If we're going to be the government, then I guess it would make sense that we make the decisions. If we're not going to be the government, then how about Iraq's government make the decisions?
which is where i thought they were going. for now there is no govt. in Iraq, so we're making decisions. however, we're working at getting them set up with some sort of govt., at which point they will start making the decisions.
which is where i thought they were going. for now there is no govt. in Iraq, so we're making decisions. however, we're working at getting them set up with some sort of govt., at which point they will start making the decisions.
Let's be realistic and honest, a $30 Billion (thousand million) dollar question can wait. If beginning is that essential, give them a $500 Million dollar loan to start. They've got enough oil to pay that off in a couple of days, plus interest.
The problem with this plan is that they, outside of their control, are being straddled with a huge debt that will take years to pay off (with oil being sold to us at $5 below market cost...gee thanks!)
groverat, instead of being blind, deaf and dumb, think.
Is $30 Billion essential? Maybe. Is it essential that our banks give it to Iraq on our terms? No.
It's not 'bullshit' to say that the US is getting value off the oil as if it was Texan, it's a fact. The 'loan' is secured against oil, and it is priced in dollars (unlike the euros that used to squirt out of Iraq). The oil that comes out belongs to the US economy until the loan is paid back. It squirts straight in. Please address this economic arguement without a one-word answer. You might want to actually think about it first this time.
Much of the rest is classic colonial crap too; only KBR can handle the oil infrastructure huh ... Iraq can't because they never had an oil fire in Iraq before. They only happen in the states so an American company has to take care of it.
Oh, and I know that the loan will be used to pay US companies because, well, your government said so. So did you (KBR are the best at it, they can handle it, blah blah blah). Oh and I also know because some of the contracts have been divvied up already, it's US policy that aid money has to be spent with US companies.
I'm remembering when I kept trying to tell you a retired general called Jay Garner was going to run Iraq and you told me I had no evidence. He was in Kuwait at the time.
Let's be realistic and honest, a $30 Billion (thousand million) dollar question can wait. If beginning is that essential, give them a $500 Million dollar loan to start. They've got enough oil to pay that off in a couple of days, plus interest.
Who is "them"? Who do you give this loan to and what will they do with it?
Quote:
The problem with this plan is that they, outside of their control, are being straddled with a huge debt that will take years to pay off (with oil being sold to us at $5 below market cost...gee thanks!)
Oil will be sold to us below market cost to pay off this debt?
The debt will take years to pay off?
Are you ignoring the amount of debt forgiveness the US is calling for in Iraq?
Quote:
Is $30 Billion essential? Maybe. Is it essential that our banks give it to Iraq on our terms? No.
Would they get better terms from someone else?
And you have zero idea how necessary any of it is either way. ZERO.
--
Harald:
Quote:
It's not 'bullshit' to say that the US is getting value off the oil as if it was Texan, it's a fact. The 'loan' is secured against oil, and it is priced in dollars (unlike the euros that used to squirt out of Iraq). The oil that comes out belongs to the US economy until the loan is paid back. It squirts straight in. Please address this economic arguement without a one-word answer. You might want to actually think about it first this time.
Nowhere in anything quoted here does it say that the US will have dibs on Iraqi oil until the loan is paid off. Nowhere.
The loan will be "backed by" Iraqi oil reserves, that is completely different.
There very well might be a necessity for cash influx to further the rebuilding effort, you can't sit around waiting for political perfection in Iraq before you start rebuilding the economy unless you want it to be a welfare nation indefinitely. I don't know if this is the best idea but I know the level of FUD and hysteria you freaks are pumping here is ridiculous.
Quote:
Much of the rest is classic colonial crap too; only KBR can handle the oil infrastructure huh ... Iraq can't because they never had an oil fire in Iraq before. They only happen in the states so an American company has to take care of it.
What Iraqi company could have done it? You do know that Iraq's oil infrastructure was managed and controlled by the guy we were going in to kill, right?
"Hey Saddam, while you're trying to sabotage the oil fields could you put out the fires you're trying to start? Thanks!"
Quote:
Oh, and I know that the loan will be used to pay US companies because, well, your government said so. So did you (KBR are the best at it, they can handle it, blah blah blah). Oh and I also know because some of the contracts have been divvied up already, it's US policy that aid money has to be spent with US companies.
We are using our money to pay companies to rebuild things in Iraq. We happen to be the preeminent nation in these types of building efforts and home to the industry-leading corporations who do this work.
If you don't have any actual knowledge to dispute that KBR and Halliburton are the world leaders in this field and not just Cheney-puppets then just shut up about it.
Tell me, Harald, what would have been a better route?
Quote:
I'm remembering when I kept trying to tell you a retired general called Jay Garner was going to run Iraq and you told me I had no evidence. He was in Kuwait at the time.
Where is Jay Garner now?
Pretty pathetic that you vaguely reference something months-old to hide your lack of argument here.
Who is "them"? Who do you give this loan to and what will they do with it?
groverat, the same questions could be asked of the $30 Billion (thousand million.) It's an irrelevant post. Who is getting the loan now? What are they going to do with it? Answer those questions and it might shed light on what you're asking, but is still irrelevant to this thread.
