Disneyland' comes to Baghdad with multi-million pound entertainmen

[Drea]

But apparently you would forgo clean water, to stand on the outside of a theme park you wouldn't be able to afford to get into?

whatever floats your boat?

Kuzadd. You are talking to an American... of course she believes entertainment comes before clean water. Next we will see Iraqi IDOL being broadcast... and all the Iraqi kids can shake their booty for the camera! Tis the "merican way baby!

[sharkman]

Drea, your stereotypical response is more effective at revealing your views toward Americans than anything else. You would be quick to attack a statement such as, "all Muslims want to do is blow stuff up", yet can't see how wrong your statement on Americans is.

All of the other knee jerk responses concerning clean water, schools, and occupying forces are conveniently ignoring the great strides that have been made in those areas. A theme park constructed by private corporations does not affect the progress of these other needs.

Edited May 7, 2008 by sharkman

[Guest American Woman]

A theme park constructed by private corporations does not affect the progress of these other needs.

This is the bottom line, which some people just don't seem to get. Whether or not this theme park gets built by a private corporation, the other needs will remain the same. It's not as if this private corporation is choosing investing in a theme park over needs such as food and water, because that's not the case any more than Disney chose building a theme park over donating that money to the poor in America or theme parks in Canada take money away from the homeless.

[Guest American Woman]

Try reading your own article...it's part of al-Zawra park.

The 50-acre (20 hectare) swath of land sits adjacent to the Green Zone and encompasses Baghdad’s existing zoo, which was looted, left without power and abandoned after the American-led invasion in 2003. Only 35 of 700 animals survived – some starved, some were stolen and some were killed by Iraqis fearing food shortages.

In the years that followed, the zoo and the surrounding al-Zawra park became an occasional target for insurgent attacks. But in recent months, families have begun to return cautiously for weekend picnics. Renovations have already begun on the zoo, with cages being repainted and new animals arriving, including ostriches, bears and a lion.

Thanks for pointing that out, you saved me the trouble; I have to say I too wondered if kuzadd read the article he posted because it sure doesn't sound as if he did from the comments he's made. I wonder if he even noticed that his article states that the park will be managed by Iraqis, and that they're going to employ thousands of Iraqis, and that it should help in Iraq's effort to revive Iraqi factories. Perhaps that's all bad too since it's an American corporation. I can't help but wonder what the reaction would be if it were, say, a French corporation building/rebuilding the park.

[Guest American Woman]

QUOTE=American Woman: Or perhaps you could just refrain for speaking for them, because you don't have a clue as to whether or not "this is the furthest thing on their ... minds."

Yet you think it is perfectly ok, for you to speak for them, right?

I didn't speak for them; I quoted them. Did that escape you? Because I trust you do know the difference between speaking for them and quoting them.

Just like the American/British government did, speak for them, decide for them, kill them, what the heck eh?

Give me a break. This is about an amusement park, built by a private corporation. It's not about whether or not the war was the right thing to do, it's not about the American government, it's not about the British at all.

I have common sense, and that common sense tells me if I had to chose between clean water necessary for survival, and disease prevention and health, I would chose clean water. Most people would chose the NECESSITIES of life for their kids. Not a theme park!

Perhaps your common sense should tell you that corporations aren't in business to provide clean water; to provide the necessities for survival, and disease prevention and health. Perhaps your common sense should tell you that this corporation isn't choosing between the building the park and providing water et al.

But apparently you would forgo clean water, to stand on the outside of a theme park you wouldn't be able to afford to get into?

whatever floats your boat?

Apparently your "common sense" has abandoned you completely in light of such a stupid comment.

But still nothing to say about the make-a-wish foundation, eh? Damn that organization giving trips to sick kids and their families when they should be paying medical bills. Whatever floats their boat?

Edited May 7, 2008 by American Woman

[Guest American Woman]

what is equally absurd is that you think the kids will benefit from the park, it is a for profit park, it is not charity.

You don't think fun is a benefit? Newsflash. Disney World is a for profit park too, yet my kids benifitted by my taking them there.

The only thing the kids are getting is free skateboards.

Yet you were critical of that, too.

The abuse towards posters , admonishing them for allegedly not wanting Iraqi kids to have fun, is a total and shameful use of a strawman. Used to make people feel bad or guilty for having the opinion they do.

"Abuse towards posters?" You can't be serious.

If you feel "bad or guilty" for the opinion you have, don't blame me.

I think the Iraqi kids are entitled to all the fun they can get

Yet you're critical of them having a theme park, a zoo, a skateboarding park. Guess they can only have fun at activities you approve of?

....how about getting their schools rebuilt, so they can have fun with their friends, how about some clean water, so they do not have to live in filth, how about sewage systems, can you bring back their dead family members, I bet that would make a great many of them happy, how about some arms and legs for the limbs many of them have lost.

