No longer Iraq Dinars!

[KayJay]

Should you make an effort to comprehend my thoughts across my various posts, notwithstanding the fact that I may not have put in as much effort as U would like to understand yours, you would see that I speak with compund words in compound sentences with multiple clauses. It is because I am in the business of conducting personality development programmes. One such programme I, we, conduct is, "Value Clarification", which has a "Prioratisation" module. Everything is important. No doubt. But given a "Conflict", what would you give/forego to get/retain what.

So, were I an Arab, which I am not, and were I to face a situation whereby I get to eat Big Macs, only and along with. watching "the Rise and Fall of Arab Nationalism" on the History Channels, I do not want slaughtered cow meat. Those are my priorities.

Incidentally, I not only like Cheese Burgers, I actually worked for McDonalds, though not in India.

Am I clear? At least Clearer?

[OrdinaryGuy]

Originally posted by KayJay


So, were I an Arab, which I am not, and were I to face a situation whereby I get to eat Big Macs, only and along with. watching "the Rise and Fall of Arab Nationalism" on the History Channels, I do not want slaughtered cow meat. Those are my priorities.

and who said that would be the situation they'd be put up against? The people would decide what they want through a democracy.

And btw, I hate McDonalds. I prefer BurgerKing

[KayJay]

Thats what we've been arguing about for over 6 months! I say that will be the case. You say no. My reasons, a History of such actions and Induction. Your reasons, "We won't go wrong, this time" and "We will do the right thing". Good! But only insofar as you keep your word, and more importantly, only if you can make good your words. I do not think so.

[honeybee]

Originally posted by OrdinaryGuy
the problem with you is that you never try looking at what the result of this war would be. Iraq would be a totally free and democratic country after this war is over. They could build their economy from their oil revenues and achieve a standard of living of other countries.

The only thing you think of is the selfish gains of the US. Firstly, if this war helps the US economy, what is wrong in that? The US isn't stealing something from iraq. Iraq is going to be a transformed country. Give it some time. Stop crying about the civilians that died. Blood is always the sad price for freedom.

And don't forget HB, american tax payers are paying for this war. US marines are paying with their lives. So only US companies deserve to get recontruction contracts. If the bill was being footed by other countries, it would be a different ball game.

I wouldn't care if America made some money through some honest, decent and most of all legitimate activity. War, and most of all THIS war is none of it.

Blood is always the sad price for freedom, but spilling someone else's blood claiming to free them is not sad, but revolting.

Good thing the American taxpayers are paying for it. Perhaps in future you will spend your hard-earned moneys for some better purposes.

And since the US companies will most probably take home the loot gained by the oil exploration and such, I don't doubt that the taxpayers' money will be returned to them with interest

.

[honeybee]

Originally posted by KayJay
Thats what we've been arguing about for over 6 months! I say that will be the case. You say no. My reasons, a History of such actions and Induction. Your reasons, "We won't go wrong, this time" and "We will do the right thing". Good! But only insofar as you keep your word, and more importantly, only if you can make good your words. I do not think so.

I don't think Yash is working as an advisor to Bush. Also I don't think the US government will simply spend those 90-odd billions of dollars on Iraq as charity.

That leads me to believe that the interim government by the US will stay for quite a few months, it will elect a government in Iraq that eats out of the US government's hands, ensure all contracts for rebuilding etc. are given only to the US companies and the "elected" government of Iraq will choose to pay for the contracted work by "selling" oil to the US.

.

[OrdinaryGuy]

If you are thinking that the US is going to have full control over this democracy, then only time will prove you wrong. But give it at least 6 months.

Blood is always the sad price for freedom, but spilling someone else's blood claiming to free them is not sad, but revolting.

American soldiers have also spilled their blood. Every single Iraqi is happy that saddam is gone. Their only concern is how long the US is going to stay. While I say we wouldn't be there longer than necessary, you say we'll keep some sort of control over the government for years to come. What happens only time will tell

And since the US companies will most probably take home the loot gained by the oil exploration and such, I don't doubt that the taxpayers' money will be returned to them with interest

Loot?? If the US does get any oil contract with Iraq in the future, we will be PAYING for the OIL. Same way Syria, Jordan or any other country would be PAYING for the OIL.