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
Oil will be sold to us below market cost to pay off this debt?
The debt will take years to pay off?
Are you ignoring the amount of debt forgiveness the US is calling for in Iraq?
US calls for debt forgiveness of old debt. US assumes control of new debt. That's good economics for the US.
And for those of you who claimed there was no money to be made by going to war in Iraq, groverat is proving you wrong.
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
Would they get better terms from someone else?
And you have zero idea how necessary any of it is either way. ZERO.
I haven't made any claims on necessity of the money. It probably is to some extent. What does that have to do with the thread? Nothing? Oh, thanks.
Money is to be made from this war. Anyone who said that couldn't be a motive for war was wrong.
That's plain and simple. You can try to prove otherwise, but I imagine you can't.
Yeh, nowhere does it say that the US has dibs on the oil. Not even in my mail, nor did I suggest it. May I ask, if not oil, which exports you think will be used to pay the loan back in dollars? Camel shit? Sand?
Next.
So you're suggesting that Saddam single-handedly ran Iraqi oil?
No? That would be a stupid interpretation of your sarcastic post?
Well, presumably, the same guys who looked after the oil when Saddam was in charge could do it after (minus the Russian and French guys).
Next: I don't give a monkeys how good the US is at rebuilding things the US bombed to pieces: to suggest that Iraq is somehow incapable of doing it itself is classic imperial bullshit. If that money went to Iraqi construction companies, who could then hire Halliburton themselves for all I care, the dividend it would have for the local economy would be enormous. The plain fact is that you don't understand economics, even though it's gratifying you've stopped pretending that there's there's not much evidence as you did above.
Where's Jay Garner? Uh, at home probably. Pretty sad you have to use a blindingly obvious fact unrelated to the force of my argument to hide your total lack of blah blah blah don't know why I bother with you.
problem is, (from what i've heard) is that everyone in any position of power in Iraq before was there because they were corrupt toadies of Saddam's. so you can't really offer contracts to the entrenched business when said business are extensions of what you're working to get rid of.
problem is, (from what i've heard) is that everyone in any position of power in Iraq before was there because they were corrupt toadies of Saddam's. so you can't really offer contracts to the entrenched business when said business are extensions of what you're working to get rid of.
So what you are saying is...
We are replacing Iraqi crooks with American crooks?
problem is, (from what i've heard) is that everyone in any position of power in Iraq before was there because they were corrupt toadies of Saddam's. so you can't really offer contracts to the entrenched business when said business are extensions of what you're working to get rid of.
Of course that hasn't stopped us from taking the ex-military personnel and making them police...
alclimedes, it sounds to me like you're at least admitting 'we' are going to make a healthy profit from post war reconstruction, are 'we' not? And that this undermines the pre-war argument that we couldn't go to war for directed profit, correct?
There is an Iraqi government in place right now that's sending a delegation to the U.N. What are they considered 'good enough' for governing and what are they not good enough to govern?
i would guess that when they have a police force behind them, and they've shown that they're as trustworth as the average politician, we will hand things over to them. you can't put a govt. in place w/o some kind of working police force though.
as for profits. if it is costing $1 billion a week to run things in Iraq right now, and you're looking at reconstruction dollars of $30 billion (of which only a small percentage will actually be profit) then we look to "make" $3-5 billion. that will be overshadowed by costs of staying there in two months.
i think the problem is that it depends on how you look at it. it is a negative sum total, but there are groups that will make money out of this whole deal.
as for profits. if it is costing $1 billion a week to run things in Iraq right now, and you're looking at reconstruction dollars of $30 billion (of which only a small percentage will actually be profit) then we look to "make" $3-5 billion. that will be overshadowed by costs of staying there in two months.
i think the problem is that it depends on how you look at it. it is a negative sum total, but there are groups that will make money out of this whole deal.
So what you are saying is...
We are replacing Iraqi crooks with American crooks at tax payer expense and those who loose their life in this?
Comments
I suggest that Iraq should decide
who in Iraq?
Originally posted by alcimedes
who in Iraq?
Great question.
If we're going to be the government, then I guess it would make sense that we make the decisions. If we're not going to be the government, then how about Iraq's government make the decisions?
Originally posted by alcimedes
which is where i thought they were going. for now there is no govt. in Iraq, so we're making decisions. however, we're working at getting them set up with some sort of govt., at which point they will start making the decisions.
Let's be realistic and honest, a $30 Billion (thousand million) dollar question can wait. If beginning is that essential, give them a $500 Million dollar loan to start. They've got enough oil to pay that off in a couple of days, plus interest.
The problem with this plan is that they, outside of their control, are being straddled with a huge debt that will take years to pay off (with oil being sold to us at $5 below market cost...gee thanks!)
groverat, instead of being blind, deaf and dumb, think.
Is $30 Billion essential? Maybe. Is it essential that our banks give it to Iraq on our terms? No.
