Why is Bush anti-$10Billion loan to Iraq?

[BarnOwl]

Bush claims that putting half the reconstruction money on a loan basis which Iraq would then have to repay would be a crippling burden to Iraq.

But the Bush Leaguers don't have a compassionate bone in any of their bodies. So what's the real reason behind the bluster? Somehow, I think it's all tied to Bechtel and Halliburton. But how?

[Rashak Mani]

If its a loan and not a grante does that mean there will be more accounting for that money ? Possible answer....

[smiling bandit]

Your conspiracy theory aside, the honest answer is because Iraq is unlikely to be able to pay it back in any case, and trying to might send thme into the same debt spiral that plagues many South American and African nations. of those, have other problems that go along with it, such as massive corruption that would astonish you, but its still a legitamate fear.

Personally, while I'm on the subject, the US should pressure the WMF to try and get those debts cancelled. Most of it just ain't goinna get paid back, and the world financial community may as well face it.

[Marley23]

Your conspiracy theory aside, the honest answer is because Iraq is unlikely to be able to pay it back in any case, and trying to might send thme into the same debt spiral that plagues many South American and African nations. of those, have other problems that go along with it, such as massive corruption that would astonish you, but its still a legitamate fear.
The interesting thing to me, at least, is that the whole "debt ruins the economies of developing countries" argument is a staple of the left. Bush surely isn't a Drop the Debt fan, but he's using one of their arguments.

[BarnOwl]

So what you're saying is by giving the reconstruction money awa, we're setting the example for France, Russia, German, etc.?

Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Wolfowitz as altruists?

Droll.

[Marley23]

Is that reply directed at me? I didn't say - and don't think - anything of the kind.

The answer as far as I can see if that a loan to Iraq is not going to be repaid, just like smiling bandit said. I'm not arguing Bush is a closet liberal, I just said it was amusing that he appears to be utilizing what's normally a rather extreme-left position.

[Lord Ashtar]

Why can't they pay it back? It isn't as if they don't have any way to make money for themselves? If the whole war is about oil, then why not just let them give the U.S. a nice discount as repayment?

[The Flying Dutchman]

Bush I'm sure is aware that there is an unyielding opinion in the Middle East that the arbitrary decision by a non Islamic country to take responsibility for removing a working regime in their part of the world rests on the aggressor country . To shift the burden of that responsibility to the "victimized" country arbitrarily without legitimate consent would be viewed as arrogant, without merit and thus contrary to the long term goal of winning the acceptance of the peoples of the region. Failure in this regard would make the entire investment in the war effort and reconstruction a dismal failure and would certainly be a blight on his historical record.

[BarnOwl]

Originally posted by grienspace
To shift the burden of that responsibility to the "victimized" country arbitrarily without legitimate consent would be viewed as arrogant, without merit and thus contrary to the long term goal of winning the acceptance of the peoples of the region. Failure in this regard would make the entire investment in the war effort and reconstruction a dismal failure and would certainly be a blight on his historical record.

(Rancor off) Who, in the Bush administration thinks these high-minded thoughts - and has the power to implement them?

[Grey]

Look Iraq already owes money to other countries in the form of loans. It also happens to be completely destitute and potentially radicalized. The focus of reconstruction is to get a stable, secular, democracy friendly country on its feet. Oil revenues are all based on future capacity and potential reserves. There is no way to get the money out of the ground fast enough to rebuild Iraq.

Should the US make reconstruction moneys a loan to a country you invaded/liberated is massively offensive. To then expect the rest of the world to offer up money when you yourselves are insisting to have a loan paid back first is naïve and dangerously stupid.

Besides there is a problem with massively writing off debt. It makes future sources of credit harder and more expensive to secure. Think of a bank’s reaction to your application for a mortgage days after you file for bankruptcy.

[Sam Stone]

Antiochus: Let me understand what you are saying: There may be very good reasons to not make this a loan, but the Bush administration is too stupid or evil to believe any of those reasons, so this must somehow must be a payoff to Haliburton and/or Bechtel, even though you really don't know of any way in which making this a grant instead of a loan benefits them.

Is that about it?

