Are you implying that the IMF would not have proposed a similar deal to a legimtimate Iraqi government, or that they would be in a position to reject it? If not to reiterate:
For some reason that doesn’t seem to be getting through. Must be the acoustics around here.
ARGHH!! I previewed and everything, please pretend you can’t see that extra ‘m’ in legitimate.
Stuffy, the situations may have specific points in common but are vastly different. The USA has caused the ruin of Iraq and is now imposing measures which benefit the USA much more than they benefit Iraq. The whole thing ( destruction + sale) has been imposed unilaterally on Iraq by the USA. That is just unacceptable.
I’m not outright rejecting your points stuffy I’m simply saying that the situation is not sufficiently analogous to other (Thailand/Indonesia) IMF proposals. Basically I think that the CPA lacks the legitimacy to sell Iraqi resources. The contention that the IMF would have proposed similar actions to an Iraqi government is irrelevant as there would be no obligation on Iraq to agree to IMF terms. There might be compelling economic reasons to comply, but the responsibility to divest the country of its assets would be an Iraqi decision not a CPA/US Administration decision.
It is not difficult to understand. Suppose you find yourself in debt and ask the bank for a loan. The bank sets certain conditions to lend you the money among which are that you sell some assets. Now, you got yourself into debt and you are free to accept or reject the terms of the bank.
Now suppose you are living your life nicely and a guy comes and bulldozes your house, which means you have lost your main asset. The guy, instead of rebuilding the house, forces you to sell it at bargain basement price. . . to his wife.
Don’t tell me the situations are remotely comparable. The same action can be moral and legal or immoral and illegal depending on who does it and how. If a guy takes your car by force it is immoral if it is a thief and it is not if it is the Sheriff repossessing it for the lender you did not pay. It is acceptable to shoot another person in self-defense. It is not acceptable to shoot another person whila assaulting them. It is pretty dumb to say “shooting him is ok. . . after all a cop would have shot him had he attacked the cop”. Well, duh! You are not a cop and he didn’t attack you.
The USA are selling off Iraq without letting the Iraqis have a say and this is the kind of thing that will breed resentlemt for decades to come.
Fidel Castro was the product of decades of similar American imposed economic colonialism in Cuba. Same thing with Khomeini in Iran. I would not be surprised if one day historians found the roots of a future anti-American regime in Iraq in the events we are witnessing today. You can dress it and rationalize it many ways but to the iraqi people this has to be a humiliation and an affront.
sigh I am not trying to say they’re are comparable. I am saying that there is more than one party to blame for this rape of the Iraqis. Yes the Administration should be picking up the tab. But that in no way excuses the IMF for setting up such onerous conditions on assistance packages. In other words I see this as two legitamate issues, with two bad actors vs. one.
Stuffy, where exactly does the IMF come into this picture? AFAIK, they have nothing to do with the whole thing at all. Nothing. Feel free to start a thread about the IMF, the World Bank, The Interamerican Development Bank, and all the other banks you dislike but they have zero to do with this thread. Nada.
Well originally struffy was comparing the actions taken by the CPA to IMF/World Bank actions in the past.
I really want a giant yak, okay? Land of the fucking lost huge. You know, the King Kong of yaks. And my local radio station is going to give me that giant yak. The only problem: They’re going to deliver it by dropping it directly on my house. No matter how much my neighbors protest, the radio station insists.
A few weeks later, I’m heading for school, and I’m barely down the front steps when a giant yak lands on my house. Sure, I’ve got my giant yak, the object of my every dream and desire, but my fucking house is flattened. The radio station’s actions were illegal, but I don’t have the power to take the station to task.
Should the radio station pay for the house?
No, of course I shouldn’t be compensated! It doesn’t matter that my life is in chaos, or that all my worldly posessions are gone, because I’ve got a giant yak!
Even if the yak isn’t even mine, and even if I’m only given limited control over how it’s raised. That doesn’t matter. I can share in a yak. I should be satisfied.
Right?
:rolleyes:
Well since the reforms were done in meetings set up by the IMF, it seemed rather obvious. From your own friggin link:
Yes, and my point is that it is like comparing a thief stealing a car with a sheriff repossessing it. Same act, different circumstances. Cannot be compared.
Thanks Grey I didn’t see your response.
No, I compare it to a assault victim being raped by the authorities. But never mind, I see you can’t see past teh Administration.
My previous post was in response to Grey.
Stuffy, the IMF, World Bank, IDB, etc, are banks. they lend money and they need to make sure they are going to be repaid. They are not responsible for the circumstances which got you there. If you need a loan because you were mugged, the bank cannot be responsible for demanding collateral. The reason you are there is that you were mugged.
The USA destroyed Iraq and now Iraq needs rebuilding. It should be the USA who paid for the rebuilding. If the USA does not have the money then I can borrow it. Issue government debt and rebuild Iraq. But NO. Well, at least it could guarantee loans from the IMF or other banks. But NO, it won’t do that either. It decrees the sale of Iraqi industry which belonged to the people of Iraq. And it is selling them, not to Iraqis, (who do not have the cash to buy them) but to western companies, most of which will be American.
I just do not see any fault in the IMF unless you want to claim that the IMF is always abusive when it lends (which I do not accept and which would be another thread). The IMF here is doing what it always does: lend money and try to make sure it will be repaid.
The USA on the other hand caused the mess and is responsible for it.
sailor why on earth are we arguing when we’re in agreement? I have already said the Administration should be picking up the tab. I was merely adding that the IMF also deserved criticism for their part in this travesty. I think there are more ways of securing capital expenditures than the wholesale plundering of state assets. Oh, and no, I don’t think they’re always abusive when they lend otherwise you’d have seen that thread long ago.
I’m just surprised there were no foreign content rules put in place.
As an aside are there such things in the US?
I am confused. I heard today that a poll of Baghdadians discovered that two out of three those surveyed answered that they were very happy with their liberation. Of course these urbane Baghdidians don’t speak for the Kurds. The Kurds are, of course, 99% elated.
I tell ya what then Milum. Why don’t you pack up the nice safety of your American armchair, and take a walk down the streets of Baghdad and take that poll yourself? But make sure you do it during the day - it seems that only 60% of Baghdad some 6 months after the power went off, manages to get “some” power each day.
And whatever you do - don’t get sick. Only some 15% of hospital beds are able to be filled at the moment due to the shocking shortage of medical equipment and supplies.
And don’t drink the water either. Filled with sewage bacteria problems, and dysentery has caused an explosion of infant mortality it seems.
Yeah, go on Milum. Show some guts. Pick up that comfy, safe, condescending butt of yours and put your beliefs where your typing fingers are. I’ll bet you London to a brick you’ll get taken hostage within 24 hours.
Do you have a cite? Statistics can be odd things.
The only scientific poll in Iraq recently that I’ve heard of is the Zogby one. For some reason, they didn’t interview even a single soul in Baghdad though.
Do you mean this one?
http://www.spectator.co.uk/pdfs/iraqi_poll.pdf
Wow.
47% of respondents said that they had no preference between living under the Americans vs Saddam.
“If you had to choose, would you rather live under Saddam or the Americans?”
9% answered ‘Saddam’
47% answered ‘no preference’
29% answered ‘Americans’
At least more people preferred us to Saddam.
“Comparing your life today with one year ago, is it better or worse?”
'much better" 10%
‘a little better’ 22%
‘unchanged’ 16%
‘a little worse’ 20%
‘much worse’ 47%
‘not sure’/not stated 6%