It's not 'bullshit' to say that the US is getting value off the oil as if it was Texan, it's a fact. The 'loan' is secured against oil, and it is priced in dollars (unlike the euros that used to squirt out of Iraq). The oil that comes out belongs to the US economy until the loan is paid back. It squirts straight in. Please address this economic arguement without a one-word answer. You might want to actually think about it first this time.
Much of the rest is classic colonial crap too; only KBR can handle the oil infrastructure huh ... Iraq can't because they never had an oil fire in Iraq before. They only happen in the states so an American company has to take care of it.
Oh, and I know that the loan will be used to pay US companies because, well, your government said so. So did you (KBR are the best at it, they can handle it, blah blah blah). Oh and I also know because some of the contracts have been divvied up already, it's US policy that aid money has to be spent with US companies.
I'm remembering when I kept trying to tell you a retired general called Jay Garner was going to run Iraq and you told me I had no evidence. He was in Kuwait at the time.
Originally posted by groverat
The wheels turn very slowly, alcimedes, very slowly.
No shit.
Let's be realistic and honest, a $30 Billion (thousand million) dollar question can wait. If beginning is that essential, give them a $500 Million dollar loan to start. They've got enough oil to pay that off in a couple of days, plus interest.
Who is "them"? Who do you give this loan to and what will they do with it?
The problem with this plan is that they, outside of their control, are being straddled with a huge debt that will take years to pay off (with oil being sold to us at $5 below market cost...gee thanks!)
Oil will be sold to us below market cost to pay off this debt?
The debt will take years to pay off?
Are you ignoring the amount of debt forgiveness the US is calling for in Iraq?
Is $30 Billion essential? Maybe. Is it essential that our banks give it to Iraq on our terms? No.
Would they get better terms from someone else?
And you have zero idea how necessary any of it is either way. ZERO.
--
Harald:
It's not 'bullshit' to say that the US is getting value off the oil as if it was Texan, it's a fact. The 'loan' is secured against oil, and it is priced in dollars (unlike the euros that used to squirt out of Iraq). The oil that comes out belongs to the US economy until the loan is paid back. It squirts straight in. Please address this economic arguement without a one-word answer. You might want to actually think about it first this time.
Nowhere in anything quoted here does it say that the US will have dibs on Iraqi oil until the loan is paid off. Nowhere.
The loan will be "backed by" Iraqi oil reserves, that is completely different.
There very well might be a necessity for cash influx to further the rebuilding effort, you can't sit around waiting for political perfection in Iraq before you start rebuilding the economy unless you want it to be a welfare nation indefinitely. I don't know if this is the best idea but I know the level of FUD and hysteria you freaks are pumping here is ridiculous.
Much of the rest is classic colonial crap too; only KBR can handle the oil infrastructure huh ... Iraq can't because they never had an oil fire in Iraq before. They only happen in the states so an American company has to take care of it.
What Iraqi company could have done it? You do know that Iraq's oil infrastructure was managed and controlled by the guy we were going in to kill, right?
"Hey Saddam, while you're trying to sabotage the oil fields could you put out the fires you're trying to start? Thanks!"
Oh, and I know that the loan will be used to pay US companies because, well, your government said so. So did you (KBR are the best at it, they can handle it, blah blah blah). Oh and I also know because some of the contracts have been divvied up already, it's US policy that aid money has to be spent with US companies.
We are using our money to pay companies to rebuild things in Iraq. We happen to be the preeminent nation in these types of building efforts and home to the industry-leading corporations who do this work.
If you don't have any actual knowledge to dispute that KBR and Halliburton are the world leaders in this field and not just Cheney-puppets then just shut up about it.
Tell me, Harald, what would have been a better route?
I'm remembering when I kept trying to tell you a retired general called Jay Garner was going to run Iraq and you told me I had no evidence. He was in Kuwait at the time.
Where is Jay Garner now?
Pretty pathetic that you vaguely reference something months-old to hide your lack of argument here.
Originally posted by groverat
Who is "them"? Who do you give this loan to and what will they do with it?
groverat, the same questions could be asked of the $30 Billion (thousand million.) It's an irrelevant post. Who is getting the loan now? What are they going to do with it? Answer those questions and it might shed light on what you're asking, but is still irrelevant to this thread.
Originally posted by groverat
Oil will be sold to us below market cost to pay off this debt?
The debt will take years to pay off?
Are you ignoring the amount of debt forgiveness the US is calling for in Iraq?
US calls for debt forgiveness of old debt. US assumes control of new debt. That's good economics for the US.
And for those of you who claimed there was no money to be made by going to war in Iraq, groverat is proving you wrong.
Originally posted by groverat
Would they get better terms from someone else?
And you have zero idea how necessary any of it is either way. ZERO.
I haven't made any claims on necessity of the money. It probably is to some extent. What does that have to do with the thread? Nothing? Oh, thanks.
Money is to be made from this war. Anyone who said that couldn't be a motive for war was wrong.
That's plain and simple. You can try to prove otherwise, but I imagine you can't.
Originally posted by groverat
stuff
Yeh, nowhere does it say that the US has dibs on the oil. Not even in my mail, nor did I suggest it. May I ask, if not oil, which exports you think will be used to pay the loan back in dollars? Camel shit? Sand?
Next.
So you're