The *Other* Way We're Screwing Iraq (That No One Talks About)

Email Print posted by ihavenobias 03/02/2008 10:48:59 PM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
We're all aware of the death and destruction in Iraq, as well as sectarian squabbles and a number of other issues.

But how often do you hear anyone discussing what Bush & Co did to screw over the country economically, to the benefit of some in America?

What am I referring to?

How about this (thanks Huffington Post):

"...expansive foreign investment rules long-sought by U.S. corporations, but so opposed by developing countries that they contributed to the collapse of two WTO ministerial meetings; 100% repatriation of profits earned in Iraq by foreign companies; 100% foreign ownership of Iraqi businesses, including banks;
 
privatization of Iraq's state owned enterprises; 100% immunity for U.S. contractors and soldiers from Iraq's laws; implementation of a flat tax which reduced Iraq's corporate tax rate by 25%; and "national treatment" which allowed for Iraqis to be all but excluded from the reconstruction for years while the U.S. government paid $50 billion to some 150 U.S. corporations for work in Iraq.

These laws have, in turn, led to mass public protests in Iraq and increased opposition to the occupation and the Iraqi officials who support it..."

PS---No post would be complete with a Thom Hartmann article on the same topic ;)
< Self-Defeating? | I Just Can't Quit You, Anders >
 Display:
The *Other* Way We're Screwing Iraq (That No One Talks About) | 8 comments (8 topical, 0 hidden)
Eek (none / 0)
Even if we pulled troops out today, this damage is done.  We have an industrial occupation of the country that is damn near impossible to undo.  We broke it, so we bought it, but not in the taking responsibility for your actions kind of way.  It was our intent from the jump.
The Hartmann article is great (as always).  I love the analogy he makes with cities here in the US.

by Spencer on 03/03/2008 03:37:37 PM EST

It's interesting how many factors (none / 0)
were involved with WHY we went into Iraq.  The cliche answer is that it was for oil, and while that's true, it doesn't tell the whole story.

It was the perfect storm of shady interests, including oil, Project For A New American Century style ideology, money for contributors/contractors and as my original post describes, an opportunity to turn Iraq into a giant, economic-conservative petri dish.

by ihavenobias on 03/03/2008 07:04:27 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I always think (none / 0)
that the Project For A New American Century isn't really an ideology.  Given the people involved, it looks more like a front for business interests to me.  Dick Cheney never really struck me as someone guided by any beliefs other than an overly strong faith in capitalism.

by Spencer on 03/03/2008 07:11:22 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The Iraq, and Afghanistan Wars are Imperialism (none / 0)
In Iraq the idea was to have access to Iraqi oil, to jumpstart the US economy, and Bush's Ratings.  In Afghanistan the idea was to get Harmai Karzai in power, and get Unicals pipeline built.  BushCo should be prosecuted as War Criminals.  It is outragous what BushCi have done to the Iraqis and to what they have done to our economy, and society. 

In Afghanistan, before BushCo invaded, the Taliban offered to give Usama Bin Laden up to a third party, like Saudi Arabia, for trial.  BushCo would have had none of that.  It's obvious to most of us here that BushCo had to invade Iraq also. 

It is such a shame.  We need to remove BushCo from power for the sake of justice, to protect our Constitution, and for the sake of our standing in the world.  These two wars have only made BushCo, and their friends, wealthier, to the deficit of the US, Nato, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

Does anyone else know that Pres. Bush owns nearly 40 million shares of common and preferred stock in Conoco-Philips, and Cheney owns, through his wife, and 2 daughters, shares of Halliburton.

Technically, much of BushCo are guilty of Sedition.

by Truthand4Justice on 03/03/2008 04:46:48 PM EST

I think Afghanistan was necessary (none / 0)

"In Afghanistan, before BushCo invaded, the Taliban offered to give Usama Bin Laden up to a third party, like Saudi Arabia, for trial."

I wouldn't have necessarily accepted this offer either.  They would have had to dismantle the organization and surrender all of the perpetrators for this to do any good at all.  I think it was necessary to go into Afghanistan.  I think it should have been done with all the manpower that we could muster and I also think they should have followed them into Pakistan if necessary.  There was no time to lose negotiating with people like the Taliban, who would have dragged their feet endlessly.

Unfortunately, the success of these things (as always) hinges on the right timing.  The time to do it was in the months immediately after 9/11, when everyone in the world expected it.  Now it's probably not feasible politically, militarily, or economically.  In short, the opportunity is gone and the chances of success are much smaller. 

by bfaul on 03/03/2008 05:51:03 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I agree with you (none / 0)
We went into Afghanistan for the right reasons, and with full moral authority.  We had a shining opportunity to show the USA could do what the USSR could not, and we blew it when Dubya shrugged off his mandate and went adventuring in Iraq--a place that had no meaning in the context of 9/11.

The ship has sailed, and taken most of our credibility with it (Dubya loaded that aboard and wished it bon Voyage).  

SAM: What's new, Normie?
NORM: Terrorists, Sam. They've taken over my stomach and they're demanding beer.

by Spinny on 03/03/2008 06:51:33 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The weird thing is (none / 0)

Had Bush actually pursued Al Qaeda and the Taliban vigorously and killed or captured Bin Laden and al-Zawahiri he would have been the big hero instead of the world's biggest loser.  It was right there, and all he really had to do was reach out and take it.  Tora Bora was where it all started to fall apart, although I don't doubt now that Bush would have proven himself to be a loser eventually anyway.

It's a sad thing when you imagine how different it could have been had we had a deeply competent person in charge at the time. 

by bfaul on 03/03/2008 11:56:07 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Yeah, it is to sigh (none / 0)
He had the full, whole-hearted and unconditional support of people like me, for whatever it was worth at the time.  He shat on it.

The depth of the current Bush hatred in this country is based on solid roots.

SAM: What's new, Normie?
NORM: Terrorists, Sam. They've taken over my stomach and they're demanding beer.

by Spinny on 03/04/2008 07:54:54 AM EST

[ Parent ]
The *Other* Way We're Screwing Iraq (That No One Talks About) | 8 comments (8 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: