Senate Approves Iraq Withdrawl Bill

[Brandon Rhea]

They don't have enough votes. They know that already.

 

[Cailst]

Only if they get a two thirds majority in both houses which is ver unlikley as the last election, the slim majority of the republicans got replaced by an even slimmer majority of Democrats.

By the way, I think we do have a chance of winning in Iraq. Yes, it will be while but as the Iraqi army gains experience and skill, it can do more and more of the patrolling of the streets and less Iraqis complaining about the U.S. breathing down their necks. As the democracy slowly builds, hopefully an united Iraq will begin to form in their minds and then it won't simply be an evil idea vs. the military but a good idea vs. an evil idea. Though ten terrorists may spring to replace the one who killed a bunch of Iraqis, a hundred Iraqis spring to rereplace one dead of them.

 

[Kalin Morne]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Noncommunist @ Apr 12 2007, 05:54 PM) [snapback]158669[/snapback]</div>

Only if they get a two thirds majority in both houses which is ver unlikley as the last election, the slim majority of the republicans got replaced by an even slimmer majority of Democrats.

By the way, I think we do have a chance of winning in Iraq. Yes, it will be while but as the Iraqi army gains experience and skill, it can do more and more of the patrolling of the streets and less Iraqis complaining about the U.S. breathing down their necks. As the democracy slowly builds, hopefully an united Iraq will begin to form in their minds and then it won't simply be an evil idea vs. the military but a good idea vs. an evil idea. Though ten terrorists may spring to replace the one who killed a bunch of Iraqis, a hundred Iraqis spring to rereplace one dead of them.[/b]

You're not getting it. It has nothing to do with the amount of soldiers or the competence of the soldiers. It has nothing to do with how effective the democracy is either. We could put sixteen billion 1939 Wehrmacht level soldiers in Iraq, and have the most progressive democratic system the world has ever seen, but it wouldn't change anything if we don't fix their infrastructure. Lack of infrastructure equals poverty. Poverty equals disease, hunger, and unsatisfied needs. The average person won't look at it from an idealistic viewpoint unless they can feed their families. You, Me, Brandon, and everyone else on this forum take food, water, and electricity for granted and then we chastise people for not being as idealistic as us. A man will not take sides if he isn't sure if the side will allow him to feed his wife and children. This is especially true in the Middle East, as they've been struggling to survive for a good two thousand years. As of this posting, we've demolished the average Iraqi's ability to feed and clothe his family.

As such, they will not have fond opinions of the United States, Democracy, or the West until we build up their infrastructure again. Instead, they will start to have fond feelings towards Saddam's regime. They'll go "You know, he only came down on us when we spoke up against him. But otherwise, he managed to keep the water and electricity running. And we didn't have as much food as we would have liked, but it was enough to keep us healthy. Maybe this democracy thing is crap." People don't go "Oh! Wow! Look! Democracy!" when their kid is dying from starvation.

 

[Enishi]

If Bush is smart and passes this bill, it will make alot of things better.

Me want Iraq war OVER

 

[Kalin Morne]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Enishi @ Apr 12 2007, 06:54 PM) [snapback]158683[/snapback]</div>

If Bush is smart and passes this bill, it will make alot of things better.

Me want Iraq war OVER[/b]

I dunno. We don't have any good choices. He really put us in a bad place.

 

[Cailst]

Yes, people are less willing to be idealistic if they are starving and have no electricity unless they go hand in hand (french revolution) However, they are getting the infrastructure back and the disrupters to the infrastrucure are likely to be insurgents or gangs, hopefully they will finally stop being the friendly sea in which guerilla's live ( a reference to Mao Zedongs analogy of guerillas being fish in the sea of the population) and begin being poisonous to prevent insugents from dwelling in civilized places.

ME want Iraq war OVER too, I just want us to return as victors.

 

[Kalin Morne]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Noncommunist @ Apr 12 2007, 09:18 PM) [snapback]158721[/snapback]</div>

Yes, people are less willing to be idealistic if they are starving and have no electricity unless they go hand in hand (french revolution) However, they are getting the infrastructure back and the disrupters to the infrastrucure are likely to be insurgents or gangs, hopefully they will finally stop being the friendly sea in which guerilla's live ( a reference to Mao Zedongs analogy of guerillas being fish in the sea of the population) and begin being poisonous to prevent insugents from dwelling in civilized places.

ME want Iraq war OVER too, I just want us to return as victors.[/b]

Again. Look at my citations. The infrastructure is not coming back. The disruptors are not insurgents. The disruptors are not rebels. The disruptors are American War Profiteers. We're not coming back victorious. We missed our window of opportunity fifteen years ago.

