CPA Orders untainted by Connorflynn

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

CPA Orders untainted

POSTED BY: CONNORFLYNN
UPDATED: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 14:04
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2237
PAGE 1 of 1

Monday, August 9, 2004 9:09 AM

The best way to gather an objective view of what is reality is to go to the source, rather then the misrepresented opinion pieces that show halftruths. To stop the misrepresentation on these boards and in some cases misquotes altogether of the CPA orders submitted and put in place by Paul Bremer, please see the links below.

http://www.iraqcoalition.org/regulations/

-------------------------------------------------

Particularly Order #39
http://www.iraqcoalition.org/regulations/20031220_CPAORD_39_Foreign_In
vestment_.pdf

Quote:
originally quoted by Rue on another topic:

Further, the interim constitution of Iraq, written by the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council, solidifies the orders by making them virtually impossible to overturn.
A sampling of the most important orders demonstrates the economic imprint left by the Bush administration: Order No. 39 allows for: (1) privatization of Iraq's 200 state-owned enterprises; (2) 100% foreign ownership of Iraqi businesses; (3) "national treatment" — which means no preferences for local over foreign businesses; (4) unrestricted, tax-free remittance of all profits and other funds; and (5) 40-year ownership licenses.

Actual Text:

COALITION PROVISIONAL AUTHORITY ORDER NUMBER 39
FOREIGN INVESTMENT

Pursuant to my authority as Administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA)
and the laws and usages of war, and consistent with relevant U.N. Security Council
resolutions, including Resolution 1483 (2003),
Having worked closely with the Governing Council to ensure that economic change
occurs in a manner acceptable to the people of Iraq,
Acknowledging the Governing Council’s desire to bring about significant change to the
Iraqi economic system,
Determined to improve the conditions of life, technical skills, and opportunities for all
Iraqis and to fight unemployment with its associated deleterious effect on public security,
Noting that facilitating foreign investment will help to develop infrastructure, foster the
growth of Iraqi business, create jobs, raise capital, result in the introduction of new
technology into Iraq and promote the transfer of knowledge and skills to Iraqis,
Recognizing the problems arising from Iraq’s legal framework regulating commercial
activity and the way in which it was implemented by the former regime,
Recognizing the CPA’s obligation to provide for the effective administration of Iraq, to
ensure the well being of the Iraqi people and to enable the social functions and normal
transactions of every day life,
Acting in a manner consistent with the Report of the Secretary General to the Security
Council of July 17, 2003, concerning the need for the development of Iraq and its
transition from a non-transparent centrally planned economy to a market economy
characterized by sustainable economic growth through the establishment of a dynamic
private sector, and the need to enact institutional and legal reforms to give it effect,
Having coordinated with the international financial institutions, as referenced in
paragraph 8(e) of the U.N. Security Council Resolution 1483,
In close consultation with and acting in coordination with the Governing Council, I
hereby promulgate the following:
CPA/ORD/19 September 2003/39
2

Section 1

Definitions

1) “Administrator” means the Administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority.

2) “Business entity” means any entity constituted or organized by law of any country,
including, but not limited to, any corporation, partnership, joint venture, firm,
enterprise, State-owned enterprise, organization, or other similar entity.

3) “Foreign investment” means investment by a foreign investor in any kind of asset in
Iraq, including tangible and intangible property, and related property rights, shares
and other forms of participation in a business entity, and intellectual property rights
and technical expertise, except as limited by Section 8 of this Order.

4) “Foreign investor” means (a) a business entity constituted or organized under the law
of a country other than Iraq; (b) a natural person who is (i) a national of a country
other than Iraq, (ii) a stateless person not residing permanently in Iraq, or (iii) a
national of Iraq residing permanently outside of Iraq; or (c) a business entity
constituted or organized by any of the above under the law of Iraq; that is making or
has made an investment in Iraq.

5) “Iraqi investor” means (a) a business entity constituted or organized under the law of
Iraq other than by a foreign investor; or a natural person who is (i) a national of Iraq
residing permanently in Iraq, or (ii) a stateless person residing permanently in Iraq;
that is making or has made an investment in Iraq.

Section 2

Purposes

This Order promotes and safeguards the general welfare and interests of the Iraqi
people by promoting foreign investment through the protection of the rights and
property of foreign investors in Iraq and the regulation through transparent processes
of matters relating to foreign investment in Iraq. This Order specifies the terms and
procedures for making foreign investments and is intended to attract new foreign
investment to Iraq.

Section 3

Relation to Existing Iraqi Law

1) This Order replaces all existing foreign investment law.
CPA/ORD/19 September 2003/39
3

2) This Order is subject to revision by the Administrator, or to adoption or replacement
by an internationally recognized, representative government established by the people
of Iraq.

3) Future Orders or other guidance will be issued concerning various sectors of the
economy.

Section 4

Treatment of Foreign Investors

1) A foreign investor shall be entitled to make foreign investments in Iraq on terms no
less favorable than those applicable to an Iraqi investor, unless otherwise provided
herein.

Misrepresentation ->(3) "national treatment" — which means no preferences for local over foreign businesses; refuted: what this is saying is that Foreign investors will not be penalized for investing in Iraq. It does not say that Iraqi's don't get first dibs. This is to generate Foreign investment.

2) The amount of foreign participation in newly formed or existing business entities in
Iraq shall not be limited, unless otherwise expressly provided herein.

Section 5

Trade Offices & Branches

A foreign investor may open trade representation offices and branches in Iraq; such
offices and branches shall be registered with the Iraqi Registrar of Companies.

Section 6

Areas of Foreign Investment

1) Foreign investment may take place with respect to all economic sectors in Iraq, except
that foreign direct and indirect ownership of the natural resources sector involving
primary extraction and initial processing remains prohibited. In addition, this Order
does not apply to banks and insurance companies.

