Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News
FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Mar 30th, 2003, 07:55 PM        US arms trader to run Iraq
http://www.observer.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4636429,00.html

US arms trader to run Iraq

Exclusive: Ex-general who will lead reconstruction heads firm behind Patriot missiles

Oliver Morgan, industrial editor
Sunday March 30, 2003
The Observer

Jay Garner, the retired US general who will oversee humanitarian relief and reconstruction in postwar Iraq, is president of an arms company that provides crucial technical support to missile systems vital to the US invasion of the country.

Garner's business background is causing serious concerns at the United Nations and among aid agencies, who are already opposed to US administration of Iraq if it comes outside UN authority, and who say appointment of an American linked to the arms trade is the 'worst case scenario' for running the country after the war.

Garner is president of Virginia-based SY Coleman, a subsidiary of defence electronics group L-3 Communications, which provides technical services and advice on the Patriot missile system being used in Iraq. Patriot was made famous in the 1991 Gulf war when it was used to protect Israeli and Saudi targets from attack by Saddam Hussein's Scud missiles. Garner was involved in the system's deployment in Israel.

SY Coleman has also worked on the Arrow missile defence system, deployed in Israel, and is involved in the US national missile defence programme. Garner joined SY Technologies, taken over last year by L-3, in 1997, after leaving the US army.

Defence analyst David Armstrong of the Washington-based National Security News Service says: 'It seems inappropriate for somebody to step into a humanitarian and administrative role from a company with a role in providing equipment which, albeit defensive, is vital to the success of the US operation.'

Phil Bloomer of Oxfam said 'The worst case scenario would be to put in charge of the reconstruction someone from the US or UK linked to the arms or oil industries.'

According to its website, SY Coleman provides technical services such as missile system engineering and target system design for a wide range of US military programmes, and also makes some components. It also provides operational services such as battle management and 'warfighter support'.

The Ministry of Defence has confirmed that it was a Patriot missile that was involved when a British Tornado was hit last week.

Jack Tyler, an SY Coleman senior vice-president, confirmed that Garner still held his position at the company.


Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003
Reply With Quote
  #2  
ranxer ranxer is offline
Member
ranxer's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: U$
ranxer is probably a spambot
Old Mar 30th, 2003, 09:56 PM       


holy cow, stuff like this makes me wonder if the administration is throwing a monkey wrench in thier own plans.

pathetic

has anyone heard how much arms sales have shot up since the attack began?? the ca$h is flowing, folks, and its not the majority that's seeing any of it
__________________
the neo-capitalists believe in privatizing profits and socializing losses
Reply With Quote
  #3  
theapportioner theapportioner is offline
Mocker
theapportioner's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
theapportioner is probably a spambot
Old Mar 30th, 2003, 09:58 PM       
Reply With Quote
  #4  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Apr 5th, 2003, 08:17 PM       
Quote:
Pentagon officials told The Observer that the administration is determined to impose the Rumsfeld plan and sees no use for a UN role, describing the international body as 'irrelevant'.
Very dangerous language, IMO.

http://www.observer.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4641965,00.html

US begins the process of 'regime change'
Ed Vulliamy in New York and Kamal Ahmed
Sunday April 6, 2003
The Observer

The US is ready to install the first leg of an interim government for the new Iraq as early as Tuesday, even while fighting still rages in Baghdad, officials said yesterday.

America's readiness to establish the first stages of a civil administration to run post-war Iraq comes at lightning speed and constitutes a rebuff to European ambitions to stall on the process until some kind of role for the United Nations is agreed.

It was reported yesterday that the National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice has also ruled out any key role for the UN.

The decision to proceed with an embryonic government comes in response to memoranda written by Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld last week, urging that the US begin to entrench its authority in areas under its control before the war is over.

Pentagon officials told The Observer that the administration is determined to impose the Rumsfeld plan and sees no use for a UN role, describing the international body as 'irrelevant'.

The proposal is due to be discussed by George Bush and his closest security officials when he returns from this week's Northern Ireland war council with Tony Blair.

But according to US offi cials in Doha, elements of an embryonic new government will be established in the southern port of Umm Qasr, taken by coalition forces during the first days of the war.

It will be installed by the Pentagon's Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance, under the former US army Lieutenant General Jay Garner, and answerable to the Pentagon.

'What we are going to start trying to do, even before the fighting is over in Iraq, is to move to the areas in Iraq that are relatively peaceful, places like Umm Qasr, and to start moving [the office of reconstruction] into Iraq,' the official said. 'It is a fair assessment to say that this is the first step to set up a civil administration in Iraq.'

