Talk:Coalition Provisional Authority/Archive 1

message: LunaCity claims, without any backup documentation, that Mr Bremer's economic decrees were
meets WTO standards.  I am skeptical.  I know, for instance, that Mr Bremer imposed upon Iraq the World's most extreme intellectual property rules.  The claim that these privatization decrees were necessary to rebuild the Iraqi economy is questionable, given that Mr Bremer's CPA awarded contracts almost exclusively to foriegn firms.  --  Geo Swan July 4, 2005 16:58 (UTC)
:As noted, since the original is a statement of the position of critics, the response to those critics has also been included to provide balance. -LC
:: Link to souce (OECD) added LunaCity 4 July 2005 18:08 (UTC)
::: modified text to say "international" standards raher than WTO specifically, as OECD document details current common practices, not formalized by international traty. LunaCity 4 July 2005 18:23 (UTC)
::Do you think you will be able to back up your claim that the privatization of the Iraqi economy was decreed in order to rebuild the Iraqi economy?  Because, if that were true, wouldn't the CPA have been issuing reconstruction contracts to Iraqi firms?  Wouldn't they have been hiring Iraqi workers?  --  Geo Swan July 4, 2005 20:32 (UTC)
::: They have been hiring Iraqi workers and subcontracting to Iraqi firms. Prime contractors have been US firms, but they've then been directed to employ local subcontractors whenever possible. They also created the Accelerated Iraq Reconstruction Program designed to fund labor-intensive reconstruction projects to hire the unemployed on small public-works type projects. Check the weekly updates at http://www.usaid.gov/iraq and the weekly status reports - available right hand column of http://www.defendamerica.mil . Towards the end they have a table tracking the number of Iraqis employed by various US agencies. AIRP, USAID, etc. are included, as well as the allocations and expenditures table for the IRRF.
::: Here's a link to the latest weekly report http://www.defendamerica.mil/downloads/iraq_weeklyupdate_20050701.pdf LunaCity 4 July 2005 20:47 (UTC)
::: Here is alink to Bechtel's own page ... http://www.bechtel.com/iraq.htm
::: "As of June 26, the Iraq Infrastructure Reconstruction Program has awarded to Iraqi companies 253 out of 393 subcontracts for services.  Additionally, over 10,000 companies from 100 countries have registered on Bechtel's Supplier and Contractor portal.
:::A key Bechtel and USAID goal under the Iraq Infrastructure Reconstruction Program is to maximize Iraqi participation in our work. Indeed, to increase the cost-effectiveness of the work, and to help revitalize the Iraqi economy, Bechtel decided to award the vast majority of the subcontracting work to Iraqi subcontractors." LunaCity 4 July 2005 20:56 (UTC)
::::For the purposes of this article it doesn't matter if contracts are being awarded to Iraqi firms now, and whether ordinary Iraqis are now being paid with expenditures of the DFI or IRRF.  This article is about the CPA, and the period of their administration, April 2003 through June 2004.  --  Geo Swan July 5, 2005 02:22 (UTC)
::::: They were being hired then too. The AIRP was started under Bremer. Though ordinary Iraqis, if you mean civil servants and ministry employees by that, are still being paid from the DFI, or whatever it's called now under the Iraqi Transitional Government. LunaCity 5 July 2005 04:28 (UTC)
:::::: The source of funds varies by Ministry.  Much of it comes from the Defense Department and the State Department under various programs administered by each.   Brian1975 09:45, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Meeting WTO standards?

message: I read Rama's suggestion of reading various wiki guides.  I too am a relative newcomer.  I hadn't read all those guides in detail before.  And now that I have read them there are a couple of things I would do differently.
Another wikipedian wrote that they felt personally attacked by me.  I regret that is how they interpreted my contributions.  My intention was to put forward civil intellectual challenges.  
I for one, stand ready to assume goodwill, and start over with a clean slate.  -- Geo Swan 21:33, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A clean slate?

