News Union of Unemployed Iraqis

1. Feb 20, 2004

the UUI demands either jobs or $100 / month in unemployment insurance. 65% of Iraq is unemployed since the war. Iraqis are educated and skilled people who are decended from the inventors of the number zero and the concept of infinity. Why not * cancel the no-bid contracts and put he Iraqi people to work rebuilding their own country * ? 2. Feb 20, 2004 phatmonky Surprisingly, I agree with you on this. 3. Feb 22, 2004 jimmy p I agree, it IS their country, they arent the 'opressed masses' any more, they can shape the country to their liking. Just one more thing to b*tch and complain about to get into the news. Get back to work Iraq! 4. Feb 22, 2004 Zero The bad part about all this is that from what I have read, the Iraqis who built the infrastructure in the first place say that they could rebuild it themselves for one hell of alot less than what we are paying now. 5. Feb 25, 2004 Shahil Not to make fun or anything but in Iraqi terms, how far does$100 go? Coz I'm thinking it could (i don't know obviously) more than some EMPLOYED Iraqi's are making per month!!!!!

6. Mar 4, 2004

Newsweek, November '03:
for one British or US security guard raking in $1,200 per day, you can employ 144 Iraqi security guards. for one$6000 cell phone you can employ 720 Iraqi security guards.

The war in Iraq is designed for two goals- cost America as much as possible, cost Iraq as much as possible. The warmongers get rich this way. Shock and awe would've been Hitler's wet dream.

