Iraq Owes Billions To The United States

[Dinner]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
That depends on how open you wish to be about your desire for Iraqi oil.

Face the facts! Iraq has no choice but to sell it's oil on the world market because it has no other income. If all we wanted wa Iraq's oil then we could just as easily have bought it from Saddam and saved $166 billion. The goal was the long term removal of a big geo-political thorn in our side and this will be accomplished when a new pro-western Iraqi government is set up.

How do I know it will be pro-western? Because Iraq needs lots of money and investment if it is to recover so they aren't likely to bite the hand that feeds them are they? The majority will support a liberal regime if that regime can provide security. Of course the Islamists will do everything they can to prevent that from happening.

[Dinner]

BTW today Spain announced their approval of the latest UN resolution and promised to match Britain's $300 million dollar package to Iraq. Though the Spanish package is about half loans and half grants while Britain's $300 million is all grants.

To compare the Japanese are giving $1.5 billion in grants, the EU is giving $200 million in grants, and the US is giving some where between $10-$20 billion in grants depending upon how the house and senate bills are reconciled.

[Shi Huangdi]

Originally posted by Boshko

Yeah I know, it causes my black anarchist heart so much pain but Bush is in the right here.

Fortunately as an evil Republican this merely helps confirm my view of the world.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Uncle Sparky
Sounds like a real night-mare... Especially when you consider a possible Arabian response, old pal-o-mino !
... and how will this play in filly ?

(I'd keep talking, but I'm feeling a little horse right now...)

Whoa there, you might want to reign in your hippo-feel-ya.

[Ned]

"In the House, 118 of 205 Democrats voted no. Democratic presidential candidates in Congress split. Representative Dennis Kucinich and Senators John Kerry and John Edwards voted no, while Representative **** Gephardt and Senator Joseph I. Lieberman voted yes."

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/18/in...1067054400&en=4f10aaf22ab55518&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

Think about what a NO vote means. No money for Iraq at all. No money to support our troops.

Explain yourselves, Kerry and Edwards. Kucinich, you don't have to explain since you have already advocated that we withdraw unilaterally.

[DanS]

All of what Oerdin says is true. However, I would note that Iraq won't be necessarily pro-Western or hold Western values of democracy dear just by virtue that it sells its oil to us. Consider that Saddam himself sold the majority of his oil to the US right up to the point where we attacked him this last time. I think it will be a combination of factors, the most important of which is that the dissident shiite clerics who are returning from Qom to Karbala and Najaf have seen that the Iranian theocracy has been a failure and has kept the shiite faith back.

I would also note that Japan is contributing $1.5 billion next year. In all, they signed up for $5 billion total, which I thnk we can all admit is a substantial amount. We're now talking some real money from our allies.

[rev]

Originally posted by Ned
Think about what a NO vote means. No money for Iraq at all. No money to support our troops.

A "NO" vote means that the voting representative does not wish a particular bill to be made into law. That doesn't mean they disagree with the intention of the bill, just the bill itself. So, just because someone voted against this bill does not mean that they don't want to rebuild Iraq or that they don't "support our troops".

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
We may have a duty, but it sure is a tough sell when the economy and the deficit are in the present condition. Some people would argue we have a higher duty. To ourselves.

Maybe, but if half the public had done its homework, they would have been under no illusions as to the cost of a war and its aftermath in Iraq. And by homework, I mean doing more than just listening to soundbites on Fox and CNN from Bush, et al.

There was one interesting thing about the proposal to convert half of the $20 billion into loans: From what I understand, if other nations forgave at least 90 percent of Iraq's debt to them, then the U.S. loans would once again become grants.

Gatekeeper

[Ned]

Originally posted by rev


A "NO" vote means that the voting representative does not wish a particular bill to be made into law. That doesn't mean they disagree with the intention of the bill, just the bill itself. So, just because someone voted against this bill does not mean that they don't want to rebuild Iraq or that they don't "support our troops".

Perhaps. But then they would have to explain what it was IN THE BILL itself that they could not support if their no vote was not akin to Kucinich's who simply want to dismantle the whole Iraq effort.

AFAIK, Kerry and Edwards never cited a single provision to which they objected. This places them squarely in the Kucinich camp.

[rev]

Originally posted by Ned
Perhaps. But then they would have to explain what it was IN THE BILL itself that they could not support if their no vote was not akin to Kucinich's who simply want to dismantle the whole Iraq effort.

They don't "have" to say anything at all to the public. I'm sure they've made the leadership aware of under what circumstances they would vote for or against a bill.

Oh, and:

Kerry: "Unless this proposal is changed to better protect taxpayer dollars and shares the burden and risk of transforming Iraq with the United Nations and the rest of the international community, then I will oppose it."

Edwards: "I believe we have a responsibility to support our troops in Iraq. I believe we have a responsibility to help rebuild Iraq. But our troops will not be safer and this mission will never be successful unless the president dramatically changes course."

[Ned]

Here is a press release by Clark. He favored a separate bill for supporting our troops, but opposed the $20 billion for Iraq reconstruction. Since the statement was released on the 16th, perphaps he would have been in favor of the "compromise" position. But what he apparently wants is to reduce the $20 billion by the amount other nations contribute. Obviously, Bush and the Iraqi's want to add the contributions of other states to the $20 billion.

The loan provision only demostrates to the Iraqi's and to the world that a significant portion of the Democrat party is neither generous nor enlightened as they claim they to be.

"Statement from General Wesley Clark on George Bush's $87 Billion Iraq Package


"Now that the administration is finally doing what it should have done all along and is making some headway at the UN, there are new opportunities that the Administration must seize to share the cost and the responsibility of Iraq more broadly.

"Therefore, Congress should send the President's request back to the drawing board. Moreover, as a career soldier, I believe strongly that the President should not be playing politics with the safety of our troops and should immediately put forth a separate bill to provide the funding for the men and women serving while we work with our allies and the UN to internationalize this mission."

http://clark04.com/press/release/023/

[Ned]

Kerry's position seems to be the same as Clark's, reduce US contributions by the amounts added by other states.

Edwards statement appears to be closer to Kucinich's than to Clark's.

[rev]

I've grown quickly weary of Clark. Maybe if he were a lifelong Democrat and weren't just now switching from the Republic party, I'd be able to perceive his words as more sincere than they seem now.

[Ned]

Actually, I like Clark as a person. I think he has gone way left on Iraq just to get the Democrat nomination. If he gets it, he will have to become a little more pro-US in order to get elected.

[Ned]

In other words, I just may vote for Clark.