Of course, because all of those problems would be solved but for this amusement park. None of the dead would have died but for this amusement park. Sorry kids. No amusement parks for you until all of your country's problems are solved. What's that you say? We have amusement parks and our countries' problems aren't all solved? We have sick, homeless, poor, people without running water? People with missing limbs? Families who have lost loved ones? Guess it's ok for us, but you'll have to find other ways of having fun.

This park has nothing to do with making Iraqi kids lives better, unless one is being wilfully blind.

If you don't recognize that amusement parks provide fun for children and their families, and that fun does "make life better," if you refuse to recognize that this park will provide jobs, and jobs "make life better," you are being willfully blind.

Edited May 7, 2008 by American Woman

[bush_cheney2004]

... The destruction, thousands killed, the ensuing refugee crisis, have already been mentioned, but I'd also like to add that the biggest success of the American Invasion has been to turn a secular dictatorship into an Islamic theocracy.

Okay...and just how well did that "secular dictatorship" thing work out? I seem to recall that even Canada bombed and starved them to death in the name of "human rights", Kuwaiti sovereignty, and defense of Saudi Arabia (which is an Islamic theocracy).

[WIP]

Okay...and just how well did that "secular dictatorship" thing work out? I seem to recall that even Canada bombed and starved them to death in the name of "human rights", Kuwaiti sovereignty, and defense of Saudi Arabia (which is an Islamic theocracy).

It seems to be all forgotten now, but Saddam did have at least one good excuse for invading Kuwait back in 1990, besides trying to get out of paying the the estimated 14 billion dollars that Iraq borrowed to finance the war with Iran - and that was the continued development of slant-drilling techniques in Kuwaiti oil fields near the Iraq border. The Kuwaitis were pumping out oil on the Iraqi side of the border, and the first Bush Administration was divided on how to respond to the dispute. They didn't want to be tied to closely with the Iraqi dictatorship, but the general policy of the Reagan and Bush Administrations was to favour Iraq as a counter-balance to the Iranian regime. During the last year of the war, when Iran had pushed back the original Iraqi occupation of the southwest part of Iran, the Iranians were on the march, and were close to invading Basra, when the United States interfered in the "tanker war" that involved Iraqi and Iranian boats attacking each other's oil tankers. Because the Iranians had successfully mined the waters around Iraq to the point where they cut off Iraq's access to the Gulf, the U.S. ordered Iran to remove the mines; when they refused, the mines were destroyed, along with Iranian oil platforms in the Gulf and an Iranian passenger jet, and quietly opened the checkbook to pay compensation a few years later, after claiming it was flying in the war zone and was mistaken for an Iranian fighter jet.

Should the Bush I Administration have tried to keep its alliance of convenience with Saddam? There are pros and cons to that question, but there is still an unresolved problem from Desert Storm that could lead the eventual permanent Iraqi government to invade Kuwait all over again. You see, the Americans solved the original dispute by redrawing the border between Iraq and Kuwait so that all of the disputed oil wells near the border that were accused of being slant drills, were well within Kuwaiti territory. I wouldn't be surprised if this dispute flares up again in the future, especially since oil is gradually disappearing!

But, my number one question is: do the results justify the regime change strategy? it has started Iraq down the road to theocratic government; instead of securing world oil supplies, it has endangered the flow of oil and driven up the costs three-fold; strengthened Iran's position in the MiddleEast; and strengthened the position of AlQaeda and other Islamic groups that can justify their jihads as fighting infidel oppression; alienated allies and potential allies who interpreted the invasion as a naked attempt to control MidEast oil for America's benefit............and there's likely many other problems that have come from the blowback of this plan. Are there any success stories to report..........besides Disneyland Baghdad?

[Drea]

Oh well.

Seems some have a hard time taking a joke... but no problems dishing them out.

*shrug*

Edited May 7, 2008 by Drea

[M.Dancer]

- and that was the continued development of slant-drilling techniques in Kuwaiti oil fields near the Iraq border.

A claim that not only beggers the imagination, has never be proven.

[kuzadd]

hmm it;s not entirely on the former parkland, and btw was the old park a public park???

with free access to all?

which will now not be the case.

I am of the opinion that anyone that thinks this park will be of any benefit to Iraqi kids, has taken leave of their senses.

It is a for profit park, as I pointed out it is not charity, therefore, if the poor kids have no money, they will have no fun. Just like disney world!

So don't pitch it as beneficial to poor Iraqi kids, it is not , nor is it intended to be.

It is a money making venture (hopefully ) for american equity firms.

You have repeatedly stated this will be nice for Iraqi childrent to have fun, as a plus, but what is more accurate, is it will be nice if their is any possibility that any Iraqi children will actually have the money, the means or the capacity to go.