The decision is a rebuff to European diplomats who pleaded with US Secretary of State Colin Powell on Thursday to allow for a UN role.

By brushing the UN aside at such an early stage, the move also places Tony Blair - whose own preference is for a UN role - in a difficult situation ahead of his meeting with Bush this week.

Rumsfeld presented two memoranda to the White House last week, urging the President to begin setting up government institutions in areas under US control. He said the new organs could install Iraqis returning from exile under the tutelage of American civilians answerable to General Garner.

But his plan has been opposed even within the administration. Colin Powell is known to favour a military government established after victory is assured, prepared to nurture an Iraqi government centred around citizens resident in Iraq, rather than exiles sponsored by neo-conservatives in the Pentagon.

General Garner is already set to make his media debut in Kuwait tomorrow as the man whom the US has named to be Iraq's temporary post-war civilian administrator.

The US viceroy of the Southern region will be retired General Buck Walters; one of three governors slated to minister the new Iraqi provinces.

The others are General Bruce Moore in the largely Kurdish north and former U.S. Ambassador to Yemen Barbara Bodine based in Baghdad, governing the central region.


Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003
Reply With Quote
  #5  
ItalianStereotype ItalianStereotype is offline
Legislacerator
ItalianStereotype's Avatar
Join Date: May 2002
Location: HELL, where all hot things are
ItalianStereotype is probably pretty okItalianStereotype is probably pretty okItalianStereotype is probably pretty okItalianStereotype is probably pretty okItalianStereotype is probably pretty ok
Old Apr 5th, 2003, 08:39 PM       
dangerous language? maybe, but the decision is reasonable. out of the U.N. and the big 5, both Russia and France, having contributed absolutely nothing to the war effort, want a piece of the spoils. yes, the spoils, if you think that they want to go in to be humanitarian, you probably don't understand either of those countries motivations very well. China would probably contribute some token capital, but would remain largely uninterested in the reconstruction.

ugh, i probably didn't say that very well...
Reply With Quote
  #6  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Apr 5th, 2003, 08:54 PM       
It isn't just France, Germany, and Russia pushing to get the UN in there, it's our biggest ally, England.

Understand their motives? KB&R/Haliburton? The Carlyle Group? You think American companies have nothing to gain from this?

Allowing the UN in there doesn't promise oil contracts to France, either. I think handing reigns of the country over to oil and defense corporations increases the probability of that, in fact.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
ItalianStereotype ItalianStereotype is offline
Legislacerator
ItalianStereotype's Avatar
Join Date: May 2002
Location: HELL, where all hot things are
ItalianStereotype is probably pretty okItalianStereotype is probably pretty okItalianStereotype is probably pretty okItalianStereotype is probably pretty okItalianStereotype is probably pretty ok
Old Apr 5th, 2003, 09:29 PM       
as i said, i didn't get my message across very well. i will clarify later.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
ranxer ranxer is offline
Member
ranxer's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: U$
ranxer is probably a spambot
Old Apr 6th, 2003, 04:07 PM       
Quote:
if you think that they want to go in to be humanitarian, you probably don't understand either of those countries motivations very well.
it is my understanding that france and germany's contracts we're mainly for building hospitals, roads, and infrastructure for the iraqi people, not for military hardware or know how. but the info you get probably consistantly ignore that :/

on the other hand..(blanket statement of capitalism) business is used to making money on whatever it can.. the profiteers have no nationalist boundaries and will attempt to get away with what they can whereever they can, so there's guilty parties on all sides. it's up to germans to expose and restrain german(or french) companies as it up to americans to do the same.
__________________
the neo-capitalists believe in privatizing profits and socializing losses
Reply With Quote
  #9  
ItalianStereotype ItalianStereotype is offline
Legislacerator
ItalianStereotype's Avatar
Join Date: May 2002
Location: HELL, where all hot things are
ItalianStereotype is probably pretty okItalianStereotype is probably pretty okItalianStereotype is probably pretty okItalianStereotype is probably pretty okItalianStereotype is probably pretty ok
Old Apr 6th, 2003, 04:12 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by ranxer
it is my understanding that france and germany's contracts we're mainly for building hospitals, roads, and infrastructure for the iraqi people, not for military hardware or know how. but the info you get probably consistantly ignore that :/
yeah, its real easy to attack the credibility of other peoples sources, isn't it ranxy? i could easily say that your information was made up by a prancing purple unicorn from the sweety sweety gumdrop planet where everybody hates capitalism and its ok if you want to foam at the mouth. fucking jackass.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:16 AM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.