[honeybee]

Originally posted by OrdinaryGuy
If you are thinking that the US is going to have full control over this democracy, then only time will prove you wrong. But give it at least 6 months.

I would be prepared to do that, but for the fact that your government wasn't ready to wait six months to let the inspectors finish their job and give Saddam a last chance to come clean. This war has shown that by waiting even a couple of more months, as many nations had suggested in the UNSC, Iraq could have done no more harm than it has done now. When your government didn't give Iraq a couple more months, without any evidence, when all evidence points to a US-occupied and controlled Iraq, I don't want to give them six months.

American soldiers have also spilled their blood. Every single Iraqi is happy that saddam is gone. Their only concern is how long the US is going to stay. While I say we wouldn't be there longer than necessary, you say we'll keep some sort of control over the government for years to come. What happens only time will tell
Well, the American soldiers spilt their blood because their supreme leader was wetting his pants being paranoid about something that doesn't exist. Blame the US government for it, not the Iraqis. When you say you will keep some sort of control over the new Iraqi government, you are going back on the earlier statement that there'll be a democratic government elected and run by the Iraqis in Iraq.

Loot?? If the US does get any oil contract with Iraq in the future, we will be PAYING for the OIL. Same way Syria, Jordan or any other country would be PAYING for the OIL.
Right, but that payment will be in kind, not in dollars, and there will be lots of twists and turns to those oil contracts to favour the American companies. Why else is the US so frantically trying to get the UN sanctions on the sale of Iraqi oil lifted? Because presently the Iraqi oil can only be exchanged for food. Once the sanctions are lifted, America can legalize their loot.

.

[OrdinaryGuy]

I'm tired of debating with you. You haven't made a single valid point and are repeating your past arguments

1) I was talking about 6 months to setup a government, not the search for WMD. And as I repeated over and over again, the US had no problem in giving the inspectors more time. The US went to war because saddam was playing a game of hide and seek with the inspectors.

2) HONEYBEE! When did I say that I want the US to keep some countrol over Iraq. I want to see a democracy by, for and of the iraqis. And that is what is going to happen. If you don't believe that, be patient.

3) That is a stupid argument. As. Whether in cash or kind, its the same thing. You need money to buy kind. You need money to pay companies like Betchtel to recontruct essential services in Iraq.

[NotLKH]

Originally posted by honeybee

.

At least you're consistent.

If the US wasn't a unilateralistic imperialist, if there had been a "Coalition" of nations involved, then "Non-coalition" countries could try to get contracts with, oh, Hypothetically speaking, of course, Engand, Australia, etc... to participate with the reconstruction.

Of course, There's nothing baring companies based in Non-coalition countries from negotiating contracts with resident Iraqi Corporations. I'm sure they'd be well paid, put those Dinars to good work.

And, actually I see nothing wrong with putting Iraq in charge of its own Reconstruction. Although any Iraqi work force hired by them wouldn't be paid as much {oh, I forgot. They could be paid in Dinars!} as if they had been hired by companies whose Monetary assets were actually worth something, I'm sure they'd somehow appreciate the gesture.

BTW, Why doesn't India contract its corporations for rebuilding Iraq? I'm sure there are ways, once contracted, an Indian company could get into Iraq, thru a partnership with some existing Iraqi corporation, or via sponsership, if they petitioned the band of propable future Iraqi leaders.

-Lou

[Xanith]

I would be prepared to do that, but for the fact that your government wasn't ready to wait six months to let the inspectors finish their job and give Saddam a last chance to come clean. This war has shown that by waiting even a couple of more months, as many nations had suggested in the UNSC, Iraq could have done no more harm than it has done now. When your government didn't give Iraq a couple more months, without any evidence, when all evidence points to a US-occupied and controlled Iraq, I don't want to give them six months.

