Iraq Owes Billions To The United States - Page 2

Spiffor · October 17, 2003, 03:18

Thanks to democracy, pillage is a much less straightforward art today than before

Wouldn't you want them to pay reparations as well ? We have a tremendous place to 'negociate' such 'agreement' in Versailles

Chemical Ollie · October 17, 2003, 04:40

If the american people wanted this war so eagerly, why shouldn't they pay every cent of it with tax money? Certainly the Iraqi people didn't ask for it.

Drake Tungsten · October 17, 2003, 04:50

Quote:

Certainly the Iraqi people didn't ask for it.

Actually, many of them did. Kurds, Iraqi National Congress, etc...

Chemical Ollie · October 17, 2003, 05:19

Iraq National Congress? Whasn't that created (by US), AFTER the war?

Drake Tungsten · October 17, 2003, 05:22

You're thinking of the provisional Iraqi government. The Iraqi National Congress was an organization of Iraqi ex-pats who lobbied for the overthrow of Hussein's regime, amongst other things.

CerberusIV · October 17, 2003, 06:17

The US taxpayers (well, some of them) elected a President who was set on war with Iraq from day one. Time to pay for that decision.

If this stands it probably just hastens the day that Iraqis elect(?) a nationalist and possibly fundamentalist government that promptly tells the US where to shove its loan.

uh Clem · October 17, 2003, 07:42

Democrats...

Too cowardly to simply vote No; why is that not a surprise?

SnowFire · October 17, 2003, 08:10

I can't believe it. All the talk about Bush being the one to go to war for oil, and it's the Democrats that actually do it.

Ramo · October 17, 2003, 08:12

****ing democrats.

They vote to deconstruct Iraq, but then vote to force the future Iraqi gov't to foot the bill for our corporate welfare.

Of course, they supported without objection 67 billion in military costs and the 500 million in the irrelevent search for Saddam.

Ramo · October 17, 2003, 08:13

I can't believe I'm actually agreeing with Shrub over the dems on (part of) this issue.

Drake Tungsten · October 17, 2003, 08:17

Quote:

I can't believe I'm actually agreeing with Shrub over the dems on (part of) this issue.

You're not the only one.

Ramo · October 17, 2003, 08:35

Quote:

Actually, many of them did. Kurds, Iraqi National Congress, etc...

They certainly didn't ask for the specific reconstruction agenda.

To a large extent, the contracts were offered in opposition to the interim governing council and public sentiment. For instance, we recently handed out a big fat contract to Jordan to train Iraqi police despite the strong objection of the IGC (who claimed it could be done by Iraqis for a third of the price).

Drake Tungsten · October 17, 2003, 08:48

Quote:

They certainly didn't ask for the specific reconstruction agenda.

That would probably be why I never said they did.

Ramo · October 17, 2003, 08:54

They didn't want the aspect of the war that we're forcing them to pay for. Ollie's point is valid.

Drake Tungsten · October 17, 2003, 08:59

I'm pretty sure Ollie meant that the Iraqis didn't want the war, not this specific aspect of the resconstruction, but believe what you want to. No need to argue over something so trivial.

Ramo · October 17, 2003, 09:03

I know what Ollie meant. But the point generalizes. No need to get defensive, I'm just clarifying.

Bosh · October 17, 2003, 09:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Ramo
I can't believe I'm actually agreeing with Shrub over the dems on (part of) this issue.

Yeah I know, it causes my black anarchist heart so much pain but Bush is in the right here. I guess I can make myself feel better by being absolutely furious at Bush for not realizing this would happen and for the criminally low amounts of aid that he has given (and asked to be given) to Afghanistan for the last couple years after giving the Afghans extravagant promises while the war was still on.

Ramo · October 17, 2003, 09:23

Yeah, but right when I was getting excited about the dems starting to act marginally more responsible, they have to pull something evil like this.

Jon Miller · October 17, 2003, 09:29

the reconstruction is the most important part of this whole deawlly

Jon Miller

Jac de Molay · October 17, 2003, 10:25

Quote:

Originally posted by SnowFire
I can't believe it. All the talk about Bush being the one to go to war for oil, and it's the Democrats that actually do it.