 

[Cailst]

Other than when we went in, when would the americans be blowing up Iraqi infrastructure? It's not like haliburton just randomly decides to build a huge bomb and roll it into the Tigris. I don't see why very many counter insurgencey battles by Iraqi and U.S. troops would even require much destruction of infrastructure. Plus I'm fair certain that the electricty is not much worse than it was in the Saddam era. Also, the insurgents aren't bothering it, then it should eventually progress to even higher levels than in the Saddam era.

 

[Kalin Morne]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Noncommunist @ Apr 12 2007, 10:12 PM) [snapback]158724[/snapback]</div>

Other than when we went in, when would the americans be blowing up Iraqi infrastructure? It's not like haliburton just randomly decides to build a huge bomb and roll it into the Tigris. I don't see why very many counter insurgencey battles by Iraqi and U.S. troops would even require much destruction of infrastructure. Plus I'm fair certain that the electricty is not much worse than it was in the Saddam era. Also, the insurgents aren't bothering it, then it should eventually progress to even higher levels than in the Saddam era.[/b]

You're not putting two and two together. We took out their electrical and water facilities when we invaded. It's not that we're doing further damage (Though we sometimes do during the course of battle). It's that /nothing is getting done/. The contracts we're issuing to companies in the Middle East aren't getting honored due to the War Profiteering by the Republican Party. Under Saddam they had regular supplies of water and electricity. Today, they're lucky if their water runs for a couple hours a week.

We're not doing anything.

 

[Cailst]

Aren't there enough decently wealthy people to start their own companies in Iraq that supply those services? Surely someone has began their own company that can monopolize on the fact that no one else is supplying the electrcity and water as well as the fact that the new Iraqi government probably hasn't made as many regulations.

By the way, who are these companies and do you have links?

 

[Kalin Morne]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Noncommunist @ Apr 12 2007, 10:29 PM) [snapback]158730[/snapback]</div>

Aren't there enough decently wealthy people to start their own companies in Iraq that supply those services? Surely someone has began their own company that can monopolize on the fact that no one else is supplying the electrcity and water as well as the fact that the new Iraqi government probably hasn't made as many regulations.

By the way, who are these companies and do you have links?[/b]

A monopoly is the last thing Iraq needs. The primary companies getting the Cost Plus No Bid contracts to my knowledge are Halliburton and it's subsidiary, KBR. I've already provided links. Now, here's the thing. You suggest people moving in and starting companies. What money are the Iraqi people going to use to pay for these services? Mostly it's just large Corporations who only seek to maximize their own profit. This is not what Iraq needs, or else we're going to see a repeat of what we've done in Guatemala, El Salvadore, Argentina, Brazil, Mexico and numerous other countries.

Here are more links:

War Profiteering
The site of the mentioned Press Release


The ten worst war profiteers:
1. Aegis Defence Services
2. BearingPoint, Inc.
3. Bechtel
4. BKSH and Associates
5. CACI International and Titan Corporation
6. Custer Battles
7. Halliburton
8. Lockheed Martin
9. Loral Satellite
10. Qualcomm

Aegis, Custer battles, Titan Corporation, and CACI are contractors, in essence Mercenaries.

 

[Cailst]

I said, decently wealthy Iraqis so they can actually create the thing. Plus, they will still realize that they have to keep the price that people will pay for it. Eventually, the Government would make it so the companies would be watched carefully and it would be like it is here where there are legal monoplies on things like electricity.

Even the corperations only seek their own profit, they will still build infrastructure. That's the beauty of capitalism. People are naturally selfish, free market just makes that selfish nature help people rather than hurt them since they will have to sell at what people are willing to buy.

Do you have any other links other than http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/about_hal/costplus.html which will obviously be biased. Like a news report that was written by a person with a lobotomy. Why were both of the new links, the same thing?

 

[Kalin Morne]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Noncommunist @ Apr 12 2007, 10:59 PM) [snapback]158737[/snapback]</div>

I said, decently wealthy Iraqis so they can actually create the thing. Plus, they will still realize that they have to keep the price that people will pay for it. Eventually, the Government would make it so the companies would be watched carefully and it would be like it is here where there are legal monoplies on things like electricity.

Even the corperations only seek their own profit, they will still build infrastructure. That's the beauty of capitalism. People are naturally selfish, free market just makes that selfish nature help people rather than hurt them since they will have to sell at what people are willing to buy.

Do you have any other links other than http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/about_hal/costplus.html which will obviously be biased. Like a news report that was written by a person with a lobotomy.[/b]

Again, these companies will still need to turn a profit. You can't turn a profit if everyone around you is poor.

Relying upon Corporations to build infrastructure is a foolish practice, they're going to do whatever allows them the most profit, which isn't often in national interest. Look at Suburbs, how viable is that life style going to be when Peak Oil hits around 2015?