If so, you're wrong. Bush has made the very points grienspace made above - that making this a loan would send a very bad message to the Arab world about America's motives. You don't invade a country, then force that country to pay your companies to rebuild it. THAT smacks of crony capitalism, which plays right into the hands of the people you're trying to defeat.

In addition, Bush is trying to raise money from other countries for reconstruction. How does he make that case if his own country is unwilling to foot the bill? How does he convince France and Russia to forgive their debts if the U.S. is piling on more?

No wacky conspiracy theories about the evil Haliburton connection required here. The Bush administration is right, and the people who want this to be a loan are wrong.

[BarnOwl]

Okay, Grey and Sam Stone.

I will concede that for the first time in his life, Bush might have a proper thought in his head.

Now, let us see how it plays out.

[PatriotX]

Originally posted by Lord Ashtar
Why can't they pay it back? It isn't as if they don't have any way to make money for themselves? If the whole war is about oil, then why not just let them give the U.S. a nice discount as repayment?
Here's a short form answer:


Bean Counting in Baghdad: Debt, Reparations, Reconstruction, and Resources (http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/rsepResources/si/june03/middleEast.asp)

The exact level of Iraq's debt is controversial. A generally accepted figure is $383 billion (Barton and Crocker, 2003): $127 billion in loans, including $47 billion in accrued interest; $199 billion in reparations and $57 billion in contractual obligations. Assuming the Arab Monetary Fund's (2002) population estimate of 22.81 million, this translates into a per capita debt of around $16,790. In perspective, this is about 10 times as great as Argentina's at the time of that country's economic meltdown in 2001. As another basis of comparison Germany's World War I reparations totaled about twice its gross domestic product (GDP). These debts were never paid in full; they proved to be an impossible burden. Iraq's debts amount to around 15 times its annual GDP (Francis, 2003). Iraq did not make any attempts at servicing the debt in the 1990s, but even if it had, its entire annual oil revenues during this period would not have met the yearly interest charges.

An optimistic estimate of the country's likely oil revenues over the next decade or so is $22 billion per year, with a pessimistic forecast coming in at around $15 billion. Of this, around $11-$13 billion will be needed just to run the government and revitalize the oil industry. Restoring and revitalizing the oil industry through reconstructing its infrastructure and the development of new fields may run another $35 billion over the next 10 years (Powell, 2002; Alansrawi, 2001).

Even if all the $22 billion were earmarked for debt servicing, the total amount of outstanding debt would be reduced by only around 5% per year. Accrued and on-going interest payments might reduce this figure to 1% or 2%.

Contemplating the victorious allies at the Versailles peace conference in 1919, the famous English economist John Maynard Keynes observed that "reparation was their main excursion into the economic field, and they settled it as a problem of theology, of politics, of electoral chicane, from every point of view except that of the economic future of the states whose destiny they were handling" (quoted in Economist, May 17, 2003). Keynes rightly foresaw that this neglect would have disastrous consequences.

[PatriotX]

It of course would be helpful if there was some sort of a requirement that corps receiveing the contracts had to hire iraqis whenever and wherever feasible. There's not though.

Jobs for the boys—and for foreigners (http://www.economist.com/World/africa/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2126088)
Oct 9th 2003 | BAGHDAD
From The Economist print edition

...import of migrants to service the American-led armies...fuels resentment. Saudi caterers contracted by Kellogg Brown and Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton, an American oil-services company, have shipped in hundreds of Indian and Bangladeshi cooks to avoid, they say, the risk that Iraqis might poison the food. Filipina maids hired in Jordan do the cleaning. Lorries from the Gulf states bring in thousands of tonnes of provisions every day because Iraqi food does not meet American specifications. No-entry signs at the back of the coalition's Baghdad headquarters are in Urdu and Bengali, not Arabic.

...new investment law lets foreign contractors bring in labour from abroad but export all profits. ...Iraqis who do get contracts are often just back from exile.
© The Economist Newspaper Limited 2003

[John Mace]

Originally posted by Antiochus
Okay, Grey and Sam Stone.

I will concede that for the first time in his life, Bush might have a proper thought in his head.

Now, let us see how it plays out.

You migiht want to learn the difference between GD and the BBQ Pit before you shoot off at the mouth about what goes on in another person's head.

[BarnOwl]

Ooooh, John Mace.

