Can't the US just buy the oil from Iraq and the hell with France and Russia and UN?

[Lord Merciless]

You don't have to force anyone if you can bribe them at a lower cost.

The success in Iraq depends how much money the US is willing to pump in.

[GePap]

The problem then is that this admin. wants to spend as little as they posibly can. They want to pull out most forces so that they don;t have to pay that expense, and really think Iraqi oil money will be enough. This is why they also keep calling for states to forgive Iraq's debts (fat chance) and so forth.

Every dime spent on Iraq is one less dime for Tax cuts, and this admin. cares more about further tax cuts.

[GePap]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


You always have a choice. Change your point of view and become a willing collaborator out of principle, become a willing collaborator out of opportunism, just shut up and do what you're told and try not to be noticed, go along now and plot resistance later, or Gary Cooper it here and now, in a blaze of glory and 72 virgins awaiting. It's just a matter of how much force gets applied against how much will, and for how long.

The whole idea that the "majority" has any opinion is absurd. The "majority" wants nothing else than pace and quiet to live thier lives. It is extremists that form opinion, by creating tensions and violence and forcing the mass to then chose sides, becuase if they don;t chose sides, no one will protect them. So when the Us says "hey, its only a few tens of thousands railled up by Iranians, in truth the people love the US", they forget the fact that it will be those tens of thousands, not the rest, that will be pro-active and create the discussion.

[Lancer]

"Hey Lancer, I didn't know you consider yourself a liberal."

Yeah Mike, I'm giving it a try, I even stopped bathing.

[Ned]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


The US was the lead party in promoting reparations for the Kuwaitis to be included in the post-war UNSCRs.

It would be nice if we could find the ten billion or so from Hussein-related assets, and turn those over, but we either stick it to our "friends" the Kuwaitis, or we step on our own **** by reversing our prior policy, or we shaft the new Iraqi government. Since the Iraqis looted the hell out of Kuwait and sabotaged their oil fields, we have a bit of a problem just letting the whole thing slide, not that anyone is ever sympathetic to the Kuwaitis.

The best method would be to arrange some sort of long-term payment through oil quota management, so that Iraq didn't get strapped for cash, but the Kuwaitis also felt like they got something worthwhile.

Michael the great, Iraq today is hardly the position to pay anybody anything let alone pay reparations. I would be in favor, again, of canceling all war reparations. With respect to prior debts run up by the Saddam Hussein régime, these should be rescheduled. I understand that Saddam always Kuwait and others billions. Ditto France and Russia.

If we don't do this, the American taxpayer will end up, in effect paying for Iraq's reconstruction, for Saddam Hussein's debt and for Iraq's war reparations. I would think that this would be totally unacceptable to the American people.

I also think that the likes of France Russia and those who were against the war in the first place know this. This may be a major reason why people who were against America's action are in favor of maintaining Iraq's obligations across-the-board.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned
If we don't do this, the American taxpayer will end up, in effect paying for Iraq's reconstruction, for Saddam Hussein's debt and for Iraq's war reparations. I would think that this would be totally unacceptable to the American people.

So you are saying that the American people favor liberating Iraq and making them a dmeocracy...as long as we don't have to pay?

Oh yes, that makes a whole lot of sense.....

Iraq is no less able to pay than all the countless other poor states saddled with immense debts. In fact, Iraq is in a better position than most since they have oil for the future to pay with.

All of the se were costs the US knew about going in, and you can ahrdly count on anyone being a a mood to forgive loans or write off war reparations as long as the US keeps its "we invaded, its ours to make money in, hnot you" atitude about Iraq.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Lancer
"Hey Lancer, I didn't know you consider yourself a liberal."

Yeah Mike, I'm giving it a try, I even stopped bathing.

http://www.sallyhansen.com/handcare.cfm

You might try the stuff at the bottom to take care of the callouses on your knuckles. Those'll be a dead giveaway.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned
Michael the great, Iraq today is hardly the position to pay anybody anything let alone pay reparations. I would be in favor, again, of canceling all war reparations. With respect to prior debts run up by the Saddam Hussein régime, these should be rescheduled. I understand that Saddam always Kuwait and others billions. Ditto France and Russia.

If we don't do this, the American taxpayer will end up, in effect paying for Iraq's reconstruction, for Saddam Hussein's debt and for Iraq's war reparations. I would think that this would be totally unacceptable to the American people.

I also think that the likes of France Russia and those who were against the war in the first place know this. This may be a major reason why people who were against America's action are in favor of maintaining Iraq's obligations across-the-board.

As GePap said, Iraq is in a better position than most third-world countries to pay foreign debts. We don't forgive other countries' debts when they change regimes for whatever reason, and we don't pretend we have any authority to forgive other countries' debts to third party nations.

