Broad cross-section marches againt war

[nicky g]

"Huge military spending creates a major drag on any country". Of course it does. I'm not defending it. My point is that the Iraqi people were much better off ecnomically with a nationalised oil industry, and that that won't be allowed to be the case after the war, when Iraqi oilfileds will be turned over to foreign oil corporations. I'm not saying that nationalising oil solves everything and should be relied on 100%, or that Saddam administered it particularly wisely. Just that it's been shown that oil-exporting countries can massively increase their people's standard of living if they retain control over the industry, and that that doesn't happen in most pro-west oil exporters,and won't happen in Iraq post-war.

[MMMMMM]

If the proceeds from oil sales on the world oil markets are owned by the Iraqi people, why would it harm the Iraqi revenues? Also, if the West invests in the Iraqi oil industry (as France and Russia have already been doing, with more plans and contracts in the works) why should that be presumed to be to the detriment of the Iraqis? I would tend to think otherwise.

[nicky g]

Oh i don't know. I'm confused. There's surely a difference between a nationalised oil industry and one largely controlled by foreign companies. But I don't know enough about how the oil industry works to take this further. All I'll say is that under the Iraqi nationalised scheme the people clearly benefited, whereas in Saudi, Nigeria etc they barely do at all - the standard of living is far below what it could be if oil profits were directly reinvested. Surely if the profits are going directly to the country rather than foreign companies the country is better off?

I'm not around tomorrow (was away yesterday too). When's our Latin American thing kicking off? I've been reading up [img]/forums/images/icons/wink.gif[/img]

[brad]

i heard on the radio before nationalization of oil in iraq the iraqi regime or people or whatever got like 3.5% of the profits or something like that.

[MMMMMM]

I haven't been reading up yet so it will take me a little bit longer to get up to speed or at least to bookmark some decent sources.

[Chris Alger]

Actually I think the organizers of the demonstration blew it. If NYC is like a fortress since 9/11, their original path has been like that for some time.

I lived on 44th street between 1st and 2d avenues, a stone's throw from the UN and the UN Plaza hotel. Our neighborhood often resembled a secret servicemen's convention -- black broncos, suits with earphones running along side, unmakred sedans with flashing lights, mirrors for looking under vehicles, cops everywhere. The US Mission around the corner has something that looks like a concrete tank trap in front of it. During the Gulf War I once had to show ID just to go home from work, home being next door to the Kuwait Mission to the UN. Not the best locale to put 500,000 peole yelling about imperialism.

The organizers didn't submit an application until a few weeks before the march. The police originally offered 3rd avenue a few blocks over (the Gulf War march was on 2d), but negotiations bogged down and the cops finally drew the line at no march at all. If there had been a timely application for a march somewhere not quite in the face of the UN, my guess is that it could have been worked out.