Iraq Not America's to Sell

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-11-08 10:56am

An interesting article on international law regarding how the occupier is supposed to treat the country, especially in regard to property

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2003-11-08 02:29pm

If the US doesn't to the right thing by Iraq I just picture Iraq nationalizing everything after the US pulls out. A lot of people will be screwed and pissed off but I don't see the US going back in to enforce contracts set up during occupation.

Still, it would be much better if things were being done right and legally the first time.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-11-08 03:04pm

It was whatever the fuck that council is called that made the decision, not Bremer. The country needs money and it needs industries to begin running again. Selling them off accomplishes both. Basically the whole economy was own by the former government, which also wrote the constitution. Neither is going to last.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-11-08 04:40pm

Like I said, why the fuck are we going to put back a socialist economy where
everything is controlled by the Iraqi government?

We're the US of A, not the USSR.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-11-08 04:41pm

MKSheppard wrote:Like I said, why the fuck are we going to put back a socialist economy where
everything is controlled by the Iraqi government?

We're the US of A, not the USSR.

Errr, that should read "Why the hell would we put back a socialist economy..".

Dahak · Post by **Dahak** » 2003-11-08 05:08pm

MKSheppard wrote:Like I said, why the fuck are we going to put back a socialist economy where
everything is controlled by the Iraqi government?

We're the US of A, not the USSR.

Because the rules say so. Easy as that.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-11-08 05:19pm

Dahak wrote: Because the rules say so. Easy as that.

Then I guess we should have let the SS keep it's industrial
cartels

Dahak · Post by **Dahak** » 2003-11-08 05:22pm

MKSheppard wrote:
Dahak wrote: Because the rules say so. Easy as that.
Then I guess we should have let the SS keep it's industrial
cartels

The US signed those rules, and the fact that you don't like it doesn't really matter.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-11-08 05:34pm

Dahak wrote:
MKSheppard wrote:Like I said, why the fuck are we going to put back a socialist economy where
everything is controlled by the Iraqi government?

We're the US of A, not the USSR.
Because the rules say so. Easy as that.

This is the same dogmaticism that Europeans accuse Americans of having with the Constitution.

Just because there is a law doesn't make it just, intelligent, or enforceable. If you want to argue the "shoulds" you need to do more than mindlessly appeal to authority.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-11-08 05:47pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:
Dahak wrote:
MKSheppard wrote:Like I said, why the fuck are we going to put back a socialist economy where
everything is controlled by the Iraqi government?

We're the US of A, not the USSR.
Because the rules say so. Easy as that.
This is the same dogmaticism that Europeans accuse Americans of having with the Constitution.

Just because there is a law doesn't make it just, intelligent, or enforceable. If you want to argue the "shoulds" you need to do more than mindlessly appeal to authority.

Because it's wrong to arbitrarily sell something that belongs to somebody else.

Dahak · Post by **Dahak** » 2003-11-08 06:03pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:
Dahak wrote:
MKSheppard wrote:Like I said, why the fuck are we going to put back a socialist economy where
everything is controlled by the Iraqi government?

We're the US of A, not the USSR.
Because the rules say so. Easy as that.
This is the same dogmaticism that Europeans accuse Americans of having with the Constitution.

Just because there is a law doesn't make it just, intelligent, or enforceable. If you want to argue the "shoulds" you need to do more than mindlessly appeal to authority.

Those laws exist for a reason. To prevent the garage sale of the occupied country, which is what's happening here.
Those Iraqis who were "liberated" do have a right for their own country. And if they want to change the ways things are handled there, it's their turn to decide it.

And no, the puppet "council" doesn't really count.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-11-08 06:12pm

This is all fine and well (and I'm sure Naomi Klein's nipples are tingling over the idea of a socialist Iraq), but is there any way of enforcing this?

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-11-08 06:24pm

Dahak wrote:Those laws exist for a reason. To prevent the garage sale of the occupied country, which is what's happening here. Those Iraqis who were "liberated" do have a right for their own country. And if they want to change the ways things are handled there, it's their turn to decide it.

And no, the puppet "council" doesn't really count.

You see? This is an argument. The idea is to post this shit first, rather than driveling that "there's a law" which is an appeal to authority.

And furthermore, would you support any administrative body while the U.S. is occupying? Who else is supposed to decide these things until the country is rebuilt and stable? Do you really think a stable republic can be established yet?

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-11-08 06:25pm

Durran Korr wrote:This is all fine and well (and I'm sure Naomi Klein's nipples are tingling over the idea of a socialist Iraq), but is there any way of enforcing this?