2) Foreign investment may take place in all parts of Iraq.

3) A foreign investor shall be prohibited from engaging in retail sales, unless at least 30
days prior to engaging in such retail sales such foreign investor deposits $100,000 in a
non-interest-bearing account in a properly licensed Iraqi bank located in Iraq pursuant
to procedures to be promulgated by the Ministry of Trade. Once a deposit is made
pursuant to its procedures, the Ministry of Trade shall issue documentation to the
foreign investor reflecting the authorization to engage in such retail sales. Such
deposit must be maintained during the entire time that the foreign investor is engaged
in retail sales; provided however, it shall be returned upon the request of the foreign
investor at the completion of the retail sales activity.
CPA/ORD/19 September 2003/39
4

Section 7

Implementing Foreign Investment

1) A foreign investor may implement foreign investment using, among other things,
freely convertible currencies or Iraqi legal tender, in the following forms:

a) establishing a wholly foreign-owned business entity in Iraq, including as a
subsidiary of a foreign investor;

b) establishing a business entity jointly with an Iraqi investor;

Misrepresention ->(2) 100% foreign ownership of Iraqi businesses; refuted: As you can see this states that there is no prohibition of Iraqi Investors. Thus it appears as if it isn't a declaration of 100% foreign owned businesses. On the contrary.

c) establishing a branch office, as set forth in Section 5 herein; and

d) directly acquiring an investment.

2) A foreign investor shall be authorized to:
a) possess, use, and dispose of its investments;
b) manage or participate in managing a business entity;
c) transfer its rights and obligations to other persons in accordance with the law;
d) transfer abroad without delay all funds associated with its foreign investment,
including:
i) shares or profits and dividends;
ii) proceeds from the sale or other disposition of its foreign investment or a
portion thereof;
iii) interest, royalty payments, management fees, other fees and payments made
under a contract; and
iv) other transfers approved by the Ministry of Trade;
e) exercise any other authority conferred upon it by law.

Misrepresentation ->(4) unrestricted, tax-free remittance of all profits and other funds; refuted - No where does it say that that Foreign investors are allowed to function unrestricted and tax-free. What this says is that money that belongs to the company may be moved around without prejudice, similar to rights granted to that of any company in the civilized world, foreign or not. This eliminates any potential holdup of creditor payments etc..etc..to those abroad.

3) The Finance Minister and the Minister of Planning may jointly issue regulations to
assist in the implementation of this Order.
CPA/ORD/19 September 2003/39
5

Section 8

Use of Real Property

1) After the date of this Order, unless otherwise permitted by law, a foreign investor or a
business entity with any level of foreign investor participation may not under any
circumstances purchase the rights of disposal and usufruct of private real property.

2) The duration of any license to use property shall be determined by the duration of
operations related to the foreign investment. The initial term of a license shall not
exceed 40 years, but may be renewed for further such periods. Licenses may be
reviewed by the internationally recognized, representative government established by
the people of Iraq upon its assumption of the responsibilities of the CPA.

Misrepresention -> (5) 40-year ownership licenses. refuted: As you can see this states that the license shall NOT EXCEED 40 years. It doesn't say that every license is 40 years.

3) If a business entity that is owned or controlled by a foreign investor or foreign
investors is dissolved before the expiration of the license or lease, then the license or
lease shall be terminated at the time of such dissolution.

Section 9

Insurance

A foreign investor shall be permitted to obtain insurance coverage for all aspects of its
operation from any foreign or Iraqi source deemed appropriate by the foreign
investor.

Section 10

Dispute Settlement

Disputes between a foreign investor and an Iraqi investor pertaining to investment in
Iraq, or between a foreign investor and an Iraqi legal or natural person, shall be
resolved in accordance with the dispute resolution provisions contained in any
applicable written agreement governing the relationship between the parties. The
parties may elect in any agreement to utilize the arbitration mechanisms outlined in
Iraqi law.

Section 11

Dissolution of Entities

1) Within 14 days from the date of adopting a resolution or other instrument terminating
the operations of a business entity that is owned or controlled by a foreign investor or
foreign investors, the business entity with foreign investment shall submit the
resolution or other instrument to the Iraqi Registrar of Companies.

2) Upon termination of operations and dissolution of the business entity with any level
of foreign investment, any such foreign investor shall, consistent with Section 7 of
this Order, have the right to transfer profits from the sale or liquidation to any foreign
location, or as provided in a written agreement between the foreign investor and an
Iraqi investor, provided that all amounts owed by such business entity to the
government of Iraq and all Iraqi creditors have been paid in advance of the transfer.

Section 12

Tax Treatment

The Administrator may issue further orders to address the tax treatment of income
derived from a foreign investmenthat is reinvested in a business entity in Iraq.

Misrepresentation ->(4) unrestricted, tax-free remittance of all profits and other funds; refuted - No where does it say that that Foreign investors are allowed to function unrestricted and tax-free. what it says is that once all debts are paid to the GOVERNMENT of IRAQ (monies paid to governments are usually taxes) and creditors, then the foreign investors are allowed to move remaining monies.

Section 13

Treatment of Investors

No legal text that impedes the operation of this Order shall hold and all investors,
foreign and Iraqi, shall be treated equally under the law, except as otherwise
specifically provided in this Order.

Section 14

International Agreements

Where an international agreement to which Iraq is a party provides for more favorable
terms with respect to foreign investors undertaking investment activities in Iraq, the
more favorable terms under the international agreement shall apply.

Section 15

Evasion

Violations of Sections 6(3) and 8(1) of this Order may serve as a basis for suspension
or cancellation of the rights of a foreign investor in Iraq that arise under this Order.

