(PJDBAD) wrote in message
...
Right, if the shoe were on the other foot and we had to be liberated from
under the heel of an oppresor, I would want a country such as ourselves to
do it. I can think of such a one right now, but "beggars can not be
choosers" can they.

The United States military occupation of Iraq may have some policies and
practices that are in violation of international law and convention.

Here's a link to the article, 'Spoils of War' by Brian Whitaker in
'The Guardian' (13 October 2003)--"US plans to sell off Iraqi businesses
are simply the modern equivalent of pillage":

http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/...062049,00.html

"...We leave the pillaging to men in suits, and we don't call it pillaging
any more. We call it economic development....

Last month, Mr Bremer issued CPA order number 39, giving foreign investors
unrestricted rights to establish businesses in Iraq and/or buy up Iraqi
companies. The order also allows foreign investors to repatriate profits,
dividends, interest and royalties immediately and in full. In other words,
they can make a fast buck if they want to, without putting anything back....

His order number 39 is also, almost certainly, *illegal*. The Hague regulations
of 1907 spell out the obligations of an occupying power under international law.
....Mr Bremer, therefore, appears to have no right to sell off nationalised
industries....

The legality--or otherwise--of Mr Bremer's order is unlikely to trouble the
Bush administration, although future US administrations may have to grapple
with the consequences arising from it. The prevailing view in Washington was
set out with astonishing bluntness four years ago by John Bolton, now chief
hawk at the State Department, when he said:

"It is a big mistake for us to grant any validity to international law, even
when it may seem in our short-term interest to do so--because, over the long
term, the goal of those who think that international law really means anything
are those who want to constrict the US."
....
The US, however, has made no bones about its intentions, regardless of what
the Hague regulations say, to make as many structural changes in Iraq while
it has the chance....

In that case, the invasion--with its phoney goals of removing Saddam Hussein
and disarming him of weapons that he didn't possess--may be just a prelude
to the real battle for Iraq yet to come."

--Brian Whitaker (13 October 2003)

Evidently, the United States government today regards itself as above any
international law or convention that could constrict the free exercise of its
supreme power in the world. And many Americans today seem to regard the United
States government as above any criticism of its arbitrary application of that
power.

'Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.'
--Lord Acton (5 April 1887, letter to Mandell Creighton)

--Nick

If these things were done after the first Gulf war they would be history.