Perhaps you should read the thread, "Rush Limbaugh's Fall From Grace..." right here in GD.

You'd best get on up there and tell them what the difference is between GD and BBQ. They're dying to hear from you.

[Grey]

Maybe, but it's a standard we should try to reach. We're debating ideas here, not people.

[BarnOwl]

Well, unless he's gonna police other threads in GD, Mace has has no business reprimanding me.

[toadspittle]

Isn't about half of the money going straight into the pockets of US corporations, anyway?

[Grey]

Antiochus, you're right, don't try, it's not worth it.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

I was thinking of starting a thread along these lines myself. Lord knows I'm not a big W fan, but in this case, he's 100% right, and I am appalled that Democrats are leading the opposition to him in this case.

Folks, he's on our side in this one! Don't get so wrapped up in partisan politics that you stand against him out of reflex!

Daniel

[Lemur866]

The trouble with making a loan to Iraq right now is that there is no one in Iraq with the authority to authorize the loan except the United States. We can't exactly tell the Iraqis that we decided that they needed to accept this loan, and that they have to pay it back. We believe we are free of moral hazard if we give money to Iraq, even if it benefits American companies. But how can we force a loan on Iraq? How could such a loan be enforceable?

Most of Iraq's debt will have to be written off. And most of the people who lent money to Saddam Hussein will just have to suck it up. If that sends a message that loans made to dictators won't neccesarily be honored by successor democratic governments, so much the better.

[5 time champ]

Daniel 8 Republican senators also voted for the loan, they weren't paying politics. They were listening to their constituents. The American people are against granting this $20 B to Iraq. I don't see how we can find too much fault with Democratic senators listening to their constituents.

Bush has been too busy vacationing or raising campaign contributions to sell this unpopular, but quite necessary legislation. Bush is going to have to spend some of his political capital on this issue if he wants to give $20B of our hard earned tax dollars to the country with the world's second largest petroleum reserves.

[akrako1]

IMHO, it's the neo-conservative agenda that is requiring money to be given, and not loaned. I've gathered from a few sources that the neo-conservatives are taking a different approach to conservatism. You want the government outta you life? Well, let's just bankrupt the government and they won't have a choice. They'll have to cut welfare and medicare and social programs - and in the meantime, the neo-cons can get stinking rich. Its the same game their pals at Enron played. Loot the hell outta the place, and then bail. Give massive tax breaks to the rich with descending more and more into deficit spending. With the hiring of Halliburton and Bechtel it makes the laundering ever so much easier. Take the government's (people's) money, and give it directly to your pals. They overcharge, and you look the other way, but everybody's happy, right?

[Netbrian]

I agree. The cowardliness of the people that voted for this idiotic loan is enormous, and it makes me very ashamed of my political party. The administration is right here, a forced loan would further inflame political tensions, and make Iraq seem even more like a colony. NOBODY in Iraq has the power to accept loans, WHY should the people be forced to pay back a loan that their country NEVER WILLINGLY TOOK OUT?

[Tuckerfan]

Originally posted by Netbrian
I agree. The cowardliness of the people that voted for this idiotic loan is enormous, and it makes me very ashamed of my political party. The administration is right here, a forced loan would further inflame political tensions, and make Iraq seem even more like a colony. NOBODY in Iraq has the power to accept loans, WHY should the people be forced to pay back a loan that their country NEVER WILLINGLY TOOK OUT? Because George Bush is a vile and evil man! That's why!


I'm not serious, of course, but that's certainly got to be the thought processes of some of the folks involved. Preversely enough, if these jerks get their way, the US will appear to be the same kind of villian that they thing GWBII is. We did, after all, blow up their country, and now we want them to pay for it? That's just wrong on so many levels.

[Lemur866]

Antiochus, to attempt to get at the heart of your OP. You posit that the Bush Adminstration is made up of soul-less reptoid fascists, so why aren't they in favor of screwing over Iraq?

Let's stipulate that they are, in fact, evil. But even evil people have to do the right thing when other people are watching. You have to do your evil-doing in SECRET. When other people are paying attention you have to PRETEND to be nice, no matter how much you'd rather be torturing puppies and pushing crippled orphans down staircases.