Section 16

Entry into Force

;hfl ~ on the date of signature.
r:. Paul Bremer, Administrator
Coalition Provisional Authority
CP A/ORD/19 September 2003/39 6

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 10, 2004 2:22 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Connorflynn- The take-home message that anyone should get from your post is that either you don't know how to read or YOU are deliberately misrepresenting things.

In response to

Quote:
A sampling of the most important orders demonstrates the economic imprint left by the Bush administration: Order No. 39 allows for: (1) privatization of Iraq's 200 state-owned enterprises; (2) 100% foreign ownership of Iraqi businesses; (3) "national treatment" — which means no preferences for local over foreign businesses; (4) unrestricted, tax-free remittance of all profits and other funds; and (5) 40-year ownership licenses.

You said

Quote:
Misrepresention ->(2) 100% foreign ownership of Iraqi businesses; refuted: As you can see this states that there is no prohibition of Iraqi Investors. Thus it appears as if it isn't a declaration of 100% foreign owned businesses. 3) "national treatment" — which means no preferences for local over foreign businesses; refuted: what this is saying is that Foreign investors will not be penalized for investing in Iraq. It does not say that Iraqi's don't get first dibs. Misrepresentation ->(4) unrestricted, tax-free remittance of all profits and other funds; refuted - No where does it say that that Foreign investors are allowed to function unrestricted and tax-free. What this says is that money that belongs to the company may be moved around without prejudice, similar to rights granted to that of any company in the civilized world, foreign or not. This eliminates any potential holdup of creditor payments etc..etc..to those abroad.
Misrepresention -> (5) 40-year ownership licenses. refuted: As you can see this states that the license shall NOT EXCEED 40 years. It doesn't say that every license is 40 years.

Now, if you re-read the text that you are quoting (you DO know how to read, don't you?) nowhere just it claim any of the "misrepresentations" that you have a problem with. The text does not say that Order 39 prohibits Iraqi owenerhsip, does not say that licenses MUST be for 40 years and so forth, what it says it ALLOWS FOR.

Allow me to be really, really snotty, because you're either an idiot or a liar. The REAL issues of Order 39 (not the fake ones you bring up) are-

What to do with electricity production, water supply, sewgae treatment, banks, oil processing, oil drlling, communication (incl. cell phones), health care, and so forth- utilities, industries. services and financial institutions and 200 industries that were nationalized?

Order 39 ASSUMES that Iraqis want privatization, and that this is the best course for the stabilization of Iraqi society. In other developing countries where privatization occurred (water, banking etc), riots and economic collapse followed. The CPA, undeterred by the history of Russia, Argentina, Peru etc. decided that all Iraq nationalized industries, indeed all Iraqi enterprise, would be "opened" to foreign ownership at fire-sale prices.

People often point to our efforts in Iraq as being similar to the Marshall Plan. There are too many differences to go into exhuastive detail, but the Marshall Plan was was series of grants and loans to a European entity (OEEC) for fertilizer, basic equipment and so forth. It was NOT primarily a means for private investment in post-war Europe, it did NOT require (or even open) the banks, ulilities and so forth to foreign ownership. What it did was encourage production and development in post-war Europe, by Europeans themselves.

The sole exception to Order 39 is oil drilling, and the only reason that was excepted was sensitivity of "nut cases" like myself who have the idea that the Iraq is a Viking raid on the
oil.

POINT BY POINT

Now, you may happen to be in favor of unrestricted foreign investment as a general principal AND as specifically applied to Iraq, but (a) that should be for the IRAQIS to decide not Paul Bremer and (b) it has proven extremely destructive to local economies everywhere it's been tried, (c) it is illegal under international law because of (a) and (b)

Quote:
1) Foreign investment may take place with respect to all economic sectors in Iraq, except
that foreign direct and indirect ownership of the natural resources sector involving
primary extraction and initial processing remains prohibited. In addition, this Order
does not apply to banks and insurance companies.

Oil itself would have been privatized except that the CPA realized this would have gnerated a serious pliticla backlash. Foreign bank and insurance compmay ownership is not "prohibited", just covered under different rules.

Quote:
1) A foreign investor may implement foreign investment using, among other things,
freely convertible currencies or Iraqi legal tender, in the following forms:

a) establishing a wholly foreign-owned business entity in Iraq, including as a subsidiary of a foreign investor;

b) establishing a business entity jointly with an Iraqi investor;

Misrepresention ->(2) 100% foreign ownership of Iraqi businesses; refuted: As you can see this states that there is no prohibition of Iraqi Investors. Thus it appears as if it isn't a declaration of 100% foreign owned businesses. On the contrary.

As usual Connerflynn, you miss the point, which was not whether 100% foreign ownership was "required" but whether it would be allowed.

2) A foreign investor shall be authorized to:
a) possess, use, and dispose of its investments;
b) manage or participate in managing a business entity;
c) transfer its rights and obligations to other persons in accordance with the law;
d) transfer abroad without delay all funds associated with its foreign investment,
including:
i) shares or profits and dividends;
ii) proceeds from the sale or other disposition of its foreign investment or a
portion thereof;
iii) interest, royalty payments, management fees, other fees and payments made
under a contract; and
iv) other transfers approved by the Ministry of Trade;
e) exercise any other authority conferred upon it by law.

Misrepresentation ->(4) unrestricted, tax-free remittance of all profits and other funds; refuted - No where does it say that that Foreign investors are allowed to function unrestricted and tax-free. What this says is that money that belongs to the company may be moved around without prejudice, similar to rights granted to that of any company in the civilized world, foreign or not. This eliminates any potential holdup of creditor payments etc..etc..to those abroad.

This is NOT similar. In fact, one of the reasons why China's encounter with foreign investment was so successful (form a Chinese POV) was because they did NOT allow this to occur. As many investors in China will tell you, the process was/is fraught with delay and decisions, the PURPOSE of which was that the Chinese government negotiated which indsutries were going to be allowed to invest, where, and under what terms.

