Is this what you want when you support the US occupation of Iraq?

[Karmadillo]

If you want something better than what's described in the article below, do you think it is realistic to expect it will be achieved under US control? I think it was Jonathan Schell who said the war took the best options for Iraq off the table, but UN occupation (without a US presence except for the funding to fix what we broke) with a rapid transition to some form of self-government may be the best of the remaining options. Given the uses to which the requested $87 billion will be put by the Bush Administration, it's hard for me to see why Democrats shouldn't be unanimous in their opposition. The troops should come home, not for our benefit, but for the benefit of the Iraqi people.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/sep2003/bush-s24.shtml

Bush at the UN—a war criminal takes the podium
By Bill Vann
24 September 2003

<edit>

In the meantime, the gangster regime in Washington intends to carry out the systematic plundering of Iraqi wealth, while using military force to suppress a growing movement of national resistance.

The Bush administration’s plans were spelled out over the weekend, when Washington’s handpicked finance minister in the Iraqi Quisling regime unexpectedly unveiled a blueprint for the country’s economic development.

This economic “reform” package—made public at the International Monetary Fund-World Bank meeting in Dubai and signed into law by Washington’s proconsul in Baghdad, Paul Bremer—amounts to a US plan for the wholesale privatization of the Iraqi economy. It imposes investment, trade and tax policies geared entirely to the interests of US multinationals at the expense of the Iraqi people.

The precedent for this plan is the kind of disastrous economic “shock therapy” introduced in the former Soviet Union more than a decade ago, leading to the plummeting of living standards for the vast majority and the creation of a wealthy criminal elite. In Iraq, however, the process is to be carried out at the point of a US gun, with the assurance that the overwhelming share of profits will be reaped by politically connected American corporations like Halliburton and Bechtel.

The plan calls for the privatization of everything from electric power, to hospitals and a myriad of state-owned industries. This process would inevitably involve a form of brutal triage, in which those few industries considered profitable would be taken over by US corporations, with the rest shut down and their workers thrown onto the scrap heap.

It allows for 100 percent foreign ownership in all sectors, save natural resources, and reduces trade tariffs to a minimum. Foreign companies would be guaranteed full and immediate remittance of all profits, dividends, interest and royalties.

more...

[HFishbine]

1. Hope for the big fucking

Now there's your real reason for the war.

My only hope is that Bush takes some greedy US companies down this path and that when Iraqis are finally in control (yeah, big if, I know), they turn around and undo the scam giving a big "screw you" to the companies immoral enough to participate.

[denverbill]

2. Nope, that's a recipe for unmitigated disaster.

It's a travesty. The US pretends that this is all for the benefit of the Iraqi people, and that it's the Iraqi people who are to decide the fate of their country.

But now, before the people of Iraq even have a voice, decisions which will impact their country for the next 50 years are being made by us.

This shit is going to guarantee that the entire Iraq war ends up as a failure.

[Karmadillo]

3. Since a Washington Post poll shows 60% of Americans oppose the

request for $87 billion, isn't this an issue where the Democrats can speak the truth? Do they really need to pretend the money is needed to fulfill the Administration's alleged goals of deterring terrorism and creating a Middle East democracy?

http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=B6779F60-F87B-4DF7-92CEC10578E2CEEC

<edit>

Meanwhile, a new opinion poll indicates the majority of Americans oppose President George Bush's request for an additional $87 billion to fund military and reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Six in 10 people surveyed in the Washington Post-ABC News poll said they do not support the request.

Responding to criticism that the 87-billion dollar amount is too high, Vice President Dick Cheney said Sunday that the cost of failure in Iraq would be far higher. Speaking on NBC television's Meet the Press, Mr. Cheney said the money was "all that we think we'll need for the foreseeable future, for this year."

The results of the Washington Post-ABC News poll were published one week after the president made his request for additional funding in a nationally-televised speech.

more...