So in this case, no matter how much Cheney wants to loot Iraq and steal their oil wealth and give it to his Haliburton buddies (between the aforementioned orphan pushings), he has to order Bush to support the grants...because otherwise Iraq will never be pacified.

See how it works? In a democracy, even evil people have to pretend to be nice in order to maintain power. Our founding fathers were truly wise men.

[Sam Stone]

When are you guys going to get off this Haliburton thing? People don't ascend to the highest office in the country just so they can slide a few million bucks to their buddies at Haliburton. The notion that the Iraq war was just a big conspiracy to feed money to Cheney's ex business partners is more than simplistic - it's idiotic.

The Bush administration honestly believes in what it's doing. That doesn't necessarily make it right - you can argue against the administration's Iraq policy and the war in general on many, many levels. You can argue that their stated goal of seeding the middle east with Democracy is far-fetched or impossible. You can argue that the war will make terrorism worse, and not better. You can argue that we can't afford it. You can argue the war was a good idea, but the peace has been handled miserably.

There are many reasonable arguments you can make against the Bush administration, and then it's up to the other side to defend itself. Continually harping about Haliburton and blood for oil do not fit in this category. They are silly arguments.

At the least, you might consider the nuanced position, which is that the administration honestly believes it's doing the right thing, but its intimate involvement with companies like Haliburton subtly biases them to favor some plans over others. If a president worked for GM in the past, and was fighting World War II, he might honestly believe that GM is a better supplier of tanks than Ford. Not because he's an evil rapacious capitalist trying to line the pockets of his GM buddies, but because he has experience with one company and not the other, and it clouds his judgement.

But as soon as someone says, "This whole war is about Cheney paying off his Haliburton buddies and George paying off his oil buddies", I just write them off as not having a clue what the real issues are. And I'll bet most other people do too.

[rjung]

Originally posted by Sam Stone
When are you guys going to get off this Haliburton thing?
When Dick Cheney stops getting $1 million/year from them?
When Haliburton stops getting sweetheart deals and no-bid contract awards?
When they aren't being given the inside track by the White House to every dollar that can be squeezed from iraq?

The notion that the Iraq war was just a big conspiracy to feed money to Cheney's ex business partners is more than simplistic - it's idiotic.
Nobody said the Iraq war was waged only to pump money into Haliburton -- it just happens to be one of many convenient side effects.

Continually harping about Haliburton and blood for oil do not fit in this category. They are silly arguments.
Just because you say it's silly doesn't make it so, Sam. If you want to convince us it's silly, prove to us why all the kickbacks and closed-door dealings aren't bearing the signs of cronyism on a major scale.

At the very least, it's rather telling that the Bush Administration -- which ran on a platform of "restoring dignity and honesty to the White House" :rolleyes: -- hasn't even taken any steps to avoid the appearance of unethical behavior. One would think that a bunch of businessmen like Bush and Cheney would be extraordinarily sensitive to ethical issues -- heaven knows my employers pounded that into me often enough.

[Lemur866]

Rjung, please provide evidence that Cheney gets $1 million/year from Haliburton.

[BarnOwl]

Sam, Lemur, re-read akrako1's post.

[smiling bandit]

Folks, he's on our side in this one! Don't get so wrapped up in partisan politics that you stand against him out of reflex!

Dude, that's against the American Way!

Rjung, please provide evidence that Cheney gets $1 million/year from Haliburton.

I'll believe that oen when you can convince me that the Democrats (and half the GOP) wouldn't have censured him publicly for conflict of interest.

[BarnOwl]

Why haven't Democrats (and half the GOP) censured Bush & Cheney for the Halliburton-Bechtel no-bid contracts that are such profound matters of national security, the details cannot be made public?

Congress is all too happy to buy that crap.

Why wouldn't they permit Cheney (and thus Bush) to get big bucks under the table? They're doing the same thing on a smaller scale, so they just look the other way.

[sailor]

NOBODY in Iraq has the power to accept loans, WHY should the people be forced to pay back a loan that their country NEVER WILLINGLY TOOK OUT? Exactly. Iraq is not free to decide anything. They cannot decide whether they want the money or not. They cannot decide who to get it from and with what terms. They cannot decide what to do with it.

