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?
If its a loan and not a grante does that mean there will be more accounting for that money ? Possible answer…
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
(Rancor off) Who, in the Bush administration thinks these high-minded thoughts - and has the power to implement them?
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.
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.
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.
Here’s a short form answer:
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.
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.
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.
Maybe, but it’s a standard we should try to reach. We’re debating ideas here, not people.
Well, unless he’s gonna police other threads in GD, Mace has has no business reprimanding me.
Isn’t about half of the money going straight into the pockets of US corporations, anyway?
Antiochus, you’re right, don’t try, it’s not worth it.