If I remember correctly, it was the Administration that, before the war, sold the notion of a reconstruction that was to be partially financed through oil revenues.

I don't see how they couldn't expect this to happen. Costs and financing of the reconstruction were grossly "misunderestimated", and it's coming back to bite 'em in the ass. Just desserts, I say.

DanS · October 17, 2003, 11:23

Just to make clear, this provision will be removed in conference. This was the dem's opportunity to register their displeasure at Bush, which they have done. But in actual fact, in the final law, this action doesn't mean anything.

chequita guevara · October 17, 2003, 11:30

What they could have done, instead, to stick it to the President and save us some money would be to cancel all the no bid contracts, and let the Irqais decide what needs to be taken care of, instead of the lobbyists.

MichaeltheGreat · October 17, 2003, 11:46

Congress has no authority to cancel contracts. Not that the contractors would mind, they'd be owed liquidated damages and lost profits and not have to do a thing.

SnowFire · October 17, 2003, 12:11

DanS: Could you elaborate? I thought that maybe the thing might just get vetoed, but then there's the question if there'll be ANY money for Iraq.

And I agree that I'm shocked that Bush was actually right in this case. Sure, his fault we had to make the decision, but at least he seems half-committed to doing the Reconstruction right.

I will be most curious to see what the Dem's presidential nominee has to say on this issue. I voted for Gore in 2000, but if they give us a short-sighted type who would ignore the rest of the world until the USA is a utopia, I may be voting Independent.

DanS · October 17, 2003, 12:39

Well, the House passed a measure that was $2 billion less than what Bush requested, but didn't include the loan provision. The Senate passed a measure that included Bush's full request (I think), but included the loan provision. The two versions will be be reconciled in the conference committee, which the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader will pack with people who want to give Bush what he wants.

The conference committee will reconcile the two bills so that Bush gets his full request without the loan provision. Then the House and Senate will have an up or down vote on the bill.

Oerdin · October 17, 2003, 13:00

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
One could always argue that a more realistic assessment of the costs beforehand wouldn't lead to this sort of little problem.

Do you remember when **** Chaney was claiming the war plus recontruction could all be done for $50billion? Three times that has been reached and there is still no end in sight.

On the upside the Japanese have been very generous and have donated $1.5 billion towards the reconstruction of Iraq. Britain is only spending $300 million and the entire EU is only coughing up $200 million.

MichaeltheGreat · October 17, 2003, 13:43

The Japanese are easily motivated in this case, due to their huge dependency on gulf oil. They will be very nice to whoever has it.

And Cheney was so blatantly full of ****, just on the warfighiting costs alone, that it's amazing to me he was never called on it. A full mechanized division in the field burns up an amazing amount of money on a monthly basis, then you multiply that out times all the other units, the USN and USAF assets, Marines, reserve callups, etc.

This latest bit in the triangle is an interesting development as well - the Iraqis actually showing themselves in platoon strength and going after small US units.

Drake Tungsten · October 17, 2003, 23:45

Quote:

The Japanese are easily motivated in this case, due to their huge dependency on gulf oil. They will be very nice to whoever has it.

Damn straight, and if the Chinese keep modernizing we're going to have them by the balls in a few years as well.

GePap · October 17, 2003, 23:55

As much as i hate this admin for lying through it'd teeth to sell this war, I agree that the Senate was wrong to make any of this money a loan. If you think the prez is speinding too much, cut the allocations back. Or leave them there, and endevour to kick this guy out.

Kirnwaffen · October 18, 2003, 00:27

Well, the vote means nothing, but it's symbolism is just plain disgusting. I can't really lay any blame on the administration in this instance. This is essentially the Senate punishing the Iraqi people for the fact that they didn't have enough balls to call the adminisitration on its blatantly rediculous figures in the first place. The truth is that the whole premise of Iraq paying its own reconstruction costs is altogether nonsensical. It seems rather obvious to me that, if you invade a sovereign nation, you bear the responsibility for the aftermath.