7. Mar 6, 2004

A professional security contractor gets paid $250,000 a year, Clean, No taxes. And I'm talking about the ones from Kroll and Pinkertons which are usually ex-Special Forces. Not your average, unqualified guy with a rifle. Although there are a lot of those running around Iraq which makes it worse. So indeed, it is costing us a lot of money. Last edited: Mar 6, 2004 8. Mar 7, 2004 pocebokli it will cost you absolutely nothing once revenues start coming in. The bush may be stupid (or his statements may look stupid, but his nation certainly believes him, so let's leave this issue as it is). But he's certainly not SO stupid to spend all this money to "liberate an opressed nation", geeze! Not only the war-mongers, when things lay down, all the american and english and spanish and polish and other coalition firms who got "exclusive" (heh heh) contracts in iraq, will pay off their countries nicely. And let's just leave the oil thing, as birds on trees are already singing about it. And even if only the army firms get profit, you must know that it is YOUR national income, even if only this outweights the costs for your army in iraq, it still all goes to U.S. gdp, so it don't really matter. Iraq was attacked for money, for opening of a new market, an oil-rich market. And to establish a democacy, yeah, that's true. It's rather hard to trade with a dictatorial regime dontchathink? Long live the axis of EVIIIIIIIIIIIIIL mUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA......sorry couldn't stop myself:-) I just hope next time bush almost chokes on one of that bready things, it won't be "almost". 9. Mar 7, 2004 phatmonky Amazing that you can follow your first statement, with your second about Bush choking. I wonder if you think the Marshall plan was a relaly bad idea, because we benefitted so much from rebduiling Europe after assisting to crush Hitler? Let's assume that your simplistic view of the situation IS right (it's not, there's a lot more to it, but let's just look at this.) No one touches Iraq. It stays as a closed off area that we fund to keep contained for the next 10? 50? 75? xxx? years.The people in Iraq suffer through this containment, as well as the dictator in power. David Kayes report proved that Saddam was still goign after WMD, simply that the containment was having an effect. On a long enough timeline, would containment have continued to work? Would the trade off be better for the Iraqi people for the next xxxx years? Is North Korea better off after being isolated for so long? On the other hand, you have what is happening now. A liberation of a people, that will result in a new trading and security partner, the ability to hold the NATION accountable (not just a leader) in the future, and as a side effect you get freedom for the populous,and a catalyst for democracy in the region. You sit here and make all these statements, followed with calling for the death of our president, yet you have yet to explain why this action is worse than the alternative. 10. Mar 7, 2004 kat It seems to me that there would be problems with using security guards as a comparision....I certainly can't see an American willing to be a security guard there for a paltry minimum wage...and I can see why we might not want to be hiring large amounts of Iraqi's as security guards at this point...doh. And isn't the UUI supported by the Communist party? which would put a whole new slant on their "objective" comments.... Not to say I don't believe that the Iraqi people should be helping to rebuild their own country...just that your take on it may be a bit too simplistic....aye? 11. Mar 7, 2004 pocebokli You like so much to point out that you "assisted" in crushing hitler - an argument also pointed out a lot during Bush's campain to gain support among european countries for attack on iraq. Actually an argument used in domestic recruitment of patriots as well. And it looks like it worked. well LOL.- For those of you who have been missing out your history classes; You did not move a finger until you got it directly into your face from the Japanese. Before that you just gave "military" help to England and perhaps some other countries. And you even CHARGED that help! Of course you assisted in crushing hitler, once he parked his submarines in New York docks, and it just seemed possible that germany might develop A-bomb. Perhaps then, the americans thought he would probably not stop in europe and then valorously intervened? Don't get me wrong, every american soldier who fought against the nazis has my respect. It's just that you either don't know or don't WANT to know what really happened. At that time isolationist movement was extremely strong in US and US would probably never enter WW2 if it was not under attack itself. So don't cite that bull**** from your current administration's media manipulation, OK? Rather go leaf through some history book or another. It will do you more good than the crap your media fill you daily. Alrighty; why his action is "worse" than the alternative? For U.S. it is not worse, obviously. It will widen your area of influence + everything i've said in my previous post + the side effect is "liberation and democratization" The way bush administration is handling "democracy", is just a more subtle way of dictatorship of large corporations and capital interests over people who are more and more used to hear exactly what they would like to hear. And Mr. Bush (god bless his little bready thingies not to get stuck in his throat again, and may He roll lightning&thunder upon the Arse o' evil) and his administration are not stupid and are aware of that and are successfuly using that..."flaw". Why do I say it's worse than "alternativeS"? Because there are MANY alternatives. I'll leave it to you to ponder the "alternatives" among the limited borders of your straightforward and self-reassuring scenario. 12. Mar 7, 2004 Zero Take it down a notch, pocebokli... 13. Mar 7, 2004 phatmonky I'll go ahead and reply to the rest, but at the moment it's pathetic for you to put so many words in my mouth. FACTS: The congress was an isolationist because we were reeling from WWI England and France were superior in all ways to Germany in the beginning of the war. It was assumed that England and France could take Germany, and would have had England answered France's request after the invasion of Rhineland. We intervened when it looked like the war was spreading beyond what our allies could handle (thus us). Somehow, this is dispicable to you. Yet you don't mention anyone other country that didn't involve themselves until it was a concern to them. Where is the condemnation of France and England, the two countries that could have stopped it from ever starting? There is none, because there shouldn't be any more than the US. You can sit and say that we "probably" would have never enterd the war, but that is a lame attempt at injecting your theories in to fact. The facts are we did intervene. We did give money and supplies from the beginning, and we did assist in crushing hitler. Now, You tell ME WHERE I SAID SOMETHING WRONG? We assisted in crushing hitler, yes. We did everything but send man power from the very beginning of request! Amazing. Isolationist or "the world's police" and you will still find some way to fault us for it.[zz)] 14. Mar 7, 2004 selfAdjoint Staff Emeritus The congress was an isolationist because we were reeling from WWI I don't think that will wash. What we were reeling from in 1939 was the depression (still). WWI has a generation back at that point, the marching American Legion guys every fourth of July were grey headed oldsters. Both democrats and republicans were isolationists because they didn't wnat the US effforts to be taken up by war when there was still so much to do in recovering the economy. Also there was a lot of racism and antisemitism broadcast on the radio, which played into Hitler's hands. 15. Mar 7, 2004 phatmonky You, like all the other nations that were opposed to the war, have yet to offer an alternative that is better. Better meaning more than just "it doesn't directly benefit the US" It is insane how bent out of shape you get at simple questions from me, which by the way, you have not answered. I'm well aware of the other alternatives, and I have put forth that I support the one in place. You, on the other hand, continue pushing rhetoric not solutions. When will you do something besides bash? 16. Mar 7, 2004 phatmonky I agree with that as well, but I still do support that the congress at the time (by will of the people via wanting to get elected) was not prepared to enter another World War for more than just economic reasons. 17. Mar 8, 2004 pocebokli i'm just pissed off at your patriotic bottom (see, i took it down a notch:-) because you actually BELIEVE as if without your intervention the people of iraq would be helpless infants at the hands of merciless dictator. Wake up, they are a NATION. geezers, they were there for thousands of years, a cradle of civilisation and a proud nation. And all that time they were waiting that during a dictator's reign YOU will save them all!! Now you will teach them about most extreme capitalism, camouflaged into "democracy"? And you can't even wait for their dictator to die or their own revolution to kik him out? now you go there to make profit, and you don't even have the guts to admit it. perhaps you really did go there to liberate the iraqis and "enlighten" them. And yeah sure, that is the one and only reason. Bah. And that is about the only reason you and your administration give out. You don't even say "oh yeah, oil will also come in handy" and oh yeah, weapons of mass destruction. YOU HAVE ABOUT 15 000 NUCLEAR WARHEADS, YOU$/&#, AND YOU'RE SITTING ON THEM, TELLING US THAT YOU ARE TO BE TRUSTED (+ with such external politics) my GAWD 3 times!!!!!!!

