We won! Now what?

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-10-06 03:21pm

Okay. I think, with the exception of a few apologists, we can all agree the US and UK leapt into Iraq very, very stupidly. Sure, we've removed a dictator, but we're also painting a big-ass target on the nation for the locals. So what do we do now?

It's quite possible Bush and Blair will be ousted; especially if there's the slightest indication the cost of rebuilding will increase before election day. But the next bossmen will have the same problems: A nation full of trouble that we're stuck responsible for.

So, what's the right decision? Should the US president(Be it Bush or another) approach the UN, I don't know, humbly? Not acting like a fucking cowboy? Should the US try and shoulder the cost of rebuilding an entire seperate nation, and it's own economy, alone? A disturbing possibility would be simply annexing Iraq and turning it into an industrial core for the American Empire. Me, I just don't know..

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-10-06 03:26pm

No, the UN isn't up to the job.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-10-06 03:30pm

Durran Korr wrote:No, the UN isn't up to the job.

On what basis? I think it's a bit of a no-fucking-brainer that the economic power of it's member states is greater than the US alone. So, on what basis is this declaration made?

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2003-10-06 03:31pm

Durran Korr wrote:No, the UN isn't up to the job.

the sole purpose of the UN is to provide a quasi-legitimate forum for tin pot dictators from around the planet to suck money out of the G8. That is the only thing it is successfull at doing. By no means should it be given the responibility or opportunity to do something important.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-10-06 03:34pm

Col. Crackpot wrote:
Durran Korr wrote:No, the UN isn't up to the job.
the sole purpose of the UN is to provide a quasi-legitimate forum for tin pot dictators from around the planet to suck money out of the G8. That is the only thing it is successfull at doing. By no means should it be given the responibility or opportunity to do something important.

Gotta love unsupported opinions.. But, nevertheless, either way, what should be done, then? Let's assume, for a moment, you're completely right on the UN(I see no reason to mire this thread in a 'UN iz bade!' debate). What, then, should be done? Do you seriously think the US can sustain it's own crippled economy while rebuilding another nation?

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-10-06 03:35pm

SirNitram wrote:
Durran Korr wrote:No, the UN isn't up to the job.
On what basis? I think it's a bit of a no-fucking-brainer that the economic power of it's member states is greater than the US alone. So, on what basis is this declaration made?

It's all about the security in Iraq. And the UN isn't about security.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-10-06 03:37pm

Durran Korr wrote:
SirNitram wrote:
Durran Korr wrote:No, the UN isn't up to the job.
On what basis? I think it's a bit of a no-fucking-brainer that the economic power of it's member states is greater than the US alone. So, on what basis is this declaration made?
It's all about the security in Iraq. And the UN isn't about security.

That's true. Then what should be done? Approaching them for help in rebuilding would at least ease the economy strain, even if US/UK troops remain the ones on the ground.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-10-06 03:37pm

Do you seriously think the US can sustain it's own crippled economy while rebuilding another nation?

Be realistic. 87 billion dollars a year is a lot of money, make no mistake, but it's scarcely enough to fund the pork barrel budgets of 3 or 4 departments. It's not an absolutely enormous sum of money, but U.S. government standards.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-10-06 03:38pm

"but" should be "by."

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-10-06 03:42pm

Durran Korr wrote:
Do you seriously think the US can sustain it's own crippled economy while rebuilding another nation?
Be realistic. 87 billion dollars a year is a lot of money, make no mistake, but it's scarcely enough to fund the pork barrel budgets of 3 or 4 departments. It's not an absolutely enormous sum of money, by U.S. government standards.

In a good year, 87 Bil would be a drop in the bucket. Problem is, this is when the US' economy is tanking in a big way. Worse, this isn't '87 billion, here's how it's spent, here's the timeline, here's the funds that'll pad the expected problems'. I have serious doubts either Iraq or the USA will recover from this anytime soon.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-10-06 03:53pm

The US economy is tanking? I thought it was getting better.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-10-06 03:53pm

"Booming" the economy isn't. "Tanking" it certainly isn't (look at unemployment figures for other countries).

