Liberals, Iraq, Afghanistan, and causes.

[SirNitram]

It doesn't represent the US paying for it all now, no. I once again point out there's been no timetable released to the public, so I wouldn't be surprised if he comes back asking for more next year. 20B a year for a decade is around 200B, in the general range you suggest is needed. Of course, American allies will contribute.

We will? Not to sound cynical, but why would American allies contribute generously to this rebuilding effort when the Bush Administration retains control over the area and decides where the reconstruction contracts will go (ie- American companies)?

I've been watching the news. Several American allies are already pledging money, SK being just one of them. I have extreme doubts the UK will in current straits, and no offense, but Canada's unlikely to do what Mother England doesn't.

[AdmiralKanos]

But things that I have difficulty understanding-- the whole idea of "regime change" for Iraq came from the previous administration of Democrat Bill Clinton, who also oversaw "regime change" in Yugoslavia. Former President Clinton also oversaw most of the years of "no flight zones" and embargoes on Iraq, and ordered a major attack on Iraq for non-compliance with UN regulations.

The motivations were not deceptions in those cases. The attacks on Yugoslavia were openly said to be due to the Serbs' actions in the local wars, not to any bullshit about Yugoslavia posing a direct threat to the US. The attacks on Iraq were openly said to be an attempt to keep Saddam down, not a full-scale invasion designed to prevent an imminent attack on the US.

In Afghanistan, the calls for action by human rights groups were many (and justified). The Taliban executed women and others (gays, 'heretics', etc) with impunity and destroyed ancient artifacts, and a host of other crimes. Yet when action came against the various enemies in Afghanistan and Iraq, the people who had either called for action or supported it were suddenly critical. Was it merely because of the political leanings of the sitting President (ie, GW Bush)?

Why do you assume that "calls for action" necessarily meant that people were advocating full-scale invasion?

It has been pointed out mny times that 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9-11 were Saudi Arabian ntionals. Would the left wing actually support an attack on Saudi Arabia more than the attack on Iraq, had things gone a bit differently?

I would support an attack on Saudi Arabia more than an attack on Iraq. Mind you, Saudi Arabia and the Bush Administration are in bed together, so that's not likely.

[AdmiralKanos]

We will? Not to sound cynical, but why would American allies contribute generously to this rebuilding effort when the Bush Administration retains control over the area and decides where the reconstruction contracts will go (ie- American companies)?

I've been watching the news. Several American allies are already pledging money, SK being just one of them.

SK is the next best thing to an American vassal state, by virtue of its need for American support against NK. Who else is pledging money, and how much money? I'm just curious how many countries are planning to give money to a reconstruction effort that will send all of the cash to American companies.

I have extreme doubts the UK will in current straits, and no offense, but Canada's unlikely to do what Mother England doesn't.

We've ignored Mother England before. Do you see any Canadian flags flying beside the British ones in Iraq?

[Sea Skimmer]

I've been watching the news. Several American allies are already pledging money, SK being just one of them. I have extreme doubts the UK will in current straits, and no offense, but Canada's unlikely to do what Mother England doesn't.

The UK however is keeping 15,000 men in Iraq. That is a very useful contribution, and not a cheep one.

[aronkerkhof]

but neither are the democrats this came from claiming it should pay for the whole thing, just that we give half as a gift, half as a loan.

So this is ok with you then? I'm with you as far as not funding Iraq's entry into the first world, that's going to be up to them. But America should pay up until power and water is restored, roads and communication are rebuilt, and Iraq is capable of passing and enforcing its own laws.

[SirNitram]

We will? Not to sound cynical, but why would American allies contribute generously to this rebuilding effort when the Bush Administration retains control over the area and decides where the reconstruction contracts will go (ie- American companies)?

I've been watching the news. Several American allies are already pledging money, SK being just one of them.

SK is the next best thing to an American vassal state, by virtue of its need for American support against NK. Who else is pledging money, and how much money? I'm just curious how many countries are planning to give money to a reconstruction effort that will send all of the cash to American companies.

I believe Japan is also pledging money; I should probably amend my statement to 'The Usual Suspects' instead of American Allies. Enough of the allies America has are either annoyed at this or just plain staying out that I was foolish to use that.

I have extreme doubts the UK will in current straits, and no offense, but Canada's unlikely to do what Mother England doesn't.

We've ignored Mother England before. Do you see any Canadian flags flying beside the British ones in Iraq?

Today's joke.. Failed.

[SirNitram]

but neither are the democrats this came from claiming it should pay for the whole thing, just that we give half as a gift, half as a loan.

