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

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

Nobody said the Iraq war was waged only to pump money into Haliburton – it just happens to be one of many convenient side effects.

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.

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

Sam, Lemur, re-read akrako1’s post.

Dude, that’s against the American Way!

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.

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.

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.

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

:stuck_out_tongue:

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

:stuck_out_tongue:

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

Maybe something was lerned from th eaftermath of WWI?

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.

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.

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! :stuck_out_tongue: (or, for those who prefer graphics, with a lowercase p : :stuck_out_tongue: )

Daniel

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.