[Karmadillo]

4. J. Sachs: UN could assist transition to Iraqi sovereignty for $10 billion

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2003/09/13/a_better_use_for_our_87b/

A better use for our $87b
By Jeffrey D. Sachs, 9/13/2003

<edit>

The cruelest twist, though, is that the all of the talk about US and UK compassion is accompanied by indifference where compassion is truly needed. Nine months ago, Bush spoke movingly about the tragedy of millions of people with AIDS turned away from African hospitals, because they were too poor to afford the drugs. During those nine months another two million or so Africans died, and the United States accomplished absolutely nothing to change the situation. The president's much vaunted $15 billion five-year program for AIDS is on paper only.

This year Bush asked for only $200 million for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB, and Malaria, a sum equal to 1.5 days of spending on the US occupying forces in Iraq. The US annual contributions to fight malaria are less than the costs of one day's occupation, and as a result, 3 million Africans will die needlessly from that preventable and treatable disease.

But who is talking about $87 billion for the 30 million Africans dying from the effects of HIV/AIDS, or the children dying of malaria, or the 15 million AIDS orphans, or the dispossessed of Liberia and Sierra Leone, or the impoverished children of America without medical insurance?

True security in the world will not be bought by US hegemony. The world will not tolerate unilateral control by a country that accounts for less than 5 percent of humanity. The United States will continue to destabilize Iraq as long as the occupation continues, and the American people will end up paying a high price for the fantasy of hegemony.

It is time for the United States to withdraw from Iraq in favor of a sovereign Iraqi government. The United Nations is very well placed to assist in that transition, and could do that for perhaps $10 billion in the coming year, or around 10 percent of the costs that Bush has requested. The balance of the US funds could be turned to truly urgent needs of the long-suffering at home and abroad.

end

[Karmadillo]

5. The Secret of Al Kut

http://www.lewrockwell.com/kwiatkowski/kwiatkowski41.html

<edit>

Millions of Americans, me included, want a complete Congressional rejection of the President’s heavily padded and detail-sparse $87 billion request. So does Congressman Ron Paul. One reader writes "You can't be serious. Have you considered the consequences?" Another asks, "What can ordinary citizens do?"

Of course I am serious! What seems incredibly difficult (stopping in our tracks in Iraq and coming home) is, in fact, not difficult at all. As usual, the Marines are leading the way and setting the standard. They have shown us how to come home. Yes, occupation is not ended. We transferred our power over Iraqi cities to replacement occupying forces that we continue to fund and support logistically. But this second wind of occupiers will be short lived and largely irrelevant. In fact, they will be about as effective as a full-fledged U.N. occupation would be, in this case an ideal and sought-after kind of irrelevance. It’s exactly the type of occupation we should be striving for in Iraq. Some Iraqis were interested in being relieved of Saddam and his Ba-ath command economy. None of them asked to be occupied. If we can’t all leave at once, at least we can leave city by city and make sure the remaining occupiers are unnoticed, passive, ignorable and irrelevant.

A full and immediate rejection of the $87 billion will do nothing but assist the President in making these right decisions.

The consequences of leaving are many and powerful. Leaving will open the door to genuine trade and friendship with Iraq, or at least with the cities and regions our military exits soonest. Imagine the trade opportunities when we and the Iraqis don’t have to gain Jerry Bremer’s blessing of every contract beforehand! Opening this door is far better than burning economic and cultural bridges, apparently an ongoing priority of Bush-Cheney foreign policy. Yes, Halliburton, Bechtel, Worldcom and Big American Oil may be able to retain contracts through force, political puppetry, U.S. taxpayer subsidies, and some might say, Mafioso banditry. But real and open exchange of goods, services and ideas, simultaneously blessing people on both sides of the globe with true opportunity and productivity, requires and demands that the bridge burning stop now.

more...

[Karenina]

6. WHAT IS NOT TO GET???

:kick:

[Karmadillo]

7. Seattle Times: Let the neo-cons bellow, just bring the troops home

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2001742573_ramsx24.html

George, here's what to do in Iraq: Declare victory and bring the troops home.

A senator from Vermont once suggested such a policy during the Vietnam War. It would have meant a defeat. In this case, it might mean chaos, at least for a while, unless you can get more international help.

You asked for help from the U.N. That was good. Get back to them and say, "We're serious. We're on a fast track to leave."

To America's soldiers, you can say: "You're fighters, not social workers. The fighting's done, excellent work, and you can start going home."

more...