Iraq for Sale

shotamoose

Chill, you don't have a clue what you're talking about. Let's take some of your points one by one:

chill wrote:

Firstly the Hague Regulations only apply to war between nations. This was a liberation of a people from a mass murdering disctator.

It was a 'liberation' by means of war, as anyone knows. If one nation's army attacking and occupying another nation isn't war, what exactly is?

The privatisation process is being applied by the Iraqi government, not the US government.

Wrong. The relevant laws were brought in by Orders of the Coalition Provisional Authority (i.e. the US government) in 2003 and the first half of 2004, well before any so-called Iraqi 'government' came into being.
CPA Order No. 39 on Foreign Investment (September 2003), which heralded the privatisation of Iraqi assets, simply declares that "This Order replaces all existing foreign investment law."

The enterprises are being sold for the benefit of the Iraqi people.

Maybe they are, maybe they're not. But I know I wouldn't like it if another country invaded mine and proceeded to illegally flog all its assets. Presumably you'd be okay with that though.

Only a personal view that carries no weight whatsoever and is disagreed with by many.

Bwahahahaha. I like the way you don't even try to explain why you're right and the British Attorney General is wrong. His view just "carries no weight whatsoever", that's all. How convincing.

The army isn't involved in the privatisation process which is being executed by the Iraqi government.

As I've already pointed out, this is wrong and proof that you haven't got a clue.

Wow... a Zambian trash newspaper is now a source of reference. Amazing.

Gee, where to start ...

(a) .za means South Africa, not Zambia.
(b) Business Day is not a trash newspaper.
(c) You obviously didn't even bother to give the piece a cursory glance, because if you did you'd know it was written by Joseph Stiglitz. Y'know, the Noble-winning economist and former "economic advisory council chairman to former US president Bill Clinton, and chief economist and senior vice-president at the World Bank"? But wait, I guess you'd simply say you know more about economics than Stiglitz, just like you know more about international law than Peter Goldsmith.

Yeah, it's amazing alright.

You clearly have no intention of actually debating any of this with anyone here. Please stop ruining perfectly good threads and leave them to people who have at least a basic grip on reality.

Redleslie2

Magnolia_Fan wrote:

Didn't he hang himself?...maybe I'm wrong and isn't his son a dentist in Dublin?

He's living in the UAE. His son is a doctor in Beaumont hospital I believe.

bobbyjoe

What shotamoose said.

Plus

Chill “The enterprises are being sold for the benefit of the Iraqi people”

You were asked before about this could you explain it for me I really can’t see it, enlighten me.

Haliburton has several investigations being run into dodgy practices, it’s getting no bid contracts worth billions, and the vice president used to work for them.
This is irrelevant?

Chill “It's extremely unlikely that any of these contracts will ever be reversed by any legal argument”

Any back up for that?

Coalition Provisional Authority transferred sovereignty to the Interim Government. Provisional and interim are words I would associate with temporary or hold the status quo until the real Government is elected. This wouldn’t involve selling off the countries industries.

Iraq built its own roads bridges buildings, power stations, telecommunications etc etc have these skills suddenly disappeared and only foreign owned companies can supply them? Bollix.

Who’s running Iraq then? go to the CPA website on the homepage you get this message.
http://www.cpa-iraq.org/
Current information for the new sovereign Iraq may be found on the U.S. Embassy-Iraq Web site at:
http://iraq.usembassy.gov/
Draw your own conclusions

If your neighbors house catches fire, you’d be right to break in and put out the fire. It wouldn’t give you the right to sell all his furniture though.

Chill not much of a contribution in my view.

Redleslie2

chill wrote:

Wow... a Zambian trash newspaper is now a source of reference. Amazing.

Shotamoose has made you look a bit ignorant on this point already but even if it was a Zambian newspaper, why would that automatically mean it's "trash"?

Captain Trips

If your neighbors house catches fire, you’d be right to break in and put out the fire. It wouldn’t give you the right to sell all his furniture though.

That's the funniest thing I've read all week

sovtek

bobbyjoe wrote:

Chill not much of a contribution in my view.

...but very entertaining...

chewy

The women's defense argued that they could not be charged with aggravated trespass, 'the of disruption of a lawful event' as infact the Iraq Procurement conference was unlawful as it was facilitating the pillage of Iraq which was under occupation by the US and the UK at the time of their action

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/11/301892.html

Bunny

everyone is wrong, chill is right

Hobbes

Bunny wrote:

everyone is wrong, chill is right

If everyone is wrong and chill is right, wouldn't that mean you are also wrong which would mean chill is wrong?

MeatProduct

Hobbes wrote:

If everyone is wrong and chill is right, wouldn't that mean you are also wrong which would mean chill is wrong?

LOL, nice one. That would mean that that comment you just made is wrong making Chill right again.

Chill, you regularly accuse of people, who are somewhat anti-war, of being happy with keeping Sadam in power. I actually haven't seen anyone state that here so could I request that you stop making these accusations as I find it rather tiresome.

Thank you,

Nick

sovtek

Anybody here know the McLaughlin Group?

John: Cokie...your comments
Cokie: John...I
John: WRONG!!!!!!!!

carl_

Hobbes wrote:

If everyone is wrong and chill is right, wouldn't that mean you are also wrong which would mean chill is wrong?

haha, good work

bonkey

Enough with Bunny's distraction already.