Why should the Kuwaitis, or any other nation, just suck up the costs of being invaded or looted by a foreign power? Aaaaaah, because if the invader is liable for damage and destruction, the US might owe a little to a few people. Yeah, let's let that whole notion of paying for aggressive action slide, it's destabilizing.

As I said, Kuwaiti "reparations" can be had by trading or playing with production quotas, with no loss of oil resource on Iraq's part, and a very limited financial impact to Iraq. That can also be done over a long number of years, to completely minimize the impact.

As for the American taxpayer, boo hoo ****ing hoo, it's a little bit late to ***** about the costs now. The US government decided to invade, decided when and how to invade, and decided to do so regardless of the UN or other nation's opinion. Bush had his coalition of the willing, I'm sure those countries are willing to foot their fair share of the bill for the US adventure. The US chose to be the enforcing party, the US chose to go in and "kill people and break things," so guess what? The US as an occupying power now is obligated to suck up a lot of costs. If the taxpayer doesn't like it, they can vote in 2004.

[Adam Smith]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat If the taxpayer doesn't like it, they can vote in 2004.

Early, often, in as many states as I can drive through on Election Day.

[Vandal-1]

Yeah Just think of it as a 20 year investment in a protracted political war,while profiteering merchant interest get rich!,and you 'll feel better.Do you honestly believe the Buschies did this out of the kindness of their heart Go get deprogrammed or whatever.They 'll make the money we need to tax it to pay for the military expense at the port or the pipeline head untill every last dime is accounted for and not let it be handed to the people.I didn't support the actioin and I don't think that the aftermath is very well thought out and corruption is potentially a big problem.

[Ned]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


As GePap said, Iraq is in a better position than most third-world countries to pay foreign debts. We don't forgive other countries' debts when they change regimes for whatever reason, and we don't pretend we have any authority to forgive other countries' debts to third party nations.

Why should the Kuwaitis, or any other nation, just suck up the costs of being invaded or looted by a foreign power? Aaaaaah, because if the invader is liable for damage and destruction, the US might owe a little to a few people. Yeah, let's let that whole notion of paying for aggressive action slide, it's destabilizing.

As I said, Kuwaiti "reparations" can be had by trading or playing with production quotas, with no loss of oil resource on Iraq's part, and a very limited financial impact to Iraq. That can also be done over a long number of years, to completely minimize the impact.

As for the American taxpayer, boo hoo ****ing hoo, it's a little bit late to ***** about the costs now. The US government decided to invade, decided when and how to invade, and decided to do so regardless of the UN or other nation's opinion. Bush had his coalition of the willing, I'm sure those countries are willing to foot their fair share of the bill for the US adventure. The US chose to be the enforcing party, the US chose to go in and "kill people and break things," so guess what? The US as an occupying power now is obligated to suck up a lot of costs. If the taxpayer doesn't like it, they can vote in 2004.

I know of no international law that would require us to pay Iraq's debts. I also believe it would be quite appropriate to have Iraq pay anyone incurring present expenses for reconstruction immediately. In other words, Kuwait, France and the likes can wait to the extent that Iraq doesn't have the money for both reconstruction and reparations.

I have heard estimates that Iraq's oil revenue is $15 billion a year. But reconstruction costs can be as much as $25 billion a year. What I am concerned about is the UN forcing Iraq to take that $15 billion to pay back Iraq's obligations while the US taxpayer picks up the $25 billion a year reconstruction bill. As I said, the UN could force us into a position of effectively paying Iraq's debts. I don't think this is fair to the US.

[MichaeltheGreat]

So in other words, the US, as the invading and occupying party, should have first call on Iraq's oil revenues, and other countries with pre-existing commercial obligations can go hang, as can the Kuwaitis, who were invaded and plundered 12 years before?

If the Iraqis are paying their foreign debt, then obviously, we are not. And if we, as an occupying power, are contracting reconstruction to American and American-favored countries, then we get to pay for it. Don't like it? Then don't do it and get out. Simple, really. After we fix, at our cost, what infrastructure, etc. we destroyed, pursuant to our obligations as an occupying power. If it's expensive, then maybe the American people will think twice before jacking off to the notion of invading other countries.

[TCO]

I'm not sure that honoring debts of Saddam is such a great idea. It encourages people to make these loans to dictators.

[MichaeltheGreat]

The only problems with that is that every bananaland in the world will want to reschedule or get out of debts every time they have a change of government, and no national lenders in their right minds will invest money in third world bananalands.

Third world development and project finance needs to be reworked, but that's a separate problem from making Iraq a functioning non-anti-western country.

[GePap]

Originally posted by GP
I'm not sure that honoring debts of Saddam is such a great idea. It encourages people to make these loans to dictators.

Oh, so you support the US forgiving every dime any state owes us if that money was lent to them under a dictatorship? I can tell you there are plenty of states in Asia, Latin America and Africa who would love such a ruling! So, do you approve of that idea?