The comparisons to Disney land are foolish, is the US under occupation?

[Drea]

Perhaps your common sense should tell you that corporations aren't in business to provide clean water; to provide the necessities for survival, and disease prevention and health. Perhaps your common sense should tell you that this corporation isn't choosing between the building the park and providing water et al.?

Really? Tell all those Americans with no health care that disease prevention and healthcare are NOT run by private business in it for the profit.

There is absolutely no sense in comparing Disneyworld or the Make a Wish Foundation to this proposed theme park in Iraq.

For one thing, most Americans have access to clean water, food, schools... the necessities of life.

While most Iraqis do not have such access.

But not only do you not understand this, you simply don't care, so long as some American Corporation is making a buck you are happier n' a pig in shit, bringin' the good ol 'merican dream to the world

Because "Mickey Mouse" is essential to the health and wellbeing of people everywhere!

Edited May 7, 2008 by Drea

[DogOnPorch]

hmm it;s not entirely on the former parkland, and btw was the old park a public park???

with free access to all?

which will now not be the case.

It's part of a public park...not the entire park. Read!

I am of the opinion that anyone that thinks this park will be of any benefit to Iraqi kids, has taken leave of their senses.

That's nice. Any other group strawman attacks to get out of the way?

It is a for profit park, as I pointed out it is not charity, therefore, if the poor kids have no money, they will have no fun. Just like disney world!

Thousands of jobs = money in pockets.

So don't pitch it as beneficial to poor Iraqi kids, it is not , nor is it intended to be.

Who else is it for?

It is a money making venture (hopefully ) for american equity firms.

lol...evil capitalism. How do you survive?

You have repeatedly stated this will be nice for Iraqi childrent to have fun, as a plus, but what is more accurate, is it will be nice if their is any possibility that any Iraqi children will actually have the money, the means or the capacity to go.

You just want everything to fail so you can point to the "evil Amis do."

The comparisons to Disney land are foolish, is the US under occupation?

To ask my chums in California and Arizona...yes.

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

Life. People. Before, I used to take everything at face value. Because, when I say something, I mean it... so I used to feel that everybody else meant what they said. But of course that wasn't true. And life isn't that sweet and simple.

---Sharon Tate-Polanski

[bush_cheney2004]

....But, my number one question is: do the results justify the regime change strategy? it has started Iraq down the road to theocratic government; instead of securing world oil supplies, it has endangered the flow of oil and driven up the costs three-fold; strengthened Iran's position in the MiddleEast; and strengthened the position of AlQaeda and other Islamic groups that can justify their jihads as fighting infidel oppression; alienated allies and potential allies who interpreted the invasion as a naked attempt to control MidEast oil for America's benefit............and there's likely many other problems that have come from the blowback of this plan. Are there any success stories to report..........besides Disneyland Baghdad?

The US/UK policy of "regime change" existed long before Dubya came along. Iraq was bombed, invaded, and strangled for nearly twelve years after the first Gulf War. The existing US policy of aggressive containment with military force was changed in the wake of 9/11, wherein an opportunity was presented (the existing WMD pretext) to rush the net once and for all. PMs Blair and Howard agreed. The invasion of Iraq was one stop shopping for a host of regional interests and objectives, crude oil only being one aspect of this. Indeed, it would have been far cheaper to just buy the oil, even if Saddam's crippled and outmoded infrastructure could only deliver a trickle of its potential. Currently, Mideast oil is very important to the world, not just the USA, which has actually diversified its supplier base to the Americas.

Put another way, the USA's military force structure is designed to specifically project power in this region, and it has for at least a generation. China, India, Japan, and Europe understand what it takes to safely load and transit with an Ultra Large Crude Carrier (ULCC). Seeing one of these goliaths at sea or at a loading terminal provides a sobering understanding of just how much has been invested and is at stake for the world's hydrocarbon economy.

Since 1991, the USA has invested many billions in the forward deployment of forces for not just Iraq, but the stability of the entire region. The Yankees are everywhere, including the ex-Soviet 'Stans. One can argue about the merits of "naked aggression" vs. "killing them softly" with Big Macs, but the objectives are defined and consistent with a continuum going back to at least the 1950's.

Success stories? Yes...the oil is still flowing to the rest of the world. Dragging the Fundies into the 21st century (the hard way) would just be icing on the cake. Or as VP Cheney has said, we can have terrorism with oil. or we can have terrorism without oil.

[Guest American Woman]

Really? Tell all those Americans with no health care that disease prevention and healthcare are NOT run by private business in it for the profit.

For profit, yes. Corporations obviously provide those things for profit. Somehow I don't think kuzzad is saying American corporations should go in and do that for profit.