message: There's no mention of any orders or decrees issued by the CPA. According to this BBC News article 100 orders were issued by the CPA. -- Joolz 16:31, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For reference the orders can be found here, it would be good if the important ones could be worked into the article. -- Joolz 16:34, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Orders/Decrees

message: I know Rama explained that editing other people's comments on the talk pages is disruptive.  He said he was sure you meant well.
I will assume that you thought your recent rewrite made the talk page clearer.  I will assume you did not fully think through the implications your edits had for returning readers.  Regular readers put the pages they are particularly interested in on their watchlist.  And, when someone else makes a contribution to that page, they use the wikipedia's history feature to observe the changes.  One you are familiar with a page, you don't want to have to re-read the entire article, you just want to see what is new.
The kind of editing you did back in February, and which you have returned to today, is very disruptive to people who use the history feature.  When yoou cut blocks of text, written by other people, at different times, massage them, and paste the altered text back in the article at a different place, you break the history mechanism.  The entire altered text now looks like you wrote.
Have I explained this problem so you understand it?  Click on this link to see how confusing you made the article for users of the history feature.
Do you want to know what I think would be the best thing you could do?  Revert your last edit.  Do you know how to do that?  --  Geo Swan 20:13, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Could you please reconsider defeating the history mechanism ?

message: While I agree that making modifications to make the article easier to read are in order, I would request that anyone making an edit be sure that their edits are grammatically correct.  There were a couple of recent copyedits to some of the passages that I had recently updated that introduced bad things such as split infinitives, incorrect usage of the comma, and creation of incomplete phrases where a gerund or independent clause should have stood.  Feel free to correct my grammar if you feel it's not correct, but please don't substitute a sentence of lower grammatical quality in the name of trying to simplify the message.
Brian1975 12:37, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Generic Page Edits 

message: The article has recently revised the explanation of why Bremer left early.
Do we really know why Bremer left early?  Or are we just speculating?
I spent some time recently reading the KPMG audit report.  The auditors criticized Bremer for his sudden departure.  While Bremer criticized Inspector General Bowen for never interviewing him, the KPMG auditors complained that Bremer never met with them.  
If we are just speculating I'd like to point out that his sudden departure could as easily be explained by an attempt to evade responsibility for his frankly shocking, disastrous mismanagement of the funds he was charged to administer.  --  Geo Swan 00:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: At the time of his departure, the State Department was busy taking over the Palace and fortifying it into an Embassy.  The security that was put into place around the Palace was a substantial increase over the way things were handled by the CPA.  Overnight literally hundreds of folks were to be locked out and unable to return to work.  The way in which DoS came onto the scene and the DoD folks were pushed out along with the CPA folks didn't play well and a massive turf war was brewing.  Bush finally put an end to it when he signed an order a few months later that returned responsibility for reconstruction to DoD.  Bremer's residence was to be emptied out before Negroponte's arrival, and rather than stand around waiting for him while the DoD vs. DoS drama played out, he simply left.  The Shi'ite militias (Moqtada al-Sadr, et al) at that time were getting out of hand, and the immediate future was looking very bleak.  The folks taking care of him knew quite well that the transition was premature and a recipe for disaster in the making.  The logical thing for any American in Iraq at the time was to leave or button down the hatches.  All civilian airport traffic was closed and the land border crossings were also closed for the week leading up to the transfer of power and for a mini three day holiday afterwards that was observed by the Iraqis.   Brian1975 19:50, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Do we really know why Bremer left early?

message: If I may, I would like to suggest Wikipedia Administrators screen for soapboxes and check their accuracy as new articles are created on Wikipedia about Iraq.  This article and most of those listed below could use some major editing and consolidating:
* Coalition Provisional Authority
* Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund
* Reconstruction of Iraq
* Civilian Administrator of Iraq
* Provisional Government
* Development Fund for Iraq
* Coalition Provisional Authority Program Review Board
* International Advisory and Monitoring Board
* KPMG audit of the Development Fund for Iraq
* History of Iraqi insurgency
* Iraq after Saddam Hussein
* 2003 occupation of Iraq
* 2003 Iraq war timeline
*2003 invasion of Iraq
*2003 - 2004 occupation of Iraq timeline
*2005 in Iraq 
*Invasion and occupation of Iraq casualties
*Human rights situation in post-Saddam Iraq
*Iraqi insurgency
*Iraq and weapons of mass destruction
*United Nations actions regarding Iraq
*Iraq disarmament crisis
*Iraq Survey Group
*Deployment of Japanese troops to Iraq
*Military rule
*Dover test
Spelling out the words of acronyms would be helpful for those readers unfamiliar with their meaning.  Is there an easy access to a spell checker in this editor? 
Ariele 02:23, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: After you get past the first paragraph, nothing in the following paragraphs and their respective headings relate to the section title of which they are a part (i.e., the STRUCTURE of the CPA).
Businessdr 07:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions for Improvement of this Encyclopedia Article