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-10-06 03:54pm

HemlockGrey wrote:The US economy is tanking? I thought it was getting better.

Well, perhaps I overstated. It's not terribly healthy, though apparently there's finally been some new jobs created last month.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-10-06 03:54pm

And 87 billion is still a relative drop in the bucket. Just because the economy shrinks doesn't mean the budget shrinks.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-10-06 03:54pm

Durran Korr wrote:And 87 billion is still a relative drop in the bucket. Just because the economy shrinks doesn't mean the budget shrinks.

I keep forgetting that government budgets bear little resemblence to actual money somewhere..

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-10-06 03:56pm

No, the government is unique in that it doesn't cut spending when it's short on cash, unlike the rest of us.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-10-06 03:59pm

Durran Korr wrote:No, the government is unique in that it doesn't cut spending when it's short on cash, unlike the rest of us.

About the same thing as having little relation to actual cash. What else do you call spending money you don't have?

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-10-06 04:15pm

SirNitram wrote:
Durran Korr wrote:No, the government is unique in that it doesn't cut spending when it's short on cash, unlike the rest of us.
About the same thing as having little relation to actual cash. What else do you call spending money you don't have?

A poorly-managed credit card.

El Moose Monstero · Post by **El Moose Monstero** » 2003-10-06 04:33pm

I'm not entirely sure Blair will be ousted, in terms of in-party, he still has a lot of support from the back-benches and pro-war fellows, and there's no other party who has a hope in hell of getting in. As long as nothing more happens to make him lose public trust, Blair will still be there by the next general election (the media has a very short attention span when it wants to), IMO.

BlkbrryTheGreat · Post by **BlkbrryTheGreat** » 2003-10-06 04:47pm

About the same thing as having little relation to actual cash. What else do you call spending money you don't have?

With Governments using paper money I call it Inflation.[/quote]

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2003-10-06 06:27pm

SirNitram wrote:
HemlockGrey wrote:The US economy is tanking? I thought it was getting better.
Well, perhaps I overstated. It's not terribly healthy, though apparently there's finally been some new jobs created last month.

Meh...10,000 jobs, based on the theory that new unemployment of 400,000 means job growth is 0 (there were 390,000 new unemployed).

Actually, the 87 billion could be a good thing. Since much of it is manufacturing and infrastructure, it could help the fact that American industry is functioning at under 75% of maximal capacity. If it kicks back up even 10%, businesses may being looking at investing, which will stimulate the economy. I'm personally rather iffy about the economy right now. Some indicators show a slight recovery, others show a slight downturn. I think the economy's rather stable right now, and it will probably remain fairly stable until more tariffs start dropping, since a few nations *coughChinacough* are taking advantage of autocratic government to manipulate domestic and international commodities.

AdmiralTDM · Post by **AdmiralTDM** » 2003-10-06 06:50pm

Why are we spending 87 bill on the Iraqis any ways?

Christ all they are gonna do is get taken over by anouther fanatical islamic group anyways...

Shit, just throw some dirt in the craters and go home... or better yet dont fill the craters up. The Iraqis will need the holes for mass graves when the next nut that read "The Prince" and " The Koran" takes over and needs the room for getting rid of his competition...

btw what next you say? What the hell we might as well invade someone else. Do as the Romans did, invade places one after the other to keep those you just invaded busy

oh well

Senseless post #2

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-10-06 06:58pm

SirNitram wrote: I keep forgetting that government budgets bear little resemblence to actual money somewhere..

Because of the way its drawn up, its possibul to both cut spending and still spend more in the US Federal budget, dont you just love this country? Anyway, 87 billion is pretty tiny when its coming out of 2.5 trillion or so.

Post by **Gandalf** » 2003-10-06 07:24pm

From what I can tell, the US need other nations here or they're screwed financially. All I can think of is to get the Iraqi's into some sort of self reliance, and phase out the occupation gradually, that way, in the end all the US has is a few bases here and there in case the shit hits the fan again.

As for paying for all this, I guess the US could pinch the oil that's there.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-10-06 08:11pm

The oil isn't enough.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

We won! Now what?

We won! Now what?

why?