What do you think saddam would do if he managed to acquire a single nuke in 10 or 15 years time? Launch it onto washington? do you think he is so stupid?

"a danger to free world" is actually a danger to MONOPOLY of WMDs, which you currently hold, followed closely by russia!!!!!!

EVERYTHING saddam might get, YOU DEVELOPED!!!!! And probably sold to him, too!

Are you even aware of what you are doing to feed your unfeedable a...bottoms?

It's just that Saddam knew if he had a single nuke you would NEVER dare to invade iraq, he would be safe to retain his dictator's throne, but his people would be safe even after he would be already gone. ("safe" is relative in such issues, let's say "relatively safe, since we don't know if there's a dr. Strangelove somewhere, but you get my point...or do you?")

And if Chechnya had a single nuke, Russia would never be able to stopm upon it's soil!!!

If every nation on this planet had WMDs there would be no way of EXPLOITATION for the "developed" world!

So go stuck your altruistic reasons somewhere, because apart from Bush voters there are NONE so naive in the entire world!

Even the bush voters are not, they just want to feel comfort for war and exploitation to be able to feed their fat bottoms and continue to oppress niggerz and other not-so-whities in their country.

You, who have disbanded racial difference only 40 years ago, and would most likely want it back, will go teach the Iraq and the world what FREEDOM and democracy is (not much difference now anyway)?

You, who have jails populated 99% with non-white will name your stupid potatoes FREEDOM FRIES and make stupid references to the 2ndWW?

now anwser this, you old geezer!!

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!

Read again if you missed it for the first time, 40 years and almost no equality!!!!!!

World cop? World thief!

Now it would be best for you to kick me off the forum because i'm not an american f****** patriot and freedom frie...ups, fighter, you...doh...

18. Mar 8, 2004

Zero

let's remember that phatmonkey(and pretty much everyone else posting here) didn't DO anything...he was sitting at home eating Cheetos and watching it on CNN.

19. Mar 8, 2004

phatmonky

I see our moderator has lost his ability to debate or be anywhere near impartial. To bad you don't enforce the rules on yourself :)
If you weren't a moderator, you'd be just like any other troll, and thus already on my ignore list :)

By the way, you have no idea where I was then, or anytime before, so pull that foot out of your mouth sir.

20. Mar 8, 2004

Zero

Hey now, I was on your side!!!

My point was that he was blaming you for teh actions of the entire military. To my knowledge, you did not lead US troops into Baghdad...did you?