3) The Finance Minister and the Minister of Planning may jointly issue regulations to
assist in the implementation of this Order.
CPA/ORD/19 September 2003/39
5

Section 8

Use of Real Property

1) After the date of this Order, unless otherwise permitted by law, a foreign investor or a
business entity with any level of foreign investor participation may not under any
circumstances purchase the rights of disposal and usufruct of private real property.

2) The duration of any license to use property shall be determined by the duration of
operations related to the foreign investment. The initial term of a license shall not
exceed 40 years, but may be renewed for further such periods. Licenses may be
reviewed by the internationally recognized, representative government established by
the people of Iraq upon its assumption of the responsibilities of the CPA.

Misrepresention -> (5) 40-year ownership licenses. refuted: As you can see this states that the license shall NOT EXCEED 40 years. It doesn't say that every license is 40 years.

3) If a business entity that is owned or controlled by a foreign investor or foreign
investors is dissolved before the expiration of the license or lease, then the license or
lease shall be terminated at the time of such dissolution.

Section 9

Insurance

A foreign investor shall be permitted to obtain insurance coverage for all aspects of its
operation from any foreign or Iraqi source deemed appropriate by the foreign
investor.

Section 10

Dispute Settlement

Disputes between a foreign investor and an Iraqi investor pertaining to investment in
Iraq, or between a foreign investor and an Iraqi legal or natural person, shall be
resolved in accordance with the dispute resolution provisions contained in any
applicable written agreement governing the relationship between the parties. The
parties may elect in any agreement to utilize the arbitration mechanisms outlined in
Iraqi law.

Section 11

Dissolution of Entities

1) Within 14 days from the date of adopting a resolution or other instrument terminating
the operations of a business entity that is owned or controlled by a foreign investor or
foreign investors, the business entity with foreign investment shall submit the
resolution or other instrument to the Iraqi Registrar of Companies.

2) Upon termination of operations and dissolution of the business entity with any level
of foreign investment, any such foreign investor shall, consistent with Section 7 of
this Order, have the right to transfer profits from the sale or liquidation to any foreign
location, or as provided in a written agreement between the foreign investor and an
Iraqi investor, provided that all amounts owed by such business entity to the
government of Iraq and all Iraqi creditors have been paid in advance of the transfer.

Section 12

Tax Treatment

The Administrator may issue further orders to address the tax treatment of income
derived from a foreign investmenthat is reinvested in a business entity in Iraq.

Misrepresentation ->(4) unrestricted, tax-free remittance of all profits and other funds; refuted - No where does it say that that Foreign investors are allowed to function unrestricted and tax-free. what it says is that once all debts are paid to the GOVERNMENT of IRAQ (monies paid to governments are usually taxes) and creditors, then the foreign investors are allowed to move remaining monies.

Section 13

Treatment of Investors

No legal text that impedes the operation of this Order shall hold and all investors,
foreign and Iraqi, shall be treated equally under the law, except as otherwise
specifically provided in this Order.

Section 14

International Agreements

Where an international agreement to which Iraq is a party provides for more favorable
terms with respect to foreign investors undertaking investment activities in Iraq, the
more favorable terms under the international agreement shall apply.

Section 15

Evasion

Violations of Sections 6(3) and 8(1) of this Order may serve as a basis for suspension
or cancellation of the rights of a foreign investor in Iraq that arise under this Order.

Section 16

Entry into Force

;hfl ~ on the date of signature.
r:. Paul Bremer, Administrator
Coalition Provisional Authority
CP A/ORD/19 September 2003/39 6

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 10, 2004 2:50 AM

CONNORFLYNN

I disagree with you. I don't think there were any "Assumptions". The Iraqi Governing council had a say in what was proposed and finally put in place.

The difference between Iraq and the other countries you speak of is that there were a large number of privatized companies already present in Iraq. What Order #39 does is take any companies that were state run and privatize them, backed by talented and knowledgeable entities who are helping that happen. Also Iraq isn't made up of a hundred different republics all intent on seceding LOL.

Quote:
The sole exception to Order 39 is oil drilling, and the only reason that was excepted was sensitivity of "nut cases" like myself who have the idea that the Iraq is a Viking raid on the oil. Even that would have been privitized, had not objections been raised.

Well..I don't know if I buy the whole objections and outcry influenced this. The oil belongs to the Iraqi's.

As for you being a "Nutcase" LoL.. if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck..then it must be a .. hehehe j/k ;) Your entitled to your opinion. As am I ;)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 10, 2004 3:26 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Connerflynn- the IGC was appointed by Bremer. And there were NOT a "large number of privatized industries already in place in Iraq". A quick reading of the most basic text on Iraq economy would tell you that it is primarily based on oil, and that oil, all utilities, all financial institutions, all services, and many large industries (such as construction material) were nationalized as a form of social and economic control under Saddam.

Also, what is the point of the comment about 100 different republics?

I don't know where you get your "facts" from or what world you're living in, but it's not consistent with reality. So, what is the hallmark of insanity? Since your opinions don't seem to have ANY relationship to truth or reality... not sure if the deficiency is mental or moral... why should I take anything you say seriously?

heh heh heh

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 10, 2004 3:43 AM

CONNORFLYNN

Signym - Take a breather and re-read my post. I am not an idiot and I do know how to read. I can see how it might have been confused.

I stated what the misrepresentation was by a couple of articles and a post made by Rue. My follow up comments are after the word "refuted".

This was posted by Rue -

Quote:

A sampling of the most important orders demonstrates the economic imprint left by the Bush administration: Order No. 39 allows for: (1) privatization of Iraq's 200 state-owned enterprises; (2) 100% foreign ownership of Iraqi businesses; (3) "national treatment" — which means no preferences for local over foreign businesses; (4) unrestricted, tax-free remittance of all profits and other funds; and (5) 40-year ownership licenses.

