Foreign firms investing in Iraq

[Shady]

Foreign firms investing in Iraq

WASHINGTON — European and Asian companies are beating their American rivals into Iraq now that security has improved the investment climate, Iraq and U.S. officials say.

"It's starting to turn … and the people who are getting in on the ground floor are not American," said Paul Brinkley, the Pentagon official who is leading U.S. efforts to help Iraq rebuild its economy. "It's ironic."

Foreign companies, including U.S. investors, have committed to deals worth about $500 million so far this year and Brinkley expects at least $1 billion in foreign investment by the end of the year.

There are no reliable historic numbers, but the deals this year are among the first major investment opportunities outside U.S.-funded reconstruction projects and they signal new confidence in Iraq's economy.

The activity by non-U.S. companies is not a cause for concern, said Charles Reis, the U.S. counselor for economic transition in Iraq. "This is a normalization of Iraq's relationship with the rest of the world," he said.

USA Today

Will the Democrats finally admit that the surge has worked? That significant progress is being made in Iraq? That the war is not lost? And that their strategy of "redeployment" would have aborted all of the subsequent gains? Probably not.

[eyeball]

I understand the US is still investing something on the order of 3 billion a week in Iraq, to make it safe for foreign investors I suppose. Sounds like a real good deal to me. Keep up the good work.

[bush_cheney2004]

I understand the US is still investing something on the order of 3 billion a week in Iraq, to make it safe for foreign investors I suppose. Sounds like a real good deal to me. Keep up the good work.

That's OK....Americans made Japan safe for "foreign" investors too. Worked out very well.

[Black Dog]

That's OK....Americans made Japan safe for "foreign" investors too. Worked out very well.

Oh Jesus Christ on a stick. Germany and Japan were occupations of nations that were already defeated and were stable. Iraq? Not so much.

As for the surge working: correlation and causation are two different things. Not to mention the fact that all the crowing about the alleged success of the surge does not disguise the bungling that made it a necessary or the damage wrought in the interim.

[bush_cheney2004]

Oh Jesus Christ on a stick. Germany and Japan were occupations of nations that were already defeated and were stable. Iraq? Not so much.

Iraq is not "defeated" ????? Not occupied ??????

As for the surge working: correlation and causation are two different things. Not to mention the fact that all the crowing about the alleged success of the surge does not disguise the bungling that made it a necessary or the damage wrought in the interim.

But that's how we roll 'bro....destroy it...then rebuild it. See WW2 Europe or Japan. Funny part is that stuff doesn't burn as well in Iraq....ironic considering the oppressive heat!

[lost&outofcontrol]

Iraq is not "defeated" ????? Not occupied ??????

How is the US is 'defeating' the counterinsurgency making it safe for foreign investment

How_to_train_death_squads_and_quash_revolutions_from_San_Salvador_to_you

The manual, Foreign Internal Defense Tactics Techniques and Procedures for Special Forces (1994, 2004), may be critically described as "what we learned about running death squads and propping up corrupt government in Latin America and how to apply it to other places".

The manual directly advocates training paramilitaries, pervasive surveillance, censorship, press control and restrictions on labor unions & political parties. It directly advocates warrantless searches, detainment without charge and (under varying circumstances) the suspension of habeas corpus. It directly advocates employing terrorists or prosecuting individuals for terrorism who are not terrorists, running false flag operations and concealing human rights abuses from journalists. And it repeatedly advocates the use of subterfuge and "psychological operations" (propaganda) to make these and other "population & resource control" measures more palatable.

[GostHacked]

Oh Jesus Christ on a stick. Germany and Japan were occupations of nations that were already defeated and were stable. Iraq? Not so much.

As for the surge working: correlation and causation are two different things. Not to mention the fact that all the crowing about the alleged success of the surge does not disguise the bungling that made it a necessary or the damage wrought in the interim.

This kind of attitude that BC loves to show, and that seems to represent the mentality in the US. This arrogace will garner another 9/11, and the people of the US will wonder why they got attacked again. With the stuff that spills out of people like BC, I won't cry when it happens again, I won't be surprised when it happens again.

But he will be surprised.

[BubberMiley]

But he will be surprised.

Or he won't give a shit unless it's his ass burning.

[bush_cheney2004]

This kind of attitude that BC loves to show, and that seems to represent the mentality in the US. This arrogace will garner another 9/11, and the people of the US will wonder why they got attacked again. With the stuff that spills out of people like BC, I won't cry when it happens again, I won't be surprised when it happens again.

But he will be surprised.

Wrong...I wasn't "surprised" the first time (long before 2001), so why would I be surprised anytime after that? You reason like a child, even as your own nation is complicit in such things. I am but one American among 300,000,000 with individual "mentalities"...but only one reality.