So this is ok with you then? I'm with you as far as not funding Iraq's entry into the first world, that's going to be up to them. But America should pay up until power and water is restored, roads and communication are rebuilt, and Iraq is capable of passing and enforcing its own laws.

I see no problem with the US helping Iraq up to 1st world status; indeed, America's got the tech and power to do it. I just don't think the cost should be shouldered entirely on American taxpayers when there are other options. Oil is for selling and using, and what better investment than a better working nation?

[SirNitram]

I've been watching the news. Several American allies are already pledging money, SK being just one of them. I have extreme doubts the UK will in current straits, and no offense, but Canada's unlikely to do what Mother England doesn't.

The UK however is keeping 15,000 men in Iraq. That is a very useful contribution, and not a cheep one.

Indeed. I'm just not betting on any cash contributions making it through Parliment with the current climate.

[MKSheppard]

I believe Japan is also pledging money

South Korea is pledging both money AND troops.

[Joe]

If Bush were to not be reelected I wouldn't count out getting some help from some EU countries.

[SirNitram]

If Bush were to not be reelected I wouldn't count out getting some help from some EU countries.

Whyfore?

[AdmiralKanos]

If Bush were to not be reelected I wouldn't count out getting some help from some EU countries.

Tell me this: suppose you're the president of some European country. Your taxpayers want lower taxes and higher services, and the economists want lower deficits and tighter spending controls.

Now, the US comes along and says "give us money so we can fix the mess in Iraq. We intend to show you no particular gratitude, as we consider this your moral duty and you have an obligation to comply. We intend to ensure that none of the money is spent with any of your companies, since we believe it should all go to American companies."

What would you say?

[Joe]

If Bush were to not be reelected I wouldn't count out getting some help from some EU countries.

Whyfore?

Well, a Democratic administration would probably be a bit more willing to cooperate with the EU countries than the current one. The EU countries aren't being treated with the respect they feel that they deserve by Bush, but this might not be the case with, I don't know, Dean.

[SirNitram]

If Bush were to not be reelected I wouldn't count out getting some help from some EU countries.

Whyfore?

Well, a Democratic administration would probably be a bit more willing to cooperate with the EU countries than the current one. The EU countries aren't being treated with the respect they feel that they deserve by Bush, but this might not be the case with, I don't know, Dean.

I'm sorry, I read your post as you thinking if Bush gets ousted, there will be European countries who won't support this. I agree; Dean's publicly stated he'd go to the Security Counsel on reconstruction, which will earn him enough brownie points to have a chance.

[MKSheppard]

Tell me this: suppose you're the president of some European country. Your taxpayers want lower taxes and higher services

For some reason, I find this very insanely funny

[Vympel]

Nope, sorry, that's bullshit. At no point did the Bush administration claim that oil was going to pay for the reconstruction of Iraq.

???!?!?!?!?!?!
Sorry Durran, I must put a bullet through your revisionist history:

"And on a rough recollection, oil revenues of that country could bring in between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years. We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon."

Wolfowitz.

As the Washington Post asked .... would you buy a used car from this man?

[Dahak]

I've been watching the news. Several American allies are already pledging money, SK being just one of them. I have extreme doubts the UK will in current straits, and no offense, but Canada's unlikely to do what Mother England doesn't.

That doesn't mean that they'll rain billions of money down on Iraq.
Which will be a far shot from the sums the US government expects/demands.

Generally, I think there's a general sentiment that other countries shouldn't have to pay for American mistakes...

[MKSheppard]

SK is the next best thing to an American vassal state, by virtue of its need for American support against NK.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... k/army.htm

The army consists of the Army Headquarters, the three army commands, the Aviation Command, and the Special Warfare Command. The army possesses component units including 11 corps, 49 divisions, and 19 brigades, some 560,000 troops, some 2,360 tanks, 5,180 pieces of field artillery, and 2,400 armored vehicles.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... d/usfk.htm

US Forces, Korea (USFK) is the joint headquarters through which US combat forces would be sent to the CFC's fighting components - the Ground, Air, Naval and Combined Marine Forces Component Commands. Major USFK Elements include the Eighth US Army, US Air Forces Korea (Seventh Air Force) and US Naval Forces Korea. USFK includes more than 85 active installations in the Republic of Korea and has about 37,500 US military personnel assigned in Korea. Major U.S. units in the ROK include the Eighth U.S. Army and Seventh Air Force.

Principal equipment in EUSA includes 140 M1A1 tanks, 170 Bradley armored vehicles, 30 155mm self-propelled howitzers, 30 MRLs as well as a wide range of surface-to-surface and surface-to- air missiles, e.g., Patriot, and 70 AH-64 helicopters. EUSA has the capability to perform required tasks under various circumstances using this equipment.

Who's the vassal now?