These were my responses -

Misrepresention ->(2) 100% foreign ownership of Iraqi businesses;

I refuted: As you can see this states that there is no prohibition of Iraqi Investors. Thus it appears as if it isn't a declaration of 100% foreign owned businesses. Here is where we seem to be having a translation problem. I read that misrepresented statement as saying that all businesses in Iraq will be 100% foreign owned. Not only is that not the case, it is a dramatic lie. What the order allows for is that a company the is opened in Iraq may be 100% foreign owned. Basically, to me that reads that there isn't a requirement that every business must have an Iraqi owner. Can you imagine if that was the case in the US..or Mexico LOL, (That every business must have a nationalist who is an owner). It's common sense really.

Misrepresentation ->3) "national treatment" — which means no preferences for local over foreign businesses;

I refuted: what this is saying is that Foreign investors will not be penalized for investing in Iraq. It does not say that Iraqi's don't get first dibs.

Misrepresentation ->(4) unrestricted, tax-free remittance of all profits and other funds;

I refuted - No where does it say that that Foreign investors are allowed to function unrestricted and tax-free. What this says is that money that belongs to the company may be moved around without prejudice, similar to rights granted to that of any company in the civilized world, foreign or not. This eliminates any potential holdup of creditor payments etc..etc..to those abroad.

Misrepresention -> (5) 40-year ownership licenses.

I refuted: As you can see this states that the license shall NOT EXCEED 40 years. It doesn't say that every license is 40 years.

Quote:
Now, you may happen to be in favor of unrestricted foreign investment as a general principal AND as specifically applied to Iraq, but (a) that should be for the IRAQIS to decide not Paul Bremer and (b) it has proven extremely destructive to local economies everywhere it's been tried, (c) it is illegal under international law because of (a) and (b)

Again I say, Paul Bremer did not come in and dictate without express approval by the Iraqi Governing Council. So in essence it was the Iraqi's that decided. All things are subject to change particularly as free elections are held.

PS - your allowed to be really really snotty hehe.. I have a thick skin (but not a thick skull ;) )

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 10, 2004 4:21 AM

CONNORFLYNN

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Connerflynn- the IGC was appointed by Bremer. And there were NOT a "large number of privatized industries already in place in Iraq". A quick reading of the most basic text on Iraq economy would tell you that it is primarily based on oil, and that oil, all utilities, all financial institutions, all services, and many large industries (such as construction material) were nationalized as a form of social and economic control under Saddam.

Quote:
Also, what is the point of the comment about 100 different republics?

LOL..you got me..I pulled a Liberal and exaggerated a bit;) I assumed every word I type won't be taken literally. In the proverbial words of Ron White ,An American comedian, "I wuzz wrrongg" LOL. 15 Republics made up the USSR. My point was that Iraq doesn't have a bunch of areas all trying to secede. There are countries including the US that are trying to help them succeed. So privatization will work. Not all companies in Iraq were solely State owned.

Heres a good link for some current info:
http://www.cfr.org/background/background_iraq_economy.php

Interesting enough it appears as if only Approximately 50% of Iraq's GDP comes from Oil.

Quote:
I don't know where you get your "facts" from or what world you're living in, but it's not consistent with reality. So, what is the hallmark of insanity? Since your opinions don't seem to have ANY relationship to truth or reality... not sure if the deficiency is mental or moral... why should I take anything you say seriously?

heh heh heh

Just about everything I post is supported by facts. As for taking me seriously..you don't have to. As I don't many of the folks on these boards.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 10, 2004 6:54 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

But neither Rue's post nor the article that was quoted implied any such things as "requiring" 100% foreign ownership or 40-year licenses so how can you "refute" something that wasn't stated? That's like me saying "I refute Connerflynn's view that all businesses in Iraq SHOULD be 100% foreign-owned." Now, you didn't say that and for me to imply that is either serious idiocy on my part or a gross falsification of your viewpoint.

So again... WHAT are you "refuting"? Please, quote right here the part of Rue's post where it says that foreign owneship is required, and all the rest. I certainly don't know what you're talking about!

Ok, as far as Iraq not having areas that want to secede... THe Kurds had been trying deperately to insert a clause in the interime constitution that would basically allow them veto power. The majority Shiites believe this gives Kurds too much power for their population. Northern Iraq has already threatened to secede several times, they want the land back that had been forcibly settled by Arabs 30 or so years ago and they want 100% control of their oil. They definitely don't want the Shiites signing away their revenues!

So again... WHAT world do you live in???

"Not all companies in Iraq were solely State owned."

As usual, you misrepresented what I said. Did I say ALL companies were nationalized under Saddam??? Please... quote it right here so that we all know what you're referring to.

Of course I didn't say that. Farming, fishing, hand-manufacturing, smuggling, and businesses that don't require a lot of capital (small contractors, shopkeepers, ec.) were not state-owned. My point is that even knowing that some companies were NOT state-owned, privatization is going to kill the Iraqi economy rather than develop it.

"Only" 50% of Iraq's GDP comes from oil is like saying that "only" 50% of America's economy comes from Hollywood. That means that the economy is seriously unbalanced.

On the link that you included, it says that Iraq's oil revnues go into the UN Development Fund for Iraq (DFI). That's fine in theory, but since the CPA is selling the oil and it's accounting and money transfers are less than transparent, billions of dollars appear to have been siphoned off directly to Halliburton:

"The British based non-government organisation Christian Aid released a report on June 28, pointing to the unrestricted plundering of Iraq’s oil by the US and its allies. The paper, “Fuelling suspicion: the coalition and Iraq’s oil billions”, revealed that up to $US3 billion in oil export revenues has gone missing.

