy was the oil sector and roughly 200 state-owned companies that produced food and industrial staples. Bremmer privatized all of them, selling the contracts to foreigners who were seen as an extension of the invasion.

[psychospores]

You gave and you gave and you gave, alright, and you gave it to Halliburton. You have billions to contractors who contracted to more contractors, and after money changed hands 3or4 times, maybe a traffic light was fixed. By April/07, 7/8 projects completed by contractors no longer functioned as designed. And you're right, your gvt. got nothing back. But your private sector did. In 2006 Halliburton made $20 billion in Iraq contracts alone, and you paid the bill.

[psychospores]

The Mahdi Army was formed when Moqtada al-Sadr used donations from Mosques to organize electricians and garbage collectors to do what the contractors wouldn't in Basras slums. And he also took angry, young, unemployed men and gave them Kalashnikovs. Perhaps Iraq's new infrastructure would have been better protected if the people felt it was theirs. Of course, the American solution to the problem was to put everybody in jail. Bring on the privatized prisons!

[psychospores]

By the end of 2006, a lot of these policies were being reversed and the market liberalism was beginning to lose. But you can see how only a few years of these policies greatly contributed to destabilization. Still, BP and Exxon managed to secure a much larger piece of Iraqs oil pie than they would have without invading. My response is already too lengthy to get into details.

[psychospores]

I will stop using moral relativism to defend dictators. But I will mention that it is wise to remain skeptical of American intentions. In late 2004, the State Dept. opened the Office of Reconstruction and Stabilization. It pays contractors to draw up plans to reconstruct different countries the U.S. might someday invade (eg. Iran, Venezuela) and then lines up the contracts with corporations and consultants ahead of time. Does this not prompt certain groups to push for unjust wars?

[mysticx0]

ok look. this is just turning into everything is americas fault and no fault of the arabs or iraq or saddam. usa did this, usa did that. fine. we are eveil, hows that. back again to why i like bush because everything your saying ive heard since the 70's yet we send out more aid than can ever be paid back. so fine we had a pres who didnt give a fuck about becoming what everyone said we were anyway. you happy with that answer?

[psychospores]

Your aid usually comes with demands to open up vulnerable markets to international competition, or it involves funding proxy wars ... listen, I'm only defending what I said. To think this all started from me venting about Cheney! I am not trying to upset you, I've just really been enjoying the discussion. However, we have to stop somewhere, so why not here? I could rip Canada a new asshole over the same sorts of things, it's not just the U.S.

[mysticx0]

really? what the do we get in return for our aid from ethiopia? we were helping somalians actually get their food/aid without warlords stealing and look what it got us. dont hand me that shit like while we shake hands with the right we stab with the left.

[psychospores]

You know that a lot of your aid comes with conditions attached. Some reasonable, some opportunistic. And then you complain when you do something out of goodness and don't get anything in return.

[mysticx0]

so using sadr and his group of former iraqi troops and baath party members is your solution? LOL

[psychospores]

No, not a solution, I am pointing out how neglecting multiple problems in Iraq led to even bigger ones. The Mahdi Army was not a solution.

[mysticx0]

bremmer: why shouldnt he. who were we supposed to trust with that shit? how else to you rebuild an infrastructure and secure contracts? cant do it with what iraq had at the time. so if i have a choice of giving a contract to a friend so that another company will actually agree to work with them in iraq then im all for it. iraq should have fixed its own issues. or better yet, arabs.

yup haliburton got it. good. its called dealing with those you kno and trust and fuck what the world thinks.

[psychospores]

If the Iraqi people wanted liberation, wouldn't they have been more than willing to help with those projects. The offers were there. It is more than possible to rebuild a country without relying on the private sector. why convince your friend to go to Iraq when the resources you need are already there at a much cheaper cost?

[psychospores]

And now you're justifying Halliburton's actions, which essentially robbed both Iraq and the U.S. of their wealth.

[mysticx0]

if your looking for an apology or some sympathy you wont find it in me. you cant call us monsters and then be upset when we become it.

take it like this. next time some countries problems become our problem, they now have a record, good or bad, of what happens when we step in and solve the problem our way. so fix your own problems before we get there. i love this lol. cant wait for jeb bush to run.

[mysticx0]

cmon, im the expert? that was a cheap shot, if anything im telling you to find your own truth as i said i dont want to feed you what i want you to know, im not playing expert, simply opening the curtain (i hope).

[psychospores]

No cheap shot intended. My humor tends to offend. You did say I didn't know what I was talking about when it came to the economy, though. I suppose that is how you show affection?

[psychospores]

You did change my opinion a little. You provided a good argument to justify the invasion, and the more I learn the more I realize that intervention in the Middle East is necessary in some cases. You keep trying to stereotype me and in this case it is causing you stress. I don't hate America and I don't think it is evil. And Mystic, I respect you. Because you have been able to disagree with me while still showing civility and I hope we can maintain that in the future. Goodnight.

[ChRiStRiDa7]

vid doesn't play