Its international law. Which is basically means "unenforceable." The only kind of real international law is world opinion, only if those with the opinion can back it up, which they can't, and treaties, which are only worth two shits as long as those who've signed give a shit.

Dahak · Post by **Dahak** » 2003-11-08 06:42pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:You see? This is an argument. The idea is to post this shit first, rather than driveling that "there's a law" which is an appeal to authority.

And furthermore, would you support any administrative body while the U.S. is occupying? Who else is supposed to decide these things until the country is rebuilt and stable? Do you really think a stable republic can be established yet?

I would point to the "administrative" part.
I doubt "selling out" is covered by that. Letting American corps buy the essential infrastructure isn't in the Iraqi interest.

Dahak · Post by **Dahak** » 2003-11-08 06:45pm

Durran Korr wrote:This is all fine and well (and I'm sure Naomi Klein's nipples are tingling over the idea of a socialist Iraq), but is there any way of enforcing this?

Only in as much as if you expect others to abide by those laws, so should you.
You can't just ignore something binding you signed, just because it makes your plans a bit more complicated.

TheDarkling · Post by **TheDarkling** » 2003-11-08 07:18pm

Dahak wrote: Only in as much as if you expect others to abide by those laws, so should you.
You can't just ignore something binding you signed, just because it makes your plans a bit more complicated.

Of course they can ignore it, the result will be ill will towards the USA but that gets brushed aside as jealously due to American freedom and prosperity.

Personally I wonder why rebuild Iraq as a republic? Surely there must be some minor British noble willing to take on the job as monarch?

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2003-11-08 07:25pm

TheDarkling wrote: Personally I wonder why rebuild Iraq as a republic? Surely there must be some minor British noble willing to take on the job as monarch?

Uh oh.. I know the perfect guy! The eternal candidate to the non existant portuguese trone, D. Duarte de Bragança. He really wants to be a king, and he is expendable. Plus, he looks so much like Saddam that the Iraqis would feel at home. See?

Take him, take him!

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-11-08 08:15pm

Dahak wrote:Only in as much as if you expect others to abide by those laws, so should you.

When did we do that?

Dahak wrote:You can't just ignore something binding you signed, just because it makes your plans a bit more complicated.

We can't? You better call Halliburton and set them straight.

TheDarkling · Post by **TheDarkling** » 2003-11-08 08:29pm

Colonel Olrik wrote: Uh oh.. I know the perfect guy! The eternal candidate to the non existant portuguese trone, D. Duarte de Bragança. He really wants to be a king, and he is expendable. Plus, he looks so much like Saddam that the Iraqis would feel at home. See?

Take him, take him!

No thanks, I don't trust continental Europeans with moustaches.

Andrew J. · Post by **Andrew J.** » 2003-11-08 08:30pm

Colonel Olrik wrote: Uh oh.. I know the perfect guy! The eternal candidate to the non existant portuguese trone, D. Duarte de Bragança. He really wants to be a king, and he is expendable.

I think they already have a royal exile hanging around, the son of the last king of Iraq or something like that.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2003-11-08 09:28pm

I have said it befor and I will say it again, the war was never about WMD's, Saddam the Bad or the long suffering Iraqi people.
I will say that if this American administration and their man in Baghdad think that this will work then they need to study their history a little better..esp the bit of hisory regarding Iraq 1900 to about 1960.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-11-08 09:36pm

Stuart Mackey wrote: I will say that if this American administration and their man in Baghdad think that this will work then they need to study their history a little better..esp the bit of hisory regarding Iraq 1900 to about 1960.

Gee, before Saddamn took power and socialized everything? We're undoing
decades of fucked upness.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2003-11-08 09:57pm

MKSheppard wrote:
Stuart Mackey wrote: I will say that if this American administration and their man in Baghdad think that this will work then they need to study their history a little better..esp the bit of hisory regarding Iraq 1900 to about 1960.
Gee, before Saddamn took power and socialized everything? We're undoing
decades of fucked upness.

*sigh* Who do you think ran Iraq befor its effective independence? It was not Iraqis, and why do they not run Iraq now?.
Also, define 'socialized' , given that the government of Britian, America's main ally {I use the word in the Roman sense} is a 'socialist' party.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-11-08 10:08pm

Stuart Mackey wrote: Also, define 'socialized' , given that the government of Britian, America's main ally {I use the word in the Roman sense} is a 'socialist' party.

Socialist = government owns all the major methods of production from
manufacturing to oil, etc