One Hundred Fifty Billion Dollars

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by DanS
You would be working about 12 minutes a year for the good of Haliburton's shareholders. You've probably spent more time on this thread.

I make that much an hour?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

but if you're so American, what's that Japanese flag doing there?

When did I claim to be American? I merely made fun of foreigners

If you are not an Usian, then Usians to you are foreigners. So, start making fun of them already!

[Drake Tungsten]

So, start making fun of them already!

I can't, in good conscience, make fun of those I know are superior to me.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
I can't, in good conscience, make fun of those I know are superior to me.

Your from Nebraska...that list must be rather huge.

[Drake Tungsten]

Your from Nebraska...that list must be rather huge.

Yep. Warren Buffet, Johnny Carson, Marlon Brando, The Koolaid Man, etc...

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by el freako
Are you really that financially illterate?

If you borrow money you have to pay interest on it - and unless you eventually pay it back you have to pay interest indefinately (by rolling the loan over).

Exactly. WE are loaning THEM money. We don't have to pay any extra. They do. So it's a non-recurring expense for US.

moron

[Evil Knevil]

Heh,
Just think, I'm still pissed that our Government is wasting £3 billion over there. Slight difference methinks.

[el freako]

Originally posted by skywalker


Exactly. WE are loaning THEM money. We don't have to pay any extra. They do. So it's a non-recurring expense for US.

moron

Yup obviously you are that financially illiterate.

The US government is financing it's war by borrowing (a large chunk of which is being financed by foreigners, mainly east asian government's central banks) and yet you say it's lending money - what an idiotic statment.

[Zulu Elephant]

Maybe the US should have just paid Saddam $50bn to hold free elections and dismantle his regime

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by el freako
Yup obviously you are that financially illiterate.

The US government is financing it's war by borrowing (a large chunk of which is being financed by foreigners, mainly east asian government's central banks) and yet you say it's lending money - what an idiotic statment.

No - what's happening is we are GIVING money, as aid, to the Iraqis. They pay us back with deals on oil. Thus, we loan them money.

[DanS]

Maybe the US should have just paid Saddam $50bn to hold free elections and dismantle his regime

Saddam lost far more than $50 billion from the sanctions. He didn't seem to care too much.

[Ned]

It is my understanding that the Iraqi infrastructure has been allowed to decay since the Baath Socialist Party took power. Reconstruction has very little to do with the damage we caused Iraq in two wars.

Still, remember the Marshall Plan? Not one single post here has mentioned the Marshall Plan. History records that the Marshall Plan, more than anything else, made European recovery from WWII a complete success. Should we forget the lessons of history with Iraq?

[Evil Knevil]

Actually the Baathist's improved the infrastructure after they took power. The huge debts and damage brought about by the Iran-Iraq war put a stop to that. The Gulf-War and subsequent sanctions also broke the back of Iraq's economy, as well as blocking foreign investment. So, while the wars didn't actually do massive damage, Iraq's subsequent weakening helped.

That was Saddams achievement, a good, centralised authority; something Iraq sorely needed.

[el freako]

Originally posted by skywalker

No - what's happening is we are GIVING money, as aid, to the Iraqis. They pay us back with deals on oil. Thus, we loan them money.

lol, this is just flights of fancy - Iraq's oil exports are worth around $25bn a year (assuming 2.75m barrels a day production and a price of $25 a barrel), around what they are recieving in aid.

However as DanS has pointed out $125bn of the $150bn spent has been on military operations - so to 'pay' you back the Iraqi's will have to give you free oil for just over 8 years (this also includes interest that the US government will have to pay on the debt amounting to around $65bn during that time) - does anyone here see the iraqi's doing that?
Even if they only offer a cut-price rate (say $10 off the market price - which would amount to $10bn a year) the deal would have to run for 3 decades for the US government to break even.
Would Iraq (especially a democratic Iraq) be willing to cripple it's major source of export earnings for over a generation with no formal agreement to do so?

I think you are living in a fantasy world if you believe so.

[Kuciwalker]

The point is, the concept is that we are lending money to them. That's how it's being presented. Therefore, for us, it is non-recurring.