The Iraq Thread 2

[Longinius 1]

"How many allied soldiers were spared death and multilation by changing the Japanese minds about surrendering faster rather than dying for their immortal Emperor in a war started by Japan, in a true axis of evil with the Nazis?"

And how many innocent lives were claimed that might have survived if the bombs werent dropped?

We will never know. All we know is that a nuke is one of the most terrible weapons around. It does not only kill and wound on detonation, but its effects linger on for generations resulting in deformed children and effects on nature and wildlife. But then again, this isnt so bad as long as it isnt your children and your back yard, right?

[theavonlady 2]

But then again, this isnt so bad as long as it isnt your children and your back yard, right?

I do not advocate the use of nuclear weapons, though I agree with it's use in 1945. I am happy that they have since been universally banned.

[denoir 0]

But we're getting off-topic............... or are we?

Yeah, I'd rather not take this discussion. Back on topic then:

US rethink on Iraq tactics

Quote[/b] ]In an interview in the New York Times, General Sanchez said the scale of raids in Iraq would now be reduced because they damaged Iraqis' dignity and self-respect and prompted some to acts of revenge.

"When you take a father in front of his family and put a bag over his head and put him on the ground, you have had a significant adverse effect on his dignity and respect in the eyes of his family," he said.

No shit. And it took them only four months to figure that one out

[Balschoiw 0]

US oil companies get immunity for anything they do in Iraq, legal or not, sheltered by the fucking president of the US.

When is this gonna end ?

Bush´s executive order 13303

PDF version of the document

Article on that issue

Anyway it looks like some US people changed their minds, regarding to the new Pew survey:

37 percent are not satisfied with Bush´s work

57 percent think he should concentrate more on business problems

27 only think that terror is a top issue right now.

2500 people countrywide selected, duaration 14th of July to 5th of august. Error rate +- 2 percent

Edit: added some resources for our permanent whiners

[CosmicCastaway 0]

Quote[/b] ] Executive Order 13303 protects anything those corporations do to seize control of Iraq's oil, from the point of production to the gas pump -- and places oil companies above the rule of law.

Thats just insane!

[Balschoiw 0]

Hey it wasn´t about oil or the participation of oil-company interests why US went to Iraq. Keep that in mind.

[theavonlady 2]

Quote[/b] ] Executive Order 13303 protects anything those corporations do to seize control of Iraq's oil, from the point of production to the gas pump -- and places oil companies above the rule of law.

I hear that Exxon USA managers are taking over BP and Dutch Shell gas stations in West Virginia as we speak!

[Balschoiw 0]

Hey, don´t worry it´s only Iraq, where wonderland for Exxon and comrades becomes reality:

Quote[/b] ]In other words, if ExxonMobil or ChevronTexaco touch Iraqi oil, it will be immune from legal proceedings in the United States. Anything that could go, and elsewhere has gone, awry with U.S. corporate oil operations will be immune to judgment: a massive tanker accident; an explosion at an oil refinery; the employment of slave labor to build a pipeline; murder of locals by corporate security; the release of billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The president, with a stroke of the pen, signed away the rights of Saddam's victims, creditors and of the next true Iraqi government to be compensated through legal action. Bush's order unilaterally declares Iraqi oil to be the unassailable province of U.S. corporations.

In the short term, through the Development Fund and the Export-Import Bank programs, the Iraqi people's oil will finance U.S. corporate entrees into Iraq. In the long term, Executive Order 13303 protects anything those corporations do to seize control of Iraq's oil, from the point of production to the gas pump -- and places oil companies above the rule of law.

[denoir 0]

Could it be any clearer what this war was about?

[Longinius 1]

Well, it wasnt about oil. Remember, they told us so.

[CosmicCastaway 0]

Hey it wasn´t about oil or the participation of oil-company interests why US went to Iraq. Keep that in mind.  

Whoops, oh yes silly me I forgot.

[theavonlady 2]

US oil companies get immunity for anything they do in Iraq,

Just read the EO. Where does it say this?

I think you may need to read again what the order says. As I understand it, it's nothing new.

[Balschoiw 0]

Hey Avon I know you like to oppose things following your principle but if you read section 1, b, you should be able to

get the info you wanted. There is no need in disgussing that here, the sense and content of the EO is very clear.

but if you still have problems:

Quote[/b] ]Unless licensed or

otherwise authorized pursuant to this order, any

attachment, judgment, decree, lien, execution,

garnishment, or other judicial process is prohibited,

and shall be deemed null and void, with respect to the

following:

....

(b) all Iraqi petroleum and

petroleum products, and interests therein, and

proceeds, obligations, or any financial instruments of

any nature whatsoever arising from or related to the

sale or marketing thereof, and interests therein, in

which any foreign country or a national thereof has

any interest, that are in the United States, that

hereafter come within the United States, or that are

or hereafter come within the possession or control of

United States persons.

That´s not my words, that´s the words of G.W bush and now stop bitching  

Another nice feature for the fundmoney gained by selling oil and oil products from Iraq, that is (remember it dammnit !) for the welth and growth of Iraq and to rebuild it but than the EO says different.

Quote[/b] ]"The primary source of repayment," explained an ExIm release, "is the Development Fund for Iraq, or another entity established under the auspices of the Coalition Provisional Authority with access to foreign exchange and protection from claims of creditors of the former regime."