The determined refusal of the now dissolved Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) to accurately account for its collection of these revenues has resulted in a situation where no-one knows just how much Iraqi oil the US authorities sold, and at what price."

According to KPMG (an auditing firm):

"KPMG said it had been unable to get information about Halliburton and other firms that received noncompetitive contracts from President Bush's administration funded by Iraqi oil proceeds."

ttp:// www.nysscpa.org/home/2004/704/3week/article26.htm

I think in future I'll just reply to your other posts by linking to this one as an example of the quality of your thinking or whatever.

TTFN

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 10, 2004 8:49 AM

CONNORFLYNN

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
But neither Rue's post nor the article that was quoted implied any such things as "requiring" 100% foreign ownership or 40-year licenses so how can you "refute" something that wasn't stated? That's like me saying "I refute Connerflynn's view that all businesses in Iraq SHOULD be 100% foreign-owned." Now, you didn't say that and for me to imply that is either serious idiocy on my part or a gross falsification of your viewpoint.

So again... WHAT are you "refuting"? Please, quote right here the part of Rue's post where it says that foreign owneship is required, and all the rest. I certainly don't know what you're talking about!

Okies..enlighten me what does it mean then? What was the whole point of that article? It is insinuated , it is suggested, it is implied. I'm refuting the simplified statements in that article and they way they misrepresent the facts. The article itself contradicts its own accusations. But knee-jerks libs tend to skip the real facts or condense them to fit their own agendas. Thus the reason for posting links to the full documents and breaking order #39 down.

Originally quoted by Rue:Not free, it was a very expensive acquisition in terms of lives, money, opportunities lost.
If you don't think it was bought as a present for the corporations with US blood and your health care and Socials Security,
read here:
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-juhasz5aug05,1,
3665796.story
The Hand-Over That Wasn't
By Antonia Juhasz
(excerpts)
Not only do 138,000 troops remain to control the streets, but the "100 Orders" of L. Paul Bremer III remain to control the economy.
The Bremer orders control every aspect of Iraqi life — from the use of car horns to the privatization of state-owned enterprises. Order No. 39 alone does no less than "transition (Iraq) from a … centrally planned economy to a market economy" virtually overnight and by U.S. fiat.

Although many thought that the "end" of the occupation would also mean the end of the orders, on his last day in Iraq Bremer simply transferred authority for the orders to Prime Minister Iyad Allawi — a 30-year exile with close ties to the CIA and British intelligence.

Further, the interim constitution of Iraq, written by the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council, solidifies the orders by making them virtually impossible to overturn.
A sampling of the most important orders demonstrates the economic imprint left by the Bush administration: Order No. 39 allows for: (1) privatization of Iraq's 200 state-owned enterprises; (2) 100% foreign ownership of Iraqi businesses; (3) "national treatment" — which means no preferences for local over foreign businesses; (4) unrestricted, tax-free remittance of all profits and other funds; and (5) 40-year ownership licenses.
Orders No. 57 and No. 77 ensure the implementation of the orders by placing U.S.-appointed auditors and inspector generals in every government ministry, with five-year terms and with sweeping authority over contracts, programs, employees and regulations.

Order No. 17 grants foreign contractors, including private security firms, full immunity from Iraq's laws. Even if they, say, kill someone or cause an environmental disaster, the injured party cannot turn to the Iraqi legal system. Rather, the charges must be brought to U.S. courts.

Order No. 40 allows foreign banks to purchase up to 50% of Iraqi banks.

Order No. 49 drops the tax rate on corporations from a high of 40% to a flat 15%. The income tax rate is also capped at 15%.

Order No. 12 (renewed on Feb. 24) suspends "all tariffs, customs duties, import taxes, licensing fees and similar surcharges for goods entering or leaving Iraq." This led to an immediate and dramatic inflow of cheap foreign consumer products — devastating local producers and sellers who were thoroughly unprepared to meet the challenge of their mammoth global competitors.

Still seems pretty specious and insinuative to me..

Quote:
Ok, as far as Iraq not having areas that want to secede... THe Kurds had been trying deperately to insert a clause in the interime constitution that would basically allow them veto power. The majority Shiites believe this gives Kurds too much power for their population. Northern Iraq has already threatened to secede several times, they want the land back that had been forcibly settled by Arabs 30 or so years ago and they want 100% control of their oil. They definitely don't want the Shiites signing away their revenues!

ROFLMAO..Are our troops in those territories squelching Uprisings by the Kurds who are trying to secede. Of course not..

Quote:
Are some parts of the country doing better than others?
Experts say Kurdistan, which has seen little anti-coalition violence, has benefited economically—particularly from cross-border trade—more than other regions of the country. In the so-called Sunni Triangle in central Iraq, where most of the attacks against coalition soldiers and civilians occur, reconstruction efforts have been consistently set back by attacks. That area has been particularly bloody leading up to the handover of sovereignty June 30. More than 80 people throughout Iraq—many of them civilians in Baghdad and its surrounding neighborhoods—have been killed in the first two weeks of June in more than 16 car bombings, according to news reports. Many attacks are targeting Iraq’s economic infrastructure, including a June 14 bombing that killed 13. Among the victims were three employees of a General Electric subsidiary who were working on Iraq’s power system.

Yep they are on the path to secession. Hmm...I wonder what is affecting Iraq's economy..doesn't seem to be privatization. It seems to be saboteurs and foreign extremists.

Quote:
So again... WHAT world do you live in???

The real world LOL.

Quote:
"Not all companies in Iraq were solely State owned."

As usual, you misrepresented what I said. Did I say ALL companies were nationalized under Saddam??? Please... quote it right here so that we all know what you're referring to.

Gladly LOL

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Connerflynn- the IGC was appointed by Bremer. And there were NOT a "large number of privatized industries already in place in Iraq". A quick reading of the most basic text on Iraq economy would tell you that it is primarily based on oil, and that oil, all utilities, all financial institutions, all services, and many large industries (such as construction material) were nationalized as a form of social and economic control under Saddam.