The USA is unilaterally deciding all the terms. Why should Iraq be under any obligation to repay? They are not voluntarily accepting the terms as they do not have the liberty to make any decisions. (Not to mention that it was the USA who broke the stuff in the first place)

Alternatively. If Iraq is going to be forced to pay then they should be given the freedom to choose who will do the work and who they will borrow the money from.

[Saen]

you buncha pansy's...you dont know what War is. Back in my day War meant you either took what you won are walked away from your beat down enemy with a look of "dont do it again.

Then Fruity allies started this mess back in the Big one with trying to be all humanitarian to the enemies that tried to kill them and take all they had. What is this world coming to when it is demanded that you support your enemies for the next generation just cus you gave em a justified ass whoopin

:P

[Saen]

you buncha pansy's...you dont know what War is. Back in my day War meant you either took what you won are walked away from your beat down enemy with a look of "and dont do it again or ill i'll open 'nother can on your ass!".

Them Fruity allies started this mess back in the Big One with trying to be all humanitarian to the enemies that tried to kill them and take all they had. What is this world coming to when it is demanded that you support your enemies for the next generation just cus you gave em a justified ass whoopin

:P

[PatriotX]

Originally posted by Saen

you buncha pansy's...

Wow, quite a debating tactic. There oughta be a name for it. There should be a Latin name even.

Originally posted by Saen

you dont know what War is. Back in my day War meant you either took what you won are walked away from your beat down enemy with a look of "dont do it again.

Then Fruity allies started this mess back in the Big one with trying to be all humanitarian to the enemies that tried to kill them and take all they had. What is this world coming to when it is demanded that you support your enemies for the next generation just cus you gave em a justified ass whoopin


Maybe something was lerned from th eaftermath of WWI?
Bean Counting in Baghdad: Debt, Reparations, Reconstruction, and Resources (http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/rsepResources/si/june03/middleEast.asp)

Contemplating the victorious allies at the Versailles peace conference in 1919, the famous English economist John Maynard Keynes observed that "reparation was their main excursion into the economic field, and they settled it as a problem of theology, of politics, of electoral chicane, from every point of view except that of the economic future of the states whose destiny they were handling" (quoted in Economist, May 17, 2003). Keynes rightly foresaw that this neglect would have disastrous consequences.

I guess if you'd like to demonstrate how the treaty of Versaille didn't really contribute to the development of WWII, I'd be interested in reading it. Please feel free and encouraged to do so.

-------------------------------------
If the facts are in your favor, argue the facts. If the facts aren't in your favor, argue the law. If neither the facts nor the law are in you favor, call'em names.

[John Corrado]

Wow, Saen.

So, did you fight at First Marne? Or did you see action at Sedan? 'Cause the last time a major war occured in which the victor forced the loser to pay for reparations was at Versailles, and twenty years later we learned how well that plan worked. Which is why we didn't do it after WW2, and was one of the reasons we did that whole Marshall Plan thingie, y'know.


Side note: Am I the only one insulted by various Senators demagouging about how we should spend the 87 billion on our own roads before giving any money to the Iraqi? I'd be more willing to agree if we had dropped any daisy-cutters on, say, I-95 or on the NJ Turnpike. Not that I'm saying we don't need to.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Uh Simonx, you forgot to quote the last bit of that post:

Originally posted by Saen
:P

Honestly, what's the point of using a tongue-in-cheek smiley if people are still going to ignore your satiric intent? May as well not post at all! :P (or, for those who prefer graphics, with a lowercase p : :p )

Daniel

[PatriotX]

My apologies to Saen if he was being sarcastic.


Pleae weigh in and let us know if you really meant what you posted, as posted,or if you were using sarcasm.

[Saen]

Originally posted by DanielWithrow
Uh Simonx, you forgot to quote the last bit of that post:



Honestly, what's the point of using a tongue-in-cheek smiley if people are still going to ignore your satiric intent? May as well not post at all! :P (or, for those who prefer graphics, with a lowercase p : :p )

Daniel

You submitting that willfull ignorance is the cause for all this foofraw? I reckon you may be right.

;) :p

[Saen]

Originally posted by SimonX
My apologies to Saen if he was being sarcastic.


Pleae weigh in and let us know if you really meant what you posted, as posted,or if you were using sarcasm.