And as for crying.....we'll just let you decide when that is necessary on a personal level.

[bush_cheney2004]

Or he won't give a shit unless it's his ass burning.

Lions. tigers, and bears....OH MY!

[Shady]

This arrogace will garner another 9/11

Arrogance didn't garner 9/11, nor did arrogance garner the Madrid train bombings, nor did arrogance garner the London bus bombings, nor did arrogance garner the Bali bombings, or the tourist bombings in Egypt, or the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, or the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri, or the assassination of Theo van Gogh, or the assassination of Anwar Sadat, or the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, etc, etc, etc.

[Michael Hardner]

Oh Jesus Christ on a stick. Germany and Japan were occupations of nations that were already defeated and were stable. Iraq? Not so much.

As for the surge working: correlation and causation are two different things. Not to mention the fact that all the crowing about the alleged success of the surge does not disguise the bungling that made it a necessary or the damage wrought in the interim.

BD,

Iraq is getting there. I too was against the war but I am glad to see that stability is slowly coming to the region. There's no point in looking back. A continued American presence seems to me the best way forward.

[bush_cheney2004]

Iraq is getting there. I too was against the war but I am glad to see that stability is slowly coming to the region. There's no point in looking back. A continued American presence seems to me the best way forward.

This is a practical perspective, regardless of personal opinion regarding the "war". I guess some of these guys won't be happy until they see helos evacuating the Green Zone under fire, a la Saigon!

[Michael Hardner]

There seems to me to be a sizeable contingent of people who say they want 'peace', but who really want the US to eat crow.

The war went badly, when you compare the results to the sky-high expectations that people had. (People in favour of the war. that is.)

The idea that leaving Iraq before it can ably manage its own affairs will fix that it insanity.

[Guest American Woman]

This kind of attitude that BC loves to show, and that seems to represent the mentality in the US. This arrogace will garner another 9/11, and the people of the US will wonder why they got attacked again. With the stuff that spills out of people like BC, I won't cry when it happens again, I won't be surprised when it happens again.

But he will be surprised.

Since when does BC's attitude represent the mentality in the U.S.? What are you basing that comment/conclusion/claim on? BC and "the people of the US" are two very different things, so I'm curious as to why you think his attitude seems to be representative of the U.S. mentality rather than, for example, mine.

[Michael Hardner]

GH seems to think that the war is still popular there.

[bush_cheney2004]

Since when does BC's attitude represent the mentality in the U.S.? What are you basing that comment/conclusion/claim on? BC and "the people of the US" are two very different things, so I'm curious as to why you think his attitude seems to be representative of the U.S. mentality rather than, for example, mine.

Good question.....Americans are a very diverse population with many (and often competing) points of view...much more than in Canada. Why he would lump us all into one monolithic (and ignorant) block is curious indeed. We will probably get the usual back pedaling about "Americans" vs. "American foreign policy" and government. Stand by.....

[bush_cheney2004]

GH seems to think that the war is still popular there.

Indeed....I don't think he can reconcile this. By 1945, WW2 wasn't very popular either.

[GostHacked]

War should never be popular. But if it is happening, I do suggest paying attention to it.

It is because of our modern media and our severe case of ADHD that we do not pay attention anymore. Why? Because the pundits and politicians tell us we are not interested anymore. So we go along with it like the sheep we are. Iraq what? Oh that country, how is it working out?

I said is represented the mentality, and I meant it on the whole. There will always be exeptions, so no one should get offended with a blanket statement. But I will keep on blanket statements, for it seems the majority is thinking about it. Granted that much are thinking about the economy at the moment. Hell I thought wars were GOOD for an economy. This seems to go against that common convention.

M Hardener.

The war went badly, when you compare the results to the sky-high expectations that people had. (People in favour of the war. that is.)

Those expectations were given to us by 'intelligence experts', 'some governmental offical'. Rummy, Bush and Cheney gave us those high expectations. Shock and Awe. They will greet us in the streets as liberators. Got the population all on board because they were told it was going to be an easy win. And we see that is not the case.

Not sure how you measure progress. Or if all of us are basing on what we are given by the media/government. Remember, Public Affairs is just another term for Propaganda Department. If we are basing our decisions on what is reported in the media, then we are still being lied to. If they did it once, it can be done again.

[White Doors]

It was an easy win. They took down a country with the 4th highest amount of troops in the world in what, two weeks? The NYT kept bleating about the much vaunted republican guard and they melted away like butter.

In fact, the war probably went too fast and too well and led to some of the mistakes for the peace. Like disbanding all police and armed forces. There were many mistakes made in the conversion from war footing to winning the peace, but the war itself was a brilliant success and was over in record time.

Perhaps you meant to say the insurgency? Granted, that didn't go as well for the reason's that I cited and more, but it sure seems to be doing alot better now.