In other words, the U.S. government is happy to provide credit to any U.S. business wishing to do business in Iraq -- especially because the money comes from Iraq.

Edit: Avon are you suffering from the FS syndrom already ?

[theavonlady 2]

Hey Avon I know you like to oppose things following your principle

I just like to oppose things I don't agree with.

As I understand the order, indeed US organizations will have preferential treatment on landing business contracts in Iraq. So far what I've said is old news, not related to the EO.

What I understand the purpose of the EO is to prevent any legal disputes that existed before the war or that will be claimed now, to not have any effect.

I see the biggest target of this as Russia. If my memory serves me correct, Iraq owes Russia a bundle. If Russia pursued their claim now, Iraq would be out cold on the mat way past the count of 10.

I don't think the intent is for the US to do what they want, as you are claiming. I think you're jumping to conclusions.

[theavonlady 2]

Edit: Avon are you suffering from the FS syndrom already ?  

Are you flamebating me?

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]What I understand the purpose of the EO is to prevent any legal disputes that existed before the war or that will be claimed now, to not have any effect.

You´re wrong Avon. The EO is directed to US law and judical system and not for international law. So this idea is simply wrong.

It gives US companies a free tiicket for Iraq, whatever they do or will do there, whatever law they break they will not be taken to US court for any actions.

Quote[/b] ]Are you flamebating me?

Relax with Cherie Blair

[denoir 0]

As I understand the order, indeed US organizations will have preferential treatment on landing business contracts in Iraq. So far what I've said is old news, not related to the EO.

Nope. An EO is US law, and has nothing to do with international law. The debts that Iraq has to other countries is not affected by this.

Edit: I see that Bals beat me to it

[theavonlady 2]

Quote[/b] ]What I understand the purpose of the EO is to prevent any legal disputes that existed before the war or that will be claimed now, to not have any effect.

You´re wrong Avon. The EO is directed to US law and judical system and not for international law.

It prevents a US company taking on liabilities it might encounter should claims be attempted in a US court of law. I'm not talking about international law. I'm refering to international business disputes taking place in the US against US companies.

Quote[/b] ]It gives US companies a free tiicket for Iraq, whatever they do or will do there, whatever law they break they will not be taken to US court for any actions.

I'm not a lawyer but I see this point. It looks like a ridiculous loophole, unless it's already covered by EO's 12722, 12724 and 13290, which I'm not about to bother reading.

Quote[/b] ]Are you flamebating me?

Relax with Cherie Blair

Sorry, I don't have RealAudio installed, due to past bad experiences. What am I missing?

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]unless it's already covered by EO's 12722, 12724 and 13290, which I'm not about to bother reading.

It´s not covered in any of these EO´s. The EO´s you listed freeze in Iraq´s money abroad, declares them in parts as US property, prevents companies from trading goods with Iraq.

EO 12724 is from 1990

EO 12722 is from 1990

EO 13290 is from 2003 but only deals with Confiscating and Vesting Certain Iraqi Property

You should read what you reffer to

[theavonlady 2]

OK, looking further into it, this does appear to be a brutal trampling of law and order. It seems to be a real wild card.

[WhoCares 0]

Can we agree now that the war was not about oil but about the "Certain Other Proberty in Which Iraq Has an Interrest"...

btw: can someone explain me all those capital letters?

At least we can use them as shortcut, COPWIHI, so the war was about COPWIHI

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]OK, looking further into it, this does appear to be a brutal trampling of law and order. It seems to be a real wild card.

Yes Avon. Sad but true.

I´m happy you left the FS lane  

cheers

[theavonlady 2]

Quote[/b] ]OK, looking further into it, this does appear to be a brutal trampling of law and order. It seems to be a real wild card.

Yes Avon. Sad but true.

I´m happy you left the FS lane  

Nothing of a sort! The US is entitled to trample on anything they please.

j/k

[Balschoiw 0]

Another story:

US weapon industry unhappy about the decision of the Iraqi temporary government to buy 34.000 AK 74´s.

The guns will be bought to equip the new iraqi army that will have 40.000 men in 4 years.

US weapon companies wanted to have a major piece of the weapon deal and wanted to sell american guns to Iraq.

But the iraqis have decided otherwise.

There still is a chance for US companies as the contract has to be signed by US government.

The reaons to chose the AK were simple:

- it is cheap

- it is easy to use and works good in Iraq areas

- recruits already have experience with the guntype

Anyway the money won´t be lost for the US as the delivering company has to be US and the guns probably will come from poland.

There is big business to be made in Iraq with rebuilding the army and that is where US companies see their chance to make big money.

Let´s see if US governmet will override this decision and implant their way of rearming Iraq.

Big business is still to be made with planes, vehicles...

[bn880 5]

There is big business to be made in Iraq with rebuilding the army and that is where US companies see their chance to make big money.

Let´s see if US governmet will override this decision and implant their way of rearming Iraq.

Big business is still to be made with planes, vehicles...

Well the way I see it, unless the Iraqis are going to buy MBT's, all their deals are better coming from the East, price and capability wise. The only real benefit with US equipment seems to be in the sensor and communication department. Maybe if the US make a good financial suggestion then some US planes and vehicles wil lbe purchased, altohugh they really don't fit in Iraq.

EDIT: What I suspect is going to happen a lot is the US won't sign the purchase orders stating "We are unable to train the Iraqi forces with Soviet equipment" Although they did just fine in Afghanistan before.