Honeybee I thought you were of the assertion that Iraq is currently free of WMD’s? You are constantly stating how the US is unable to find any yet you state above to “let the inspectors finish their job and give Saddam a last chance to come clean.” If Iraq has no WMD’s why would the inspectors need more time to find something you think isn’t there? You should really pick one story and stick with it. Your arguments are so inconsistent and lacking any sense of cohesion or even base facts as to render them as simple non-directed and unintelligent babble.

And for the last time Iraq was given 12 years to disarm and come up with proof of the destruction of the WMD’s everyone knew they had. Not only do you present unintelligent and useless babble for arguments you also present the same old tired and disproven arguments over and over. I think you somehow believe that if you repeat them enough time you might actually believe them to be true.

Right, but that payment will be in kind, not in dollars, and there will be lots of twists and turns to those oil contracts to favour the American companies. Why else is the US so frantically trying to get the UN sanctions on the sale of Iraqi oil lifted? Because presently the Iraqi oil can only be exchanged for food. Once the sanctions are lifted, America can legalize their loot.

Where was your concern about Iraqi oil contracts when it was France, Russia, Germany, and China that had most of the rights to Iraqi oil fields? These countries were selling out the Iraqi people and leaving them to a life of misery that was Saddam all for cheap oil. Not to mention the secret arms deals and intelligence cooperation with Saddam all against UN mandates from these same countries.

The money that would be gained from oil sales would be used to build up the infrastructure of Iraq and provide the people the basic necessities of life such as food, water, and power. The oil for food program set up by the UN was a miserable failure (no surprise there the UN cant do anything right). The sanctions were imposed against Saddam and his oppressive totalitarian government and are no longer needed. The lifting of the sanctions would allow the Iraqi people to recover quicker from the years of Saddam’s oppressive and repressive government rule.

X

[MasterBlaster]

Originally posted by honeybee

How pathetic of you. Perhaps the Iraqi boy who lost both his arms in a missile attack would be a fitting answer as to why the US companies should NOT get any contracts.

.

Read the post right after the list of coalition dead you fooking dolt

[MasterBlaster]

Originally posted by KayJay
[B]MasterBlaster, Memnoch1207: You sure must have wanted those contrcats very badly .

I have made myself very clear to you that I personally don't want anything from Iraq other that the complete removal of any weapons the have.

Seriously, Bewarned and Beware! Do not get suck into a such a large scale "Protection Racket" . You will pay a very heavy price, and this time when I say "You", I mean, MasterBlaster and Memnoch1207. specifically. Any local thug does what Ur suggesting. He smashes all the shops and homes, brutalises the neighbourhood, then has "First Right" for anything and everything which he gets at 90% discount from the neighbourhood. Of course he provides "Protection" as compenstaion for the 90% discount. From the next generation onwards, such thuggery becomes "Patriarchy", the thugs becoming ma fia.

Very good advice. I agree the Coalition should not be sucked into a global protection racket. In order for it to be a "protection racket" the only motivation for brutality would be financial motivation. Here is where your and my opinion of the situation turn in different directions. You and many others are under the impression that this was all about making a quick dollar off of Iraq. Myself and people supporting this action do not believe that. If you can find many people who would support an invasion of a nation simply based on cashing in on their natural resources or possible rebuilding contracts I would be very suprised. Americans are not a nation of war mongering money hungry thugs like the propaganda rags you have been reading color us to be.

The Coalition and Iraq has made a large sacrifice financially and in human life to cut a large chunk of cancer out of their life. The US and Iraq alone has spent billions of dollars and sacrificed thousands of men and women to make our two countries a safer place. I would think it is only fair that the parties that actually had the guts to do the dirty work should stay the course and finish what they started. Screw France, Russia, and Germany, they have been been part of the problem not part of the solution. IMHO they should be the target of trade sanctions, not Syria, or Iran. At least Syria and Iran have the cojones to screw the western world to it's face, not like a bunch of backstabing whesals as russia, germany, and france have.

[KayJay]

While the discussion in this thread has been dormant for quite some time and had drifted away from the original subject, here is something which, (I feel) to a small but considerable extent, vindicates my opposition to import of foreign currency to replace an existing circulating different currency in another nation. While this article does not ponder or make us ponder on the causes of such actions, it sure does portrays an inevitable consequence of such actions.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2979906.stm