message: Geo Swan,
When I re-read the article again, trying to follow the flow, I had difficulties understanding "The Structure of the CPA".  The first paragraph seems fine then my mind had to switch gears when I found myself reading about the IAMB and the PRB.  I didn't realize the IAMB and PRB were departments within the CPA.
,,,,Ariele 02:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: After you get past the first paragraph, nothing in the following paragraphs and their respective headings relate to the section title of which they are a part (i.e., the STRUCTURE of the CPA).
Businessdr 07:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Structure of the CPA

message: I've not received any feedback to this suggestion.,,,,,Ariele 21:51, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Should a "clean up" tag be used?

message: What is the "approved" process for updating these pages? Being new to Wikipedia, I attempted to make some minor corrections to a "quote" that was taken out of context, and a statement that was attributed to the quoted person that was neither said by the person nor true.  However, minutes later, another person restored the original page.
Elsewhere there are statements, as an example, that some "contend" DFI funds were for certain purposes, while others "contend" that Congressionally appropriated funds were for other purposes.  When someone writes "contends" it is a clear flag they don't know what they are talking about and are only guessing based on hearsay.  There is no contention about what Congressional and DFI funds were for.  The first was incorporated into U.S. law, and the second was part of a UN Resolution. However, it seems that if someone who knows the answer to unclear or incorrect statements wants to make an edit for purposes of correction, someone else can come along and undo that revision purely for political biases or preconceived notions.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding the process and am interpreting the process in an unfair light.  Can anyone shed some light on this for me?  I am interested in helping fix errors concerning CPA and Iraq, but I have no interest in engaging in debate with people who don't have the facts and don't want to know the facts. Businessdr 05:33, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So, about your time with the CPA...  
#Were you in the first wave of hires?  
#How long were you there?  
#Did you have any background in finance or bookkeeping before you arrived?  
#Were you given any financial of bookkeeping responsibilities?  
#Did you live in the green zone?  
#If so, how many times did you leave the green zone?  
#Did you meet any Iraqis who didn't work for the CPA?  
#How were you hired?    The WaPo article said the staffers they interviewed did not know how they were chosen, because they had not submitted any applications.
#Did you have a job interview?  The WaPo article said the staffers they interviewed did not have job interviews.
#If so, who interviewed you?  
#Did the FBI conduct a security check into your background?  #Interview your neighbours, professors and former employers?  The WaPo article said the staffers they interviewed did not go through any kind of security check.
#Finally, my most personal question -- the WaPo article said that, when you included their bonuses and overtime, the CPA staff earned  six figure incomes, even those coming right from college.  So, if you had been there a year, would you have earned six figures?  --  Geo Swan 01:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updates 

message: *  Not I (So what?),,,Ariele 05:51, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: VOTE:  Who Cares that USERs: Ariele, Paradigmbuff, Puffydoogle, Ethanol, Sweeper, and IP Addressees Have Multiple Log-Ins On Wikipedia?

message: *  Not I  ,,,, Ariele 05:51, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: VOTE:  Who thinks USERs:  Ariele, Paradigmbuff, Puffydoogle, Ethanol, Sweeper, and IP Adressess Are All VANDALS

message: *  Ariele 05:51, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: VOTE:  Who Do You Think Speaks English Fluently?