Quote:
Of course I didn't say that. Farming, fishing, hand-manufacturing, smuggling, and businesses that don't require a lot of capital (small contractors, shopkeepers, ec.) were not state-owned. My point is that even knowing that some companies were NOT state-owned, privatization is going to kill the Iraqi economy rather than develop it.

Hand manufacturing ROFLMAO, smuggling..yeah thats a legitimate industry. I see that due to privatization , the economies in The US and all the other developed countries in the world are crumbling and will eventually die. The logic there blows my mind. Perhaps we should go to strictly state run businesses LOL

Quote:
"Only" 50% of Iraq's GDP comes from oil is like saying that "only" 50% of America's economy comes from Hollywood. That means that the economy is seriously unbalanced.

I see you have a problem with math. When something doubles the GDP..it means that it is 1/2 of the overall pie. what does 1/2 of the pie = in percentage. It was taught in 2nd or 3rd grade I believe (been awhile). I believe the answer is 50% ROFLMAO

Quote:
quoted from a non-partisan source linked earlier:
How big is the economy?
Much of Iraq’s economy is still informal, with significant economic activity done by unregistered businesses, says Thomas Foley, who served as director of private sector development for the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) and is the founder and chairman of the investment firm NTC Group. This makes it difficult to know exactly how big the economy is. Foley estimates that its gross domestic product (GDP) is some $10 billion dollars per year, excluding the oil sector. Iraq’s oil revenues roughly double GDP to about $20 billion annually, about that of Latvia or Bolivia.

Estimated $10 billion GDP excluding Oil revenues, with Oil revenues the GDP (SURPRISE!!!) will roughly double to $20 Billion dollars. That equals 50% of overall GDP.

Quote:
On the link that you included, it says that Iraq's oil revnues go into the UN Development Fund for Iraq (DFI). That's fine in theory, but since the CPA is selling the oil and it's accounting and money transfers are less than transparent, billions of dollars appear to have been siphoned off directly to Halliburton:

"The British based non-government organisation Christian Aid released a report on June 28, pointing to the unrestricted plundering of Iraq’s oil by the US and its allies. The paper, “Fuelling suspicion: the coalition and Iraq’s oil billions”, revealed that up to $US3 billion in oil export revenues has gone missing.

The determined refusal of the now dissolved Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) to accurately account for its collection of these revenues has resulted in a situation where no-one knows just how much Iraqi oil the US authorities sold, and at what price."

According to KPMG (an auditing firm):

"KPMG said it had been unable to get information about Halliburton and other firms that received noncompetitive contracts from President Bush's administration funded by Iraqi oil proceeds."

ttp:// www.nysscpa.org/home/2004/704/3week/article26.htm

I think in future I'll just reply to your other posts by linking to this one as an example of the quality of your thinking or whatever.

TTFN

LOL..Please post a link to the article you are referencing to for Christian Aid. I can't seem to locate it. The NYSSCPA article says its open to potential fraud. It doesn't say it has occurred. So far it is insinuations, with zero indictments. If there is even the remote chance that the insinuations are true..well I hope they nail the bastards to the wall.

PS..you wear your emotions on your sleeve too much. It causes a lack of rational thought and unprovoked name calling doesn't suit you ;)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 10, 2004 10:03 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Perhaps you missed the critical phrase allows for. It does not say mandates, requires, or even encourages. So you're screaming your fool head off over nothing.

The problem is that the orders "allow for" these things. That would be like China taking over the USA and "allowing for" total Chinese ownership of municipal water supplies, our health-care system including publically-owned hospitals and universities, our system of highways, and our internet, and then "allowing for" the owners to jack up the prices as high as they please and take the money elsewhere, place Chinese auditors in our government to make sure we stayed on track, and then make it almost impossible for us to reverse these decisions. Would that help our economy? Not bloody likely.

As for the Kurds... they're hanging back to see which way this shakes out. If it looks like the Shiites gain more of an upper hand than the Kurds are willing to live with, you will see problems up north, too. Remember, you heard it here first.

Ah yes, privatization and reconstruction.... Wasn't it you who was saying that the reconstruction was going along fabulously? Does this mean you are now acknowledging certain... er... issues?

Have you not wondered WHY reconstruction is going at a snail's pace? Might it not have something to do with the fact that we're paying American contractors upwards of $100,000 per year for hauling empty trucks around and similar such boondoggles? Nah....

The 50% issue.. I don't have a problem with math, but you have a problem with comprehension. The HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE (you DO understand hypotheticals I assume) was mean to illustrate that the minute you have half (yes I know, 50%) of ANY economy tied to a single sector you have a serious problem.

You wear your ideology over your eyes, like a blindfold. Oh, why am I saying "like" a blindfold... it IS a blindfold.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 10, 2004 11:08 AM

CONNORFLYNN

Quote:
Perhaps you missed the critical phrase allows for. It does not say mandates, requires, or even encourages. So you're screaming your fool head off over nothing.

The problem is that the orders "allow for" these things. That would be like China taking over the USA and "allowing for" total Chinese ownership of municipal water supplies, our health-care system including publically-owned hospitals and universities, our system of highways, and our internet, and then "allowing for" the owners to jack up the prices as high as they please and take the money elsewhere, place Chinese auditors in our government to make sure we stayed on track, and then make it almost impossible for us to reverse these decisions. Would that help our economy? Not bloody likely.

Yeah..thats what it meant ROFLMAO..just face it.. It was negative spin meant to falsely articlate that we were Holding the Iraqi's down.

Quote:
As for the Kurds... they're hanging back to see which way this shakes out. If it looks like the Shiites gain more of an upper hand than the Kurds are willing to live with, you will see problems up north, too. Remember, you heard it here first.

