emphryio

http://www.socialistworker.org/2003-...liburton.shtml

http://afr.com/iraq/2003/05/08/FFXH6JM7EFD.html

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationwo...onalnews-print

http://www.ccmep.org/2003_articles/I...al_include.htm

Well there were no WMD. Chalabi is a proxy. The statue falling was a photo op. They purposely bombed Al Jazerra and targeted journalists at the hotel were the statue falling photo op later occurred. They will not allow a Shia (sp) democracy. And now they're going to take the oil profits as anyone with a clue knew they would.

Ruy Lopez

It all depends on your viewpoint. Are you arguing on behalf of the Iraqi people's patrimony/wellbeing; or against the US gov't and crony corporations; or on behalf of the American nation and public.

If you are concerned about the second point and maybe also the first, I would say these:

1)As far as money and wealth are concerned, there is probably very little difference between Saddam and the US ruling clique and corporations. Both skim at the top and would leave the country enough to keep it functioning and keep resentment down. Saddam had an advantage; he already knew how much to take without upsetting the apple cart. Americans have a disadvantage being unwelcome foreigners. They have to give more; especially after their promises.

2)If you don;t like GWB and company, you should allow Cheney and Halliburton to do their worse. Sooner or later they will leave a paper trail or a mistake--ammo for 2004 elections.

3)If you worry about the welfare of the Iraqi people, don't overdo it. The most US corporations can take would be in the form of overpriced reconstruction services for a 1 to 2 yr. period only. Right now, Iraq isn't earning much as a country-no oil revenues. Once the oil starts moving, it would probably be at 1.5 to 2.0 million bbls a day and at prices lower than current. (There's already a supply glut due to lower demand. Iraq oil will drive prices much lower).

There is a minimum billions of dollars that the US adminstrators must spend on Iraq or else the country blows up on their faces. If the Iraqi economy cannot provide, the US taxpayer would have to and that would include Halliburton profits. Get spies inside Halliburton to document the illegal or scandalous.

Have more to say but would probably stop here.

John Hancock

Ruy Lopez

Just a couple of comments:

2)If you don;t like GWB and company, you should allow Cheney and Halliburton to do their worse. Sooner or later they will leave a paper trail or a mistake--ammo for 2004 elections.

Will the general public get the message?

3)If you worry about the welfare of the Iraqi people, don't overdo it. The most US corporations can take would be in the form of overpriced reconstruction services for a 1 to 2 yr. period only. Right now, Iraq isn't earning much as a country-no oil revenues. Once the oil starts moving, it would probably be at 1.5 to 2.0 million bbls a day and at prices lower than current. (There's already a supply glut due to lower demand. Iraq oil will drive prices much lower).

The rape of the financial well being of the general US public is all ready in the works. Another tax cut?

Martin

Ruy Lopez

[b]Will the general public get the message?

You probably have a point. For sometime now I've had the feeling that the Democrats are heavily infiltrated (no two real parties in foreign policy and many local issues). Also elections in 2004 would probably be rigged.