Are you kidding me? Do you really think that if France, Germany, China, and Russia (which you left out) had also sent troops to the Gulf that Saddam would have given up his WMD? That’s rediculous. The decision in this case was not war vs. inspections, it was war vs. containment.
I can’t figure out for the life of me why people are getting so worked up about which countries might get the reconstruction contracts. Who really cares? Iraq does not have some kind of “free money” tree that will be used to pay for all of the reconstruction contracts. The important thing is, who is going to pay for all of this rebuilding?
If France/Russia/whomever wants to chip in, that just means the less for the US and UK to pay. It strikes me as extremely childish for us to say that certain countries ought not be allowed to help in the reconstruction because they didn’t support the war. Instead of sophomoric games we ought to be looking at building support for rebuilding Iraq, otherwise we’re going to be paying through the nose for this effort.
Militarily speaking, any troop or hardware contributions that France, Germany Russia or China might have made wouldve been inconsequential as present news clearly shows. The positive wouldve been the support these countries wouldve shown against the regime of Saddam. It should be easy to note that when the US ushed Saddam, he pushed back. When the US got resolution 1441, Saddam relented a little (vey little), When it was clear that men and equipment were pouring into Kuwait, Saddam relented a little bit more and when it seemed like the US could get a second resolution Saddam relented more than he ever did but all of that was changed when France said no to any second resolution.
Thats an easy question. Whos gonna pay? It would technically be france, germany and china. Theyre the ones who will buy the oil at retail prices. Russia has their own oil feilds and so does the US. Any money that Iraq gets will mostly come from those who do not have oil.
In a matter of speaking, we dont have to pay for this war. Its already been paid. We are using up men and equipment already bought and paid for by previous administrations. We just need to restock what we already used. The “profits” from Iraq are not all tangible. I will discuss this further on a diffrent response but the money we spend on Iraq is well spent even if we foot the bill alone. That is, if we do it right and we may need Bush for a second term to do that.
Do you really think that inspections would have worked? Really? I opposed going to war, but I was under no illusions that inspections would be successful in disarming Saddam.
There is no chance at all that Iraqi oil sales will 100% finance reconstruction. The numbers just do not work out. From 5/30/02 to 12/4/02, Iraq sold $5.6 billion worth of oil. (see http://www.un.org/depts/oip) Even if their output is raised by 50%, as Cheney predicts, oil alone can’t possibly cover $60 billion to $300 billion in reconstruction AND provide for food and medicine.
Plus, let’s get our facts straight. The US is the number one customer among OECD countries for Iraqi oil. We import more than twice what France does and 160 times what Germany does.
First of all, we’re talking reconstruction. Second of all, that’s wrong. There are already $59 billion in incremental costs. Says who? The White House.
I had no illusions that inspections alone wouldve disarmed Saddam. Heck, I had no delusions about keeping him in Iraq whether he was disarmed or not. The fact of the matter is that France. Germany, Russia and China presented a divided UN that only emboldedned Saddam and aggravated the Arab community. The US couldve done without the worldwide protest and insipid finger waggling.
Its not like we are going to spent 60 to 300 billion in one year and everything goes well. If you ofset the yearly reconstruction cost with the possible 10 billion a year that Iraqi oil alone will pay, then you figure it to be about as much as what we give Israel in a year. To pay as much to an arab country as we do for Israel would be eminently fair. call it restitution for past political sins. I would rather pay higher taxes to do that than to skimp on the Iraqis and have the arabs point to the financial discrepancies later.
I have no misconceptions as to how much the US imports Iraqi oil. I was told that this was a buffer to remove any possibility of Saddam to use the oil as leverage. I have no reason to believe that we would keep importing the same amount of oil after Saddam is gone but the benefits of knowing that Iraqi oil is a stable and reliable supply would boost consumer confidence to jumpstart our economy. Like I mentioned, the benefits to getting rid of Saddam arent all tangible, but they are signifcant nonetheless.
oh gee 59 billion. Divide that by every man woman and child in the united states (approximately 260 million) and that comes out to less than 230 dollars each. Thats less than 20 bucks a month. or about 63 cents a day. BUT WAIT! THERES MORE!! Instead of giving back 700 Billion in tax rebates, congress decided that they just cut that in half instead!! We will needing to re-stock anyway but we got rid of the old stuff, proven the worthiness of certain items and pretty much figured out what works and what doesnt. The re-procurement would be more efficient and cost effective.
I am sorry that you feel that my way of inducing debate is objectionable. I open up my discussions with my stance and anyone is free to debate the issue. Its not like I dont want responses, its just that I feel that if I open with a firm stance, someone of an oppsing stance can rebut and we can have a debate. Its just my way of picking a fight (intellectually).
Nobody knows what the yearly reconstruction cost will be, because we don’t know how long we will be reconstructing. The “numbers” in the above statement are fictional.
Don’t forget that we give Egypt $1.9 billion a year in aid, Jordan another $450 million, plus a decent chunk to various other Arab nations on an irregular basis. I hear no complaints that we are stiffing the Arab world on aid.
:rolleyes: “A million here, a million there, pretty soon you’re talking about real money.” -Everett Dirksen
I question whether this statement has any basis in fact, or if it just a fantasy-land answer. I defy you to find any knowledgable expert that will say that we needed to fire off a few hundred TLAMs just to get rid of them. Taking up space in the warehouse, you know.
you may want to reconsider your stance on Arab complaints.
I meant that if we’re gonna fire a few hundred thousand munitions anyway it might as well be the stuff we have lying around in warehouses thats already bought and paid for. What are we saving that stuff for anyways? some kinda war?!
Thank you for your UNited support
I’ll respond by the numbers. (Too lazy to the Quote/Unquote thing)
#1) One of the benefits of a triumph in Iraq would be surging economy. As long as we handle this right, consumer confidence will be back and this slow recovery will accelerate. The prospect of a stable oil supply, peace abeit temporary in that region for at least a year, More jobs in military spending due to re-supply and post war maintenance, which all translates to more taxes and less of a burden in reconstruction financing. The relatively light damage to Iraq might prove to be a smaller than expected reconstruction cost not to mention all the job prospects to replace all the Frenchy stuff in Iraq… …just had to put that in
#2) With all the negative stuff that the Arabs label the US now, being an isolationist seems tame compared to illegam invader, colonialist bully, and evil satan …oh wait we got the guy that labeled us that… forget the last one. #3) The guy already proposed a tax rebate (which congress slashed from 700 to 300 billion) If we get a sustained surge in the economy, it wouldnt matter if he dated Lewinsky, he’s in there for another 4.
#4) Our “long time allies” stabbed us in the Back!! Who’s offending whom here?!
#5) Screw communist China! Russia can be reasoned with and like always be counted on to go along so long as the price is right (for russia)
#6) What will the UN do without the US? I posted a thread here weeks ago. The UN needs the US more than the US needs the UN, especially at this juncture. We may get UN “legitimacy” but we end up footing most of the bill anyways! I am more worried about how to handle Iraq under the scrutiny of the arab nations around it. The UN has lately been more of a hindrance than a support.
I think you wanted to use the phrase “piss off” not offend. To which I say, Le French can Kees my Derriere!
welcome to the SD forums!