It was sarcasm.

But since you asked, I feel somethign of what I said. I think the war was a good thing. I have posted on these boards before the war started that it did not matter to me if WMD were found. But that's just me, and I am not trying to convince anyone with an arguement about it.

I think if the US can help Iraq become better than it was then we should. Not because we invaded and removed their pet despot, but becuase I think that it what this country has become in the past century. I feel that Iraq had braugth it's demise and conditioins upon itself within the last 20 years. And I dont think we had a valid opportunity to help them until now. So if w can afford it there is not reason not too. If our intent was to just hurt them then we should leave. If it is to help better them then we should not put any unnecessary roadblocks in their developement.

Though we may disagree on the road on how we got there, I think we agree that if we are going to give them the money anyways, there is no sense in putting conditions on it that they could not meet. Especially when they are not asking for it. And any country who does not help Iraq just to spite the coalition (or another party) should choke on their pettiness.

[sailor]

>> And any country who does not help Iraq just to spite the coalition (or another party) should choke on their pettiness.

So the rest of the world should just submit to US rule? Give money and soldiers and have no say? I say any country which sets conditions which would discourage others from giving should choke on their pettiness. If the USA wants to be the big boss answerable to nobody then it can fucking well pay the bill. You want to call the tune? Then you pay the piper.

If the USA wants to encourage donations all they have to do is be willing to let the donors have a say but that has been discounted.

It is pathetic to see the US government begging others for money and making it look like they care about the Iraqi people. If they cared about the Iraqi people they would do the right thing and agree to let other countries have a say in the future of Iraq.

It seems it was only yesterday when the US government was going to war and was threatening countries who did not support it from being left out of the lucrative reconstruction contracts.

The fact is the USA made this mess and the USA should pay for the entire bil and be grateful for any help it gets. The money helps the USA more than it helps the Iraqi people.

And BTW, the EU is giving a lot in humanitarian aid, it is just not giving where the USA wants it to give: towards reconstruction. http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/10/23/sprj.irq.facts.donors/index.html

The 15-nation block has been criticized for its offer of 200 million euros ($235 million) for 2004. But taking into account its humanitarian aid the total contribution stands at more than 1.4 billion euros

[The Flying Dutchman]

Sailor, I have 15 brothers and sisters. My parents are now long dead, but when we were younger our family took in some orphans, including one who was extremely gifted. His name was Ira. Unfortunately Ira became ill with alcholism and descended to a homeless lifestyle, living under a bridge and hanging out with similar unfortunate people.

My siblings, both biological and adopted debated what to do, many in fear of physical harm because it was reported that Ira possessed a machine gun. Little Jacob, one of our adopted siblings was particularly concerned, because it was no secret that Ira hated Jacob's guts, and Jacob several years earlier managed to take a semi-automatic away from him.

It seemed to me that our talking was going nowhere, and having quite a few children myself for which I was worried, and military aquaintances who were trained in apprehension, I decided to kidnap and commit Ira to an institution for rahabilitation. It hasn't been easy and quite costly.

Its costing my own family $870 a month, and we have to dip into the Visa to do it. I have petitioned my brothers and sisters for help in this regard, but they argue that I should not have arbitrarily proceeded. They do pass the hat and send a pizza every month to Ira costing them $13.765, and I get cheques from them totaling $0.14 a month to help with the monthly bill.


I'm not impressed.

[sailor]

grienspace, nice story but I know what happened in reality. What happened was that you hated Ira and wanted Ira's yard. You made up excuses about Ira's family being threatening which the community did not believe. In spite of the community's opposition you killed all of Ira's family, destroyed Ira's house and kidnapped Ira. Now you are asking for money in the name of Ira but you have still not freed Ira so in reality you are asking for money to suit your own ends. The community is reminding you taht you broke the law with what you did, they are reminding you that *you* are the cause of the problem and they are saying they are very willing to help Ira as soon as you cease the kidnapping and set Ira free. This in spite of the fact that you caused the entire problem in the first place.

[Saen]

Wow sailor, Bravo. You really understood what I was talking about. Thanks for the example of the pettiness that is so prevalant on this issue. You even catpured the vitriolic aura of baseness and spite I have come accross.

Well done, could not have given a better example myself.

Good show!