[kvm_mkdb]

While claiming that a hasty move to sovereignty could be counterproductive, sweeping economic reforms have been announced today:

Iraq's finance minister, recently named by a half-way house Iraqi council itself picked by the United States to control post-war Iraq, unveiled a string of reforms that read like a free-market manifesto devised by Washington to sign off 30 years of Saddam Hussein and the socialist Baath Party.
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=3480968

Despite the lack of security, Iraq's interim government announced plans Sunday to open all sectors of its economy except oil to foreign investors and to institute an income tax next year.
http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/apps/p...mp;cachetime=5

But the BBC's Nick Springate, in Baghdad, says many ordinary Iraqis will see the moves as a big sell-off with predominantly multi-national, American companies viewed as getting "rewards".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3126522.stm

[moki]

Originally posted by kvm_mkdb:
Despite the lack of security, Iraq's interim government announced plans Sunday to open all sectors of its economy except oil to foreign investors and to institute an income tax next year.
http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/apps/p...mp;cachetime=5

Except the Oil industry, eh? Doesn't that damage the "no blood for oil" crowd's cries?

[eklipse]

Originally posted by moki:
Except the Oil industry, eh? Doesn't that damage the "no blood for oil" crowd's cries?

The state is already essentially 'American owned' - what difference does it make if they privatize the oil industry or not?

[version]

Originally posted by moki:
Except the Oil industry, eh? Doesn't that damage the "no blood for oil" crowd's cries?

No, it doesn't. Iraqi oil revenue will be used to rebuild the country, as well lining the coffers of Bush's pals as they rebuild it. Oh, and why should Iraq's oil revenue be used to rebuild the country, since it was the US that destroyed it, Iraq never wanted to be invaded. Shouldn't the world, or the US be rebuilding what they destroyed at their cost.
It's like robbing, and burning someone's house down, then coming back to charge them for the privilege, and to redecorate it.

[moki]

Originally posted by eklipse:
The state is already essentially 'American owned' - what difference does it make if they privatize the oil industry or not?

In what way is it "American owned" exactly? Specifics, please...

[Logic]

Originally posted by moki:
In what way is it "American owned" exactly? Specifics, please...

The interim regime:

Put in place by the US(forgive me, the coalition).

The persons in the interim regime are chosen by the Coalition.

The interim regime cannot do anything without the Coalitions approval.


One could argue if they are "owned" but they sure as hell are controlled by the Coalition.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by moki:
In what way is it "American owned" exactly? Specifics, please...

What Logic said and,

Who do you think is going to be getting the bill for Iraq's liberation/occupation and 'reconstruction'? and how do you think they are going to pay for it?

One way or another that oil revenue is destined for American bank accounts.

[AutoJC]

Originally posted by eklipse:
What Logic said and,

Who do you think is going to be getting the bill for Iraq's liberation/occupation and 'reconstruction'? and how do you think they are going to pay for it?

One way or another that oil revenue is destined for American bank accounts.

Iraq should pay for its own reconstruction. Saddam supported terrorism. Better idea- send Saddam Hussein and the Ba'ath Party the bill.

BTW, we don't take Visa

[eklipse]

Originally posted by AutoJC:
Iraq should pay for its own reconstruction. Saddam supported terrorism. Better idea- send Saddam Hussein and the Ba'ath Party the bill.

BTW, we don't take Visa

Who asked America to reconstruct Iraq?

[shmerek]

Originally posted by AutoJC:
Iraq should pay for its own reconstruction. Saddam supported terrorism. Better idea- send Saddam Hussein and the Ba'ath Party the bill.

BTW, we don't take Visa

Go away

[Millennium]

Originally posted by eklipse:
Who asked America to reconstruct Iraq?

Indeed, no one did.

Whether we should have gone to war or not is certainly debatable. But the fact remains, we did; that's done. Given what we have destroyed, would you not say there's a moral obligation to rebuild in good faith?

Remember what happened last time we pulled out of a country too quickly. That time, the Taliban overthrew Afghanistan's interim government, which we had not left in a stable state, and frankly that probably played a large role in the current mess with both that country and with Afghanistan. Rome was not built in a day, Germany was not rebuilt in six months, and Iraq won't be any faster. These things take time; surely you can understand that.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Indeed, no one did.

Whether we should have gone to war or not is certainly debatable. But the fact remains, we did; that's done. Given what we have destroyed, would you not say there's a moral obligation to rebuild in good faith?

Yes, there is a moral obligation to rebuild in good faith, but, the 'morality' and 'goodness of faith' is diluted slightly by demanding repayment for something that was never asked for - or has America become the international military equivalent of 'squeegee men'?

There are an awful lot of Iraqis that want the US out of their country. I would think it would be a lot fairer and honest if the Iraqis could choose who they want to rebuild their country (if indeed they do require foreign intervention). If they pick America, then fine, by all means give the contracts to American companies. Having a US installed government decide who gets the contracts and the oil money is extremely underhanded and suspicious.