: US Dollars Exported To Pay Iraqi Civil Servants
Wed Apr 16 2003 11:41:36 ET
As the U.S. turns from bombing Iraq to rebuilding it, the U.S. government is airlifting dollars from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to replace - - at least temporarily – the discredited Iraqi currency.
MORE
The WALL STREET JOURNAL is reporting on Wednesday: As an initial step, American officials charged with the reconstruction will use small- denomination bills to make ‘emergency’ payments to hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civil servants in an effort to quiet civic unrest and to stabilize the chaotic Iraqi economy.
Using U.S. dollars will make the U.S. currency the de facto currency, at least in the interim – a move that could prove controversial in the Arab world, but one that would give the Iraqis a currency that will retain its value despite the uncertainties about the country’s reconstruction.
Developing…
I wonder how many Iraqis will refuse to accept the infidels currency?
the plan is working.. it wasn't just the oil.. it was protecting the Petro-Dollar.. Iraqi oil will be sold in dollars too and the Euro can just sit and squirm all it wants..
[QUOTE]
I wonder how many Iraqis will refuse to accept the infidels currency?
[/QUOTE]
Maybe if they were not occupied they can make the own decision to accept or reject the dollars. By the way maybe the money that is going over is part of the Iraqi assets seized by Bush Administration...so it is Iraqis money.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by AvgAmericanGirl: *
called capitalism.
[/QUOTE]
Does Capitalism calls for killing innocent civilians? Does it call for starving a nation? Does it call for imposing the most brutal economic sanctions on an already war ravaged country?
Maybe if they were not occupied they can make the own decision to accept or reject the dollars. By the way maybe the money that is going over is part of the Iraqi assets seized by Bush Administration...so it is Iraqis money.
[/QUOTE]
"Occupied"? I suppose you would prefer all the coalition troops to just up and leave the country today?
"Iraqi assets siezed"? do you mean the oil wells or the buildings and facilities of the now gone Iraqi government? Or maybe you mean the weapons left behind, you think the U.S. military would use them or sell them? Or I suppose you could be refering to Saddams palaces that are left, or his and his sons "love nest", or even what's left of Saddams yacht.
If this "war" was considerd liberation from an evil regime, then the US should help Iraq get "back on her feet." The U.S. does not owe the people of Iraq any restitution, even though it seems that the Iraqi citizens are going to be offered U.S. currency to try and stimulate an economy there. I would imagine $20 U.S. could buy quite a few onions and tomatoes in Iraq.
As far as this being Iraqis money, you're dreaming.
"Occupied"? I suppose you would prefer all the coalition troops to just up and leave the country today?
"Iraqi assets siezed"? do you mean the oil wells or the buildings and facilities of the now gone Iraqi government? Or maybe you mean the weapons left behind, you think the U.S. military would use them or sell them? Or I suppose you could be refering to Saddams palaces that are left, or his and his sons "love nest", or even what's left of Saddams yacht.
If this "war" was considerd liberation from an evil regime, then the US should help Iraq get "back on her feet." The U.S. does not owe the people of Iraq any restitution, even though it seems that the Iraqi citizens are going to be offered U.S. currency to try and stimulate an economy there. I would imagine $20 U.S. could buy quite a few onions and tomatoes in Iraq.
As far as this being Iraqis money, you're dreaming.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, that is exactly what I will like. Occupation troops to up and leave. This war was not about liberation, it was about imperialism, oil, and politcial influence.
There was some news recently that BUSH administration siezed over 2 Billions dollars in assets that supposedly belonged to Saddam. In the same report it was noted that Mr. Bush wants to use this fund to help Iraqi citizens.
Have you forgotten about the brutal sanctions that were imposed by US and UK on Iraq for the last decade? Do not tell me that it was UN, no it was not UN becasue US and UK were the only tow countries that inisited on the sanctions. Yes US owes a lot more than money to the Iraqis and the rest of the world. Telling the truth will be a nice start. For you I recommend read about the subject first before jumping to conclusions.
Yes, that is exactly what I will like. Occupation troops to up and leave. This war was not about liberation, it was about imperialism, oil, and politcial influence.
There was some news recently that BUSH administration siezed over 2 Billions dollars in assets that supposedly belonged to Saddam. In the same report it was noted that Mr. Bush wants to use this fund to help Iraqi citizens.
Have you forgotten about the brutal sanctions that were imposed by US and UK on Iraq for the last decade? Do not tell me that it was UN, no it was not UN becasue US and UK were the only tow countries that inisited on the sanctions. Yes US owes a lot more than money to the Iraqis and the rest of the world. Telling the truth will be a nice start. For you I recommend read about the subject first before jumping to conclusions.
[/QUOTE]
what do you think would happen to Iraq if coalition forces left the country? The fueding groups there, Iran, etc. the country would be in far worse shape than it has ever been in.
If in fact the "war" was about imperialism then to the victor goes the spoils. In which case it would not be Iraqi money.
I have not forgotten about sanctions! Have you forgotten what was required to lift those sanctions?
Explain to me how seized assets that belonged to Saddam, now belong to the Iraqi people, in your opinion. Are you now saying that what Saddam had should have been given to the people by Saddam? Imagine the food and medicine the country could have obtained with all the wealth Saddam had. If only he had complied with the sanctions imposed against him.
