The Bush administration is pleading for help in Iraq.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by faded glory
The price goes down every month as more oil is pumped. In May it was 9 billion a week. Whats that say?

Oil revenue is interesting. It is suppose to be Iraqs, but how can it be it the US is making all the decisions about Iraq? If oil revenue is going to pay for the occupation than it is not Iraqs.

I don't really think the cost of the occupation is as low as they are saying it is and instead of getting lower I think it will get higher. The administration is trying to put in the minimum dollar to the occupation and it's not enough. If they want to be effective they will have to spend more money, and I think they are starting to do that.

[DanS]

This is a weird thread. The article says nothing like "The Bush administration is pleading for help in Iraq." Where did the thread starter get this idea?

We have standing requests for foreign troops. These are a couple of months old.

What's bush going to do? Raise taxes? Stop fixing roads or something

Do you have any idea about how large our defense budget is?

[Kidlicious]

He's not going to raise taxes. He will lower them more if anything. The prices will be added to the deficit.

[child of Thor]

well i hope France and Germany tell Bush to stick it where the sun don't shine.
Its unfortunate that they need money badly as they'll probably be bribed into getting the UN involved, America and Britain might as well use their ill gotten gains for something useful.
I really, really hope the UN doesn't bail them out. Its time we as tax payers in these countries feel the fallout of letting our governments get away with 'legalised' plundering of resources(dressed in any disguise they want).
In fact The U.S and Britain should foot the bill themselves as a matter of principle, as it was they that put Saddam in power in the first place. It would seem fair.
Oh yeah if anybody hides behind the shield of saying these remarks are just 'liberal propaganda' then its obvious you are just happy to live in a hole of your own choice, one i'm happy to leave you in
Luckily most of the world is starting to wake up and smell the coffe.

[Kidlicious]

Since the Republicans cut taxes for the rich here in the US, I don't even think that many Americans support the occupation. I certainly am not suprised that people in other countries don't support it. If they really needed the money then they shouldn't have cut taxes.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by faded glory
If you dont think we cant do this on our own. Your sadly mistaken. 32 deaths, that about .5 a day since major combat ended.

Besides, more and more are "allies" are like blisters anyway.. Only arriving when the work is done.

Uh, we've lost over 70 soldiers since combat ended in May. Non-combat deaths are still deaths attributable to our occupation.

[ískallin]

If it's about one a day as boris states, then its 356 a year x4 so thats alot

This 16800000000 is PLUS the military budget plus the afghanistan prize (isn't that about a billion?)

[DanS]

Re the deaths among our troops, every death is tragic. But if our troops were made up of average Americans living in the US, there would be 1,300 deaths a year anyways. So if a troop dies in a traffic accident in Iraq, I would hardly consider that it is due to the occupation.

Re the money, that is a lot of money, but really only a small proportion of our economy, our federal budget, and even of our military budget.

[Agathon]

Count "casualties" not deaths and then you'll have a better estimate.

Anyway, the US and Britain can piss off. Your mess, you did it when everyone else said not to, so you clean it up.

[Sava]

The details are in the soup. Hidden behind a curtain of Liberal propaganda.

How's your tinfoil hat?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Your mess, you did it when everyone else said not to, so you clean it up.

Then don't ***** when the occupation isn't to your liking .

[Jac de Molay]

Originally posted by DanS
Re the money, that is a lot of money, but really only a small proportion of our economy, our federal budget, and even of our military budget.

A few billion here...a few billion there. Heck, pretty soon your talking about real money.

[Shi Huangdi]

The USA is very wealthy, having a multitrillion dollar(I think it is 12 trill IIRC) GDP. $4 bil is pocket change.

[lord of the mark]

we almost certainly can do this on our own if we have to - it doesnt seem like we need more than the currently deployed number to keep a lid on things while political reconstruction goes forward. However it comes at a considerable cost to the US military, in terms of lost training, harm to morale, etc. And a more fully multilateral force would be a greater assurance to the people of Iraq that this is a genuine liberation, and so would probably expedite the defeat of the Saddamites and the reconstruction of the country and so would be a good thing for the people of Iraq.

The question becomes one of command. The Senate, following the suggestions of folks like Joe Leiberman, seems to envision NATO command. While the administration has not yet publicly accepted that, its very unlikely that they wouldnt, - as in Kosovo a NATO force could report to SACEUR (Supreme Allied Commander Europe) who is usually (currently?) an American, and even if not I think we'd have little trouble with a NATO command. IIUC the problem is that France and Germany wont go under NATO command, theyre insisting on a UN command, or at least a more explicit UN authorization for such a force than in UNSC 1483. And NATO cant move as an organization if France and Germany veto. And the admin isnt inclined to publicly ask for NATO support if it isnt assured of getting it - they were already burned over the Turkey thing.

And this is a sensitive time politically in Iraq - theres a new 25 person Iraqi governing council forming. Balanced among ethnic and religious groups, clerics and secular, exiles and locals, and also between folks sympathetic to the neo-con agenda for the region (Chalabi and the Kurds) and people opposed to it (pachecho and SCIRI) Bringing in a UN command at this point might complicate things a bit - especially from the point of view of folks who dont trust the UN-French-Russian agenda for the region.

So i suspect this wont be resolved until the governing council is more firmly in place. Which may have been expedited because of the need to make the occupation force more multilateral.

[Kidlicious]

Let's hear that crap when the deficit hits $400bn