[GostHacked]

Perhaps you meant to say the insurgency? Granted, that didn't go as well for the reason's that I cited and more, but it sure seems to be doing alot better now.

If Mission Accomplished was not stated, then this would not be an insurgency. It would still be a war. Which it still is, a war on terror. It is all how it is classified, which allows them to stretch the truth, or to get around the law. You never get a straight answer out of politicians or the commanders in the field.

The reason why the war was so easy (eventhough the Military said it would be a tough battle, you know chemical weapons and all that stuff.) is over 10 years of sanctions, two no fly zones, and one previous war, anyone with a lick of intelligence could figure out that Iraq was not going to be able to put up much of a fight. But still Iraq was the next biggest threat to America. Which we know it has never been a direct immediate threat to the US.

[bush_cheney2004]

....But still Iraq was the next biggest threat to America. Which we know it has never been a direct immediate threat to the US.

This is patently false....Iraq was a direct "immediate" threat to US oil interests. Mess with the oil supply...get the horns....pretty simple. And the Kuwaitis rejoiced!

Hell, even peacenik Jimmy Carter made it clear in the 1970's with the "Carter Doctrine". Speaking directly to the Soviets:

Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.

[Shady]

US military to hand back Sunni bastion of Anbar to Iraq

BAGHDAD (AFP) — The US military is to hand over security control of the former Sunni insurgent bastion of Anbar province to Iraqi forces in the next 10 days, a US military spokesman announced on Monday.

"The handover of Anbar is expected to take place in the next 10 days," Lieutenant David Russell told AFP, declining to provide an exact date.

Anbar would be the tenth of Iraq's 18 provinces to be handed back to Iraqi forces by the US-led coalition amid a push to transfer security control of the entire country back to Baghdad.

Link

[GostHacked]

This is patently false....Iraq was a direct "immediate" threat to US oil interests. Mess with the oil supply...get the horns....pretty simple. And the Kuwaitis rejoiced!

Hell, even peacenik Jimmy Carter made it clear in the 1970's with the "Carter Doctrine". Speaking directly to the Soviets:

Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.

Nope, to the general population it was presented as a war on terror. And, the people control the government. But we clearly see this is not the case, so there is no democracy. So bringing freedom to a place where there was no intention of bringing peace is another fallacy because there is no freedom or democracy to bring to them. Gotta have it to give it.

This war on terror is a war to gain control of the resources in the Middle East. Why not present it as such? We should see on the news that America is after oil. But we don't see that on the MSM now do we. All we see is the war on terror and bringing freedom to the masses.

I guess America is taking the region because they no longer want the Saudi's to control the oil into the US? Because as it is, the US has to go to the Saudi's and ask them to increase the oil production output.

I think what you all fail to understand is that it was presented as the War on Terror, but it actually is a War for Oil.

So the ruse of the War on Terror should just be dropped altogether. This way we can see clearly what is going on. because if you have to fool the public to support a war, then you are not doing your job right.

[bush_cheney2004]

Nope, to the general population it was presented as a war on terror. And, the people control the government. But we clearly see this is not the case, so there is no democracy. So bringing freedom to a place where there was no intention of bringing peace is another fallacy because there is no freedom or democracy to bring to them. Gotta have it to give it.

Oh Christ...was there "democracy" during WW2 ? Korea? Vietnam? GWI? What possible logical relationships are you making up....even if pretzel-like?

This war on terror is a war to gain control of the resources in the Middle East. Why not present it as such? We should see on the news that America is after oil. But we don't see that on the MSM now do we. All we see is the war on terror and bringing freedom to the masses.

Nonsense....any fool can see what is/was guarded before, during, and after the "war". What the hell do you think Basra Terminal and Kirkuk are about? Even Canadian contractors clamored for a piece of the action.

I guess America is taking the region because they no longer want the Saudi's to control the oil into the US? Because as it is, the US has to go to the Saudi's and ask them to increase the oil production output.

The USA is looking out for its interests, which includes the Saudis for now. The industrialized world also has a keen interest in Middle East oil.

I think what you all fail to understand is that it was presented as the War on Terror, but it actually is a War for Oil.

Who gives a crap about how it was "presented"....America's history in the region speaks for itself. You mean it was all about oil....DUH!

So the ruse of the War on Terror should just be dropped altogether. This way we can see clearly what is going on. because if you have to fool the public to support a war, then you are not doing your job right.

So you want a different ad campaign? Well guess what..it's not going to happen, and I will tell you why: As far as the US is concerned, any threat to oil supplies is "terrorism", just like the bogus "human rights" stories used to sell war(s) in Canada.

The mistake you are making is an assumption that "blood for oil" would make the slightest bit of difference.

Edited June 23, 2008 by bush_cheney2004