Don't assume that I don't read, nor should you assume that I am jumping to conclusions. I am only stateing my opinions here. If you have something more than opinions (facts) in these matters, then I propose you take them to an official that can put them to use. Otherwise you too are only expressing your opinion.
It seems that you are not aware of the extent of the sanctions. It is wrong for you to assume that Saddam collected all this wealth in the 90s. Saddam has been in power long before that. You did not hear about Iraq as the rouge state back in 80s did you? Iraq was the most advanced arab country. People there were affluent, educated and had hopes. There hopes and dreams were destroyed not only by a dictator but also the brutal sanctions imposed by US and UK. Yes it was US & UK who on every turn either vetoed or rejected proposals to lift the sanctions. There is so much history and facts behind those sanctions that westeren media did not bother to cover. I will not try to eduacte you here about those facts(yes they are facts...do some research on your own and then form your opinion). Do you even know what the sanctions entailed? Judging from your response I gather your answer will be duh...no.
I assume you are all for bullying people and taking their valuables and when some one complains about your behavior you shrug your shoulders and say "to the victor goes the spoils".
No matter how you look at it this was an unjust war which was thrusted upon the people of Iraq for economic and political reasons. Before you start preaching about Iraqi liberation you might want to look at your own backyard...Cuba...rings a bell?
Maybe you didn't understand MY question. what was needed to lift the sanctions??
I never said Saddam became rich in the 90's. Saddam refused to do what he was told to do by an international community. U.S., U.K., U.N. who ever! Even though people in his country were starving to death because he refused to comply, Saddam continued to live at the level he had grown used to. Do you supposed these estates were all self supporting?
Stop assumeing that you are the only person that knows any facts. The "facts" I questioned you haveing have to do with the "war" and the intentions of the U.S. government, not sanctions.
If judgeing from my respone the word "duh" comes to your mind then I can only assume that duh is a word very familiar you.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Kaleem: *
Before you start preaching about Iraqi liberation you might want to look at your own backyard...Cuba...rings a bell?
[/QUOTE]
sounds like a vote to invade Cuba! do you suggest that the U.S. wait for all the U.N.s approval and co-operation to do this? Do you think France or Russia will oppose that invasion? In my opinion the only countries to oppose that would be the countries with whiny leaders that don't support any war and the countries that seem to oppose the U.S. no matter what the debate.
should this be after S.A. and N. Korea?
since their are no oil reserves in Cuba is it ok for the Imperialist U.S. to just takeover and setup a nice retreat/ away from the military base and prison of course.
Can you read? or are you blind? (pun intended). Which international community you are referring to?, 2 countries: US and UK. All other nations were in favor of lifting the sanctions as early as 1997. US and its poodle were the only 2 countries that rejected and kept the brutal sanctions. Untill you know the extent of the sanctions you can talk about that saddam did not comply till you are blue in the face but none of the other international community will be lieve you. Did you know that US was using UNSCOm inspectors to spy on Iraq? Did you know that US and UK kept changing the standards that Iraq had to meet to lift the sanctions? I will urge you again stop being all righteous and educate yourself.
You completely missed the boat on that one (typical). I wanted you to see the hypocrisy of US invasion. If liberation was teh only gaol as US claims then why not liberate the Cubans? If it was about saddam not complying with the Un resolutions, than what about Israel? Israel not only does not comply with any of the UN resolutions (greater than 22) it does it with impunity. Wake up or get some glasses so you can see.
My question again to you, what do you think or know sense it seems you believe everything you think to be fact, did Saddam need to do to lift the sanctions. What does the extent of the sanctions have to do with complying?
the link is to show the sanctions imposed on Iraq.
can you read?? no I get your response from the voices in my head. “DUH!”
Do you suppose there is a country that doesn’t use any means they have to spy?
righteous ??? do I appear to be righteous?
didn’t miss any boats, it was an attempt at humor.
I have never said, nor do I believe that this “war” was about liberation of Iraqis.
Why do you guys always bring Israel into the argument? Kinda like name calling or just trying to change the subject or what? If you want to talk about Israel, maybe we should start another thread. But for now can you answer my question ::
The question is not what did saddam need to do to lift the sanctions. The questions is if the sanctions were justified? The questions is if this war war was justified? Untill you can answer these questions there is no need to debate with you. As far as Israel is concerned, its not to divert the attention but to show you the ultimate hypocrisy US is involved in. Get it. I can discuss the Israel issue with you any time eddie.
ok Kaleem, if you don't won't to answer my question I'll answer it for you:
The UN Security Council imposed comprehensive economic sanctions against Iraq on August 6, 1990, just four days after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. When the coalition war had ousted Iraq from Kuwait the following year, the Council did not lift the sanctions, keeping them in place as leverage to press for Iraqi disarmament, return of prisoners of war and other goals.
**The US and UK governments made it clear early on that they would block any lifting of sanctions as long as Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein remains in power. **
now it seems that Saddam has been forcefully removed. IMHO many lives would have been saved had this "war" been conducted sooner.
What in you opinion does it take to justify a war?
being Jewish? being Muslim? being Hindu? being Christian? what about the Atheist or the Agnostics?
or maybe a land dispute? Israel / Palestine? Pakistan / India?
[QUOTE]
The US and UK governments made it clear early on that they would block any lifting of sanctions as long as Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein remains in power
[/QUOTE]
This right there answers one of my question. UN resolutions did not ask for removal of Saddam Hussein. Hence, for US and UK to demand it was not only illegal but also unfair.