Capitalism is nothing but destructive. Look at the Maquiladora programs in Mexico and Central America, sponsored by the American government and enjoyed by American Corporations. This system actually impoverishes countries far more than what you'd think.


Also, yes. I do have other links.
It's Cost Plus, Baby.
Halliburton's Deals Greater Than Thought
Senate Judiciary Holds Hearing On War Profiteering.
Bechtel Takes a Hit for War Profiteering
Report: Is What's Good for Boeing and Halliburton Good for America?
Halliburton Contracts Require Greater Scrutiny
Congressional Hearing Necessary for War Profiteering
Halliburton Makes a Killing on Iraq War.
Shining a Spotlight on Iraq War Profiteers
War Profiteers: Profits over Patriotism
Congress Must Cut Off Bush Family War Profits.
Senator Feinstein's War Profiteering
Bush Family and the Carlyle Group's Crusades

 

[Cailst]

What would the creators of infrastructure need to pay for after their initial creation other than some maintinence? They could probably rely enough people to pay them for their services.

Also, what happened with the Maquiladora plan?

 

[Kalin Morne]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Noncommunist @ Apr 12 2007, 11:23 PM) [snapback]158750[/snapback]</div>

What would the creators of infrastructure need to pay for after their initial creation other than some maintinence? They could probably rely enough people to pay them for their services.

Also, what happened with the Maquiladora plan?[/b]

Maintenance, wages, resources(Oil, Coal, etc, etc), all the things necessary to run a business. They would have to charge SOMEONE. So again, the people of Iraq are too poor to maintain these things themselves.


Explanation of the Maquiladora Programs

The Maquiladora programs are Free Trade Zones in Central America. They are designed for the sole purpose of maintaining cheap labor for the largest business interests. These Maquiladora programs charge 20-33 cents an hour per worker, and wind up making everyone that works in them dependent upon this money because it's either that, or watch your children starve to death. In conjunction with this, these people have to work for extraordinarily long hours(10-16 hour shifts) and are often held back without pay until they finish their quota(Which is often ridiculously high) About 85% of the Maquiladora workers are females, and they are forced to take birth control pills so they can continue working. If a female gets pregnant they are forced to take a shot which is in effect an abortion. Most Maquiladora workers are very young, and due to the number of hours they work they have to leave school in order to work in the Maquila to support their families.

This destroys future generations.

Due to the desperate nature of these countries, and their desire for funds this encourages something called the "Race to the Bottom". In essence, say you have Mexico where the workers are paid 33 cents an hour. I live in Argentina and I talk to the corporations and assure them that I can work for 22 cents an hour. They move to my country, which causes Mexico to say "Hey! Come back! We can work for 18 cents an hour!" and so on and so forth.

This also leads to national debt, as a Corporation will only move in if there is sufficient infrastructure to support them. Ie: Roads, Air strips. In order to fund these projects, the nations have to borrow money. Typically from the World Bank who charges exorbitant interest rates. However, once the Maquiladora are in place the workers are paid ridiculously low wages and actually can't pay taxes. This leads to the Nation being in further debt as they can't pay back their loan. They are then forced to turn to the IMF, who enact something called "Structural Adjustment Programs". These SAPs are in essence "Shock therapy" for the economy, and involve massive cuts to healthcare, education, police, electricity, water, and maintenance. This creates a further impoverished situation for the people, causing the need for more maquiladora and thus the program continues.



A pro Maquiladora site: I hate these people.

 

[Cailst]

They may be poor but they had some of it during Saddam's era.

Also, since the staff would be small, it probably couldn't go under as much abuse as those maquiladora programs.

Who demanded products from Maquiladora programs?

 

[Kalin Morne]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Noncommunist @ Apr 12 2007, 11:45 PM) [snapback]158762[/snapback]</div>

They may be poor but they had some of it during Saddam's era.

Also, since the staff would be small, it probably couldn't go under as much abuse as those maquiladora programs.

Who demanded products from Maquiladora programs?[/b]

The people were still poor under Saddam-Artificially. My theory about Iraq is that they were prime for voluntarily reaching for Democracy. Not many people know this, but Iraq was a Second World nation on the verge of becoming a First World nation just before the Gulf War(Which Saddam had a legal right to, as the Kuwaitis were using Paralell Oil Drilling to siphon oil out of Iraq). After the first Gulf War we suddenly made a big deal out of Saddam and slammed his country with economic sanctions. This didn't hurt him that much. But it really hurt the people, another point against us.

Now, people were poor under Saddam, but they didn't have to pay for Water or Electricity.

I'm not suggesting that the tech people in the infrastructure building operations would be treated like in Maquiladora, I'm simply illustrating the inherently destructive nature of Capitalism.

Do you wear anything from the GAP? They use the Maquiladora program. We consume the products made in these places.