message: There's a great deal of information added most recently to the discussion page.  I feel we've flooded the talk page with a lot of information.  The earlier contributions by Brian1975 seem rather good.  I thought some of those photos were from him?  And there's his explanation for some of the controversial topics Geo Swan threw at everyone.  How are you folks going to incorporate your discussion in the talk page into the article?  
Were you all aware that Ambassador Bremer's book is publishing on January 1, 2006?  
I've huffed and puffed at Geo Swan before but concluded it's just a lost cause.  
I have discovered here in Wikipedia, if you were to contribute your opposing point of view (substantiated by facts of course), I don't see why that would be a problem for both GeoSwan and Brian1975?
I am concerned that someone deleted a contributor's edit.  This someone was not a regular and has only visited this article once or twice I believe.  It was something about Greenstock leaving the CPA 3 months early.  This could explain why there has not been anyone new editing and contributing to this article.  We must be careful not to run people off.  
Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia and its main page did say "anyone can edit".  You and I must be mindful of that.
O.K. I'm off my soapbox now.....Ariele 02:52, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The Main Article

message: Ariele,
I have to say something that I wish I didn't, as I probably would like you a great deal if we met in person.  However, can I suggest you limit discussion on this page to points relevant to the article to which it is attached?  This is not some personal blog that everyone should use to espouse a particular point of view.  I am certain your point of view is much more aligned with mine than Brian.  However, my sense is neither of you have recently contributed greatly to improving the quality of the article.  Your perspective seems to be to push a pro-America political agenda.  I fully support that in general, but it seems to me this really isn't the place.  Brian's perspective is to push a negative perspective of anything at all associated with actions taken by the Bush administration, and accusing anyone associated with CPA of corruption and malfeasance, all totally devoid of any objective analysis.  Neither approach is particularly useful to developing an article that is objective, balanced, and provides meaningful insight to a reader consistent with the purpose of Wikipedia.
:I don't have any agenda at hand other than to present the most complete set of facts and the most reasonable logical conclusions that can be drawn from those facts.  One of the most exciting features of Wiki is that as new facts come to light, we can all rush to our keyboards and update our articles and incorporate those new facts and possibly draw new conclusions as a more complete picture is made available.  The good doctor's bias begins to show when he says things like "push a negative perspective of anything at all associated with actions taken by the Bush administration."  This article isn't about the Bush Administration or the Blair Government.  It's about what effectively can be categorized as the "Bremer Administration," since Garner was not around long enough to see any of the major changes that CPA put into place.
:I mentioned previously that I haven't even begun to analyze the narratives about the financial and economic changes that happened under CPA.  Offhand, I can think of one HUGE good thing that the CPA did, which was the issuance of the new Iraqi Dinar.  What a success that has been.  It was adopted universally throughout the country on a timeline that would make the adopters of the Euro proud, and it has helped stablize a currency that wasn't worth much thanks to the policies of Saddam and his crew.  That's a clear example of something that CPA got right, and something that was done really well.  I'm guessing from your other posts that you might have had something to do with that project, and I commend you for it.  However, there were many other foolhardy actions by the CPA that will take years to play out.  A longer term project for me was to take both the CPA's report and the CPA orders and analyze their impact on Iraq and the world based upon available data, and to continue to update that analysis as new data becomes available.  Whether this project ends up in this article or branches off into an independent commentary somewhere else remains to be seen.  I honestly don't see why you think my comments are worthless, unless you've somehow injected your emotions into this discussion and view criticisms of the CPA's actions as direct criticisms of you.  People who have problems distinguishing between their selves and their institutions usually have names like Saddam and Stalin.  Please don't make the mistake of confusing the good work that you personally did with the often bad work that your institution did. --Brian1975 02:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good luck!,,,,Ariele 21:53, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's get back to the point... 

message: Articles such as this: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-colonel27nov27,0,1641096.story?coll=la-home-headlines and this: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/oct2005/basr-o21_prn.shtml don't support the notion that everything was going well.  Fraud inspectors don't kill themselves when they investigate bad things and find nothing wrong.  Typically, it's when they do find things wrong that their lives end prematurely. --Brian1975 03:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Another one today: http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1363850  --Brian1975 01:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corruption