There is absolutely no sense in comparing Disneyworld or the Make a Wish Foundation to this proposed theme park in Iraq.

For one thing, most Americans have access to clean water, food, schools... the necessities of life.

While most Iraqis do not have such access.

Golly gee. Make-a-Wish foundation provides trips to theme parks for sick kids in America, and you just posted about "all those Americans with no health care." Yet Make-a-Wish isn't paying for the bills that families of sick children have to deal with (and that includes Canada, too, because having a terminally ill child costs families big time), they're paying for fun.

But not only do you not understand this, you simply don't care, so long as some American Corporation is making a buck you are happier n' a pig in shit, bringin' the good ol 'merican dream to the world

Because "Mickey Mouse" is essential to the health and wellbeing of people everywhere!

You do realize "Mickey Mouse" won't be part of this park, right? As for the rest of your crap, I've held my tongue long enough. No more, because no one here makes up stuff more than you do. No one here is more full of shit than you are. Why you are still here, why your bullshit is allowed, is beyond me. You are either very bitter or very ignorant. Or most likely, both.

[WIP]

A claim that not only beggers the imagination, has never be proven.

Maybe, but why did they move the border then unless there was a possibility that the 11 wells near the border were illegal?

[Drea]

For profit, yes. Corporations obviously provide those things for profit. Somehow I don't think kuzzad is saying American corporations should go in and do that for profit.

Golly gee. Make-a-Wish foundation provides trips to theme parks for sick kids in America, and you just posted about "all those Americans with no health care." Yet Make-a-Wish isn't paying for the bills that families of sick children have to deal with (and that includes Canada, too, because having a terminally ill child costs families big time), they're paying for fun.

You do realize "Mickey Mouse" won't be part of this park, right? As for the rest of your crap, I've held my tongue long enough. No more, because no one here makes up stuff more than you do. No one here is more full of shit than you are. Why you are still here, why your bullshit is allowed, is beyond me. You are either very bitter or very ignorant. Or most likely, both.

You are free to use the ignore button if you so choose. No one is forcing you to read my posts.

Cheers!

[sharkman]

But not only do you not understand this, you simply don't care, so long as some American Corporation is making a buck you are happier n' a pig in shit, bringin' the good ol 'merican dream to the world

Because "Mickey Mouse" is essential to the health and wellbeing of people everywhere!

Your shrill anti-Americanism is getting tedious, Drea. It belittles everything else you say.

[Drea]

You too are free to use the ignore button if you so choose. No one is forcing you to read my posts.

Cheers!

Many Americans think that people need their loud, in-your-face brand of entertainment.

I would rather a child have clean water and access to healthcare and education. When a person has no food, no education the USian comes along and "appeases" them (or tries to) with *cheap entertainment.

But kids gotta have fun right?! Even starving children like rides right? No food in the tummy means they won't puke -- win win!

*cheap -- meaning lousy not inexpensive.

Edited May 7, 2008 by Drea

[sharkman]

It's not a zero sum equation, if an entertainment corp. builds an entertainment park, it does not mean there will be dirty water or less food, or worse education or whatever else.

It means there will be a place where a family can go to forget about their worries for a while and have some fun.

*I do not censor people by pushing the ignore button. However I will call someone who I think is being racist or bigoted.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Many Americans think that people need their loud, in-your-face brand of entertainment.

No, we don't think they need it...we think they want it...based on media sales, Disney Paris, Tokyo Disneyland, pirated CDs/DVDs, and millions of world tourists in US theme parks.

[M.Dancer]

....., Disney Paris,....

Don't know about the others, but EuroDisney would die if it weren't for American and Japanese tourists...

[DogOnPorch]

Don't know about the others, but EuroDisney would die if it weren't for American and Japanese tourists...

To be satirical, a modern Iraqi amusment park would probably have rides like:

The Carbombanator

Pirates of the Shatt al Arab

Leap to Tikrit

Mr Hussein's Wild Drop

Dick Cheney's Scary Adventure

It's a Small War Afterall

Dumbo the Flying President

Embeded in the Kirkut Room

The Naming of Mohammed the Pooh

Roger Rabbit's Halberton Convoy

The Haunted Prison

The Mad Hatter's 4th Tour of Duty

Indiana Jones and the Quest For thr Lost Exit Strategy

...etc...

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

Ho-Ho-Ho...Green Giant

[GostHacked]

Disneyland in Iraq can wait. It can wait a long time.

I get the impression that is not part of the plan to actually rebuild Iraq. Basic needs like clean water and electricity, food, clothing, a home are ignored in order to have an amusement park built?

Someone needs to take a look at their priorities.

Yes we can say it was in the plan from the start, a circle jerkfest of a plan.

[sharkman]

Please cite sources showing how building an amusement park by a private company will affect clean water, food, or clothing.