 

[Cailst]

Whether or not he had the right to the oil, going to war and annexing Kuwait is still too far. When we hit his country with sanctions, it was so we didn't have to deal with what we're dealing with now. Also, I think the sanctions were supposed to get the Iraqis to revolt which they did but failed.


Well since the consumers of the products of the infrasructure would be Iraqis, they would be the one who benefit like we benefit from the GAP products.

 

[Kalin Morne]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Noncommunist @ Apr 13 2007, 12:05 AM) [snapback]158773[/snapback]</div>

Whether or not he had the right to the oil, going to war and annexing Kuwait is still too far. When we hit his country with sanctions, it was so we didn't have to deal with what we're dealing with now. Also, I think the sanctions were supposed to get the Iraqis to revolt which they did but failed.
Well since the consumers of the products of the infrasructure would be Iraqis, they would be the one who benefit like we benefit from the GAP products.[/b]

Again, you can't have electricity and water privately owned if they can't afford it.

 

[lakorish]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Kalin Morne @ Apr 12 2007, 12:28 PM) [snapback]158624[/snapback]</div>

I did cite, didn't you see the numbers next to the points?

Also, here's the thing. We made a horrible choice. The quality of life from Saddam to our occupation went down. Way down. What kind of taste for Democracy do you think this is instilling in the Iraqi population? A very bad one. And the longer we stay, and the longer we do /nothing/ the worse that taste gets. That 300,000-600,000 deaths I mentioned? They're not all from insurgent attacks. A good portion are from disease, water deprivation, starvation, and our own bombing in conjunction with Insurgent attacks

So we do one of two things. Pull out and cut out losses. Or actually start building up the infrastructure and get that quality of life back up.
In my opinion, we only have Pulling out as an option. We've already dealt a deadly blow to the Iraqi(And subsequently Middle Eastern) vision of democracy. First, we let all the people whom we promised liberation to down during the first Gulf War and let Saddam do whatever he wanted to the resistance that aided us. Afterwards, we invade their country for no reason other than to "Bring them freedom and improve their lives." However, we have done neither. We've lowered their standard of living and subjected them to terror and death. I think we all need to face the music and admit that we lost our window of opportunity of ever introducing democracy to Iraq. They're going to have to want it voluntarily like they did during the first Gulf War.[/b]

And you are willing to ignore the fact that he gassed thousands of his own people. That he shot all who disagreed with him. He ravaged the land. Stole money from his people. DO you know how many palaces he had? Hmm? Look that one up and tell me how nice your friend was on his people.

And are we going to forget that we actually found WMDs? Yes, bio and chemical weapons were found, and they kill people in mass numbers. I hope this does not surprise you. No, no nukes were found, but we did find other weapons with the capabilities to kill hundreds of thousands.

Cut our losses? Our losses??? What about the millions who will die once we leave? Are you so blindly American that you forget that you are human too?

WWI-

The standard of living in Germany was at an all time high. The Allies were about to lose and the massive loss of life was about to end. But what did America do? It invaded Germany anyways, despite the fact that they were killing people, furthering the length of the war, and "lowing their standard of living". The did this to "Make the world safe for democracy". Now tell me that this does not sound similar. Tell me that we were not justified to enter that engagement.

Hussien was a monster, anyway you look at him. His overthrowing was popular in Iraq. He killed massively minorities whom he did not agree with, like Hitler did in WWII (not the same as the above example) We as a nation swore we would never forget the autracities of the concentration camps. Have we forgotten so quickly?

Perhaps you are right. Perhaps it was a horrendous mistake to a dictator on the grounds which we did. If that be the case, then the two world wars also were horrendous mistakes because we used very nearly the same reasoning entering the first and sustaining the second.

BTW: You did cite them and did a good job w/ ur references; I just overlooked it. My bad.

The people were still poor under Saddam-Artificially. My theory about Iraq is that they were prime for voluntarily reaching for Democracy. Not many people know this, but Iraq was a Second World nation on the verge of becoming a First World nation just before the Gulf War(Which Saddam had a legal right to, as the Kuwaitis were using Paralell Oil Drilling to siphon oil out of Iraq). After the first Gulf War we suddenly made a big deal out of Saddam and slammed his country with economic sanctions. This didn't hurt him that much. But it really hurt the people, another point against us.

Now, people were poor under Saddam, but they didn't have to pay for Water or Electricity.[/b]

So, Saddam had a right to invade the counrty? Sounds like a pretty still punishment if you ask me. Couldnt they just ask them to stop or return the favor? If memory serves, Saddam did not invade Kuwait to get revenge or dicipline her. He did it to gain access to ports to ship Iraq's goods. Now, we can argue the morality of that one, cause Iraq was out for survival at that point.

Right, and what percentage of the population actually had access to running water and electricity?