Now its speculation, one minute supposed fact, next minute speculative opinion without any premise. Welcome to the waffle house. waffle waffle waffle

I actually voted for the $86 billion before I voted against it. hehehe

Quote:
Ah yes, privatization and reconstruction.... Wasn't it you who was saying that the reconstruction was going along fabulously? Does this mean you are now acknowledging certain... er... issues?

I'm not sure where I said reconstruction was going fabulously, since foreign militants keep sabotaging and blowing stuff up hehe. But hey you can go ahead and put the words in my mouth ROFLMAO. Under the circumstances, reconstruction does appear to be going well now that you mention it.

Quote:
Have you not wondered WHY reconstruction is going at a snail's pace?

Uh boy.. here we go. Nope, I don't wonder..As I said before..it is saboteurs and foreign militants that slow progress, not privatization. Though I think snails pace is a bit harsh. It seems to be progressing as fast as possible under the circumstances.

Quote:
Might it not have something to do with the fact that we're paying American contractors upwards of $100,000 per year for hauling empty trucks around and similar such boondoggles? Nah....

Are you serious?!

What kind of specious crap is that? We went from debating factual information (on my end anyways) to specious commentary LOL ** looks around for Geezers disposed of Aluminum foil hat**

Quote:
The 50% issue.. I don't have a problem with math, but you have a problem with comprehension. The HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE (you DO understand hypotheticals I assume) was mean to illustrate that the minute you have half (yes I know, 50%) of ANY economy tied to a single sector you have a serious problem.

HELLO FOLKS!!!! We have found a replacement for Alan Greenspan!!!!! hehehehe.

Quote:
You wear your ideology over your eyes, like a blindfold. Oh, why am I saying "like" a blindfold... it IS a blindfold.

Are you sure you don't mean my head "Allows for" a blindfold? hehe.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 10, 2004 11:25 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Connorflynn, the Kurds actually DID threaten to secede not once but twice. That is a FACT. What they have not done is act militarily.

The "specious crap" about deadheading trucks is from the contactors themselves. I have more examples about GE turbines in Iraqi power plants, $100,000 paint jobs and other rip-offs, but it's ALL obviously "specious crap" as far as you're concernred.

Apparently you believe all the happy news coming out of Iraq. Hmmm... well, you know, only time will reveal who's right. (Me, naturally!

)

Since you obviously only accept the news that you WANT to hear and refuse to engage in actual thought this is a pointless discussion.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 10, 2004 1:39 PM

CONNORFLYNN

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Connorflynn, the Kurds actually DID threaten to secede not once but twice. That is a FACT. What they have not done is act militarily.

The "specious crap" about deadheading trucks is from the contactors themselves. I have more examples about GE turbines in Iraqi power plants, $100,000 paint jobs and other rip-offs, but it's ALL obviously "specious crap" as far as you're concernred.

Apparently you believe all the happy news coming out of Iraq. Hmmm... well, you know, only time will reveal who's right. (Me, naturally! )

Since you obviously only accept the news that you WANT to hear and refuse to engage in actual thought this is a pointless discussion.

Sigh..yeah it's nothing but bad news..all bad bad bad.

Question:Have the Kurds seceded?!!!
Answer : NO!
With Saddam gone (here's my turn at speculation) I doubt they will.

As for specious comments - If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck..well.. You've heard it all before.

I don't buy specious comments, when they aren't supported. They come off as ridiculous partisan or conspiracy theory BS. I'm open minded , to substantive information. Basically it would be similar to me saying that Janeane Garafalo is president of a secret shadow government in place in the US, she's just vanished to get her off the radar of prying Rightwingers and I expect you to buy it as fact, because I said so LOL, believe me I've got tons of reliable sources. Lets see..I have a link from Rush Limbaugh..no that won't work..how about The National Enquirer. It's specious with no foundation. Where are these links to your supposed sources..and please no Moveon.org links, I don't think my head can take it.

This has nothing to do with accepting news that I want to hear, see above. This has to do with the fact that you badgered me several times today with name calling etc..etc.. and still haven't presented anything to refute my translation of a misrepresented article other then a few speculative opinions, a couple partisan lines and your own jaded translation of what you view my statements to be. Especially after I posted the suspect article showing it for the piece of Propagandic misrepresented

that it is. It's typical really, propagandists tear apart documents, print only what they want to print and usually in an edited form(see above article). What's sad is that there are so many folks out there who buy it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 10, 2004 1:50 PM

SHINY

Quote:
Originally posted by Connorflynn:
Welcome to the waffle house. waffle waffle waffle I actually voted for the $86 billion before I voted against it. hehehe

Yup. Nothing at all like the "I'm the war president...I'm the peace president...war president...peace president" moron currently in the White House.

Jayne, your mouth is talkin. Might want to look into that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 10, 2004 2:04 PM

CONNORFLYNN

Quote:
Yup. Nothing at all like the "I'm the war president...I'm the peace president...war president...peace president" moron currently in the White House.

Okies LOL...what ever blows yer skirt up

Though I don't recall him ever saying that in a speech.

We've been at war for 14 years..it just took us 10 years to figure it out. Frankly, I don't care who is president over the next 4 years as long as they make Homeland security their main priority.

Can Kerry do that.. doubtful. Maybe when he gets around to coming up with his own opinion rather then trying to appease whoever he is talking to at the moment. Bush on the other hand remains steadfast in his rightwing views. I'd rather have a President who stays firm, then one who doesn't, after all there are checks in place to prevent him from going to far right.

Off topic even more - BTW anyone know what Kerry actually stands for yet? I'm hoping for a comment other then..he's smarter then Dubya. After all that can be debated , he married the female version of Dan Quayle and I think Quayle was cuter and quite possibly smarter LOL

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE