Who Will Foot The Iraq Reconstruction Bill ?

[clocker]

Originally posted by james_bond_rulez+27 September 2003 - 17:50--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (james_bond_rulez @ 27 September 2003 - 17:50)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Rat Faced@27 September 2003 - 23:58
Cynically, id say that the American people will initially pay.....however all that money and the profits will go back to USA in short order, through the contracts awarded to US Business.

However, it goes back to USA in the pockets of those that are already rich....not to the pockets of the Low-Middle Income people that originally paid.

how&#39;d you know UN will even LET american businesses involved in the reconstruction?

no way [/b][/quote]
Ah, 007,

The contracts were signed ( in secret, natch) in March.

American companies were there before the military almost....

[james_bond_rulez]

so this is how americans make money eh?

torn down some1&#39;s house and ask the owner to pay to rebuild it?

totally disgusted

*spits on ground*

[chloe_cc2002]

It is a lucrative industry for some, reconstruction of a country devastated by war.
On the domestic front Bush&#39;s lavish spending has not done anything to improve Medicare, Medicaid or social welfare.

[Billy_Dean]

I guess a cynic would ask at this point if certain "targets" were maybe destroyed solely for the purpose of rebuilding them.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by Billy_Dean@28 September 2003 - 08:44
I guess a cynic would ask at this point if certain "targets" were maybe destroyed solely for the purpose of rebuilding them.

And a cynic is an not objective source, by definition. He will always assume the worst.

[lynx]

Remember that just because someone assumes the worst, it doesn&#39;t mean that the worst isn&#39;t the truth.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by lynx@28 September 2003 - 10:18
Remember that just because someone assumes the worst, it doesn&#39;t mean that the worst isn&#39;t the truth.

I just said that it was not objective, I made no comment on whether it was true or not.

The extreme perspective is rarely true.

Thanks for supporting your friend anyway.

[Biggles]

As is often the case in war things change.

Rebuilding was, as far as I can see, meant to be a relatively straight forward task, part funded by the US and part funded by Iraq. In return the US got a friend in the ME - a safe base to operate from and a say in OPEC through the Iraqi government. It was never about actually phsyically stealing oil but rather about control and global politics.

Unfortuntately, the country was more shot to pieces through either neglect or over enthusiastic bombing (both probably) than origanally thought. The Iraqis never fought a convential battle and now they are running around blowing up every thing that gets fixed. The Iraqis can pay for nothing as the forces opposed have shut down the oil pipe lines. The security costs and forces required to meet security needs are going up instead of down.

It is little wonder that the countries in the UN opposed to war don&#39;t want to get involved. It is an open cheque book for absolutely nothing in return.

So in the short to medium term the US tax payer will foot the bill. Some of this money will return to US company shareholders through profits but as is often the case with large public companies the shareholders are scattered far and wide and are generally large institutions not people. Probably find that through legitimate Saudi channels Bin Laden gets some of the return. But the military costs will all sit with the US and Britain.

What impact that will have on spending plans for domestic programmes in the US is over my horizon and I can make no comment.

[Billy_Dean]

Originally posted by hobbes+28 September 2003 - 16:56--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes &#064; 28 September 2003 - 16:56)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Billy_Dean@28 September 2003 - 08:44
I guess a cynic would ask at this point if certain "targets" were maybe destroyed solely for the purpose of rebuilding them.

And a cynic is an not objective source, by definition. He will always assume the worst.[/b][/quote]

Word History: A cynic may be pardoned for thinking that this is a dog&#39;s life. The Greek word kunikos, from which cynic comes, was originally an adjective meaning “doglike,” from kun, “dog.” The word was probably applied to the Cynic philosophers because of the nickname kun given to Diogenes of Sinope, the prototypical Cynic. He is reported to have been seen barking in public, urinating on the leg of a table, and masturbating on the street. The first use of the word recorded in English, in a work published from 1547 to 1564, is in the plural for members of this philosophical sect. In 1596 we find the first instance of cynic meaning “faultfinder,” a sense that was to develop into our modern sense. The meaning “faultfinder” came naturally from the behavior of countless Cynics who in their pursuit of virtue pointed out the flaws in others. Such faultfinding could lead quite naturally to the belief associated with cynics of today that selfishness determines human behavior.

Hobbes

And a cynic is not [an] objective source, by definition. He will always assume the worst.

Dictionary.com

Cynic.
Given to sneering at rectitude and the conduct of life by moral principles; disbelieving in the reality of any human purposes which are not suggested or directed by self-interest or self-indulgence; as, a cynical man who scoffs at pretensions of integrity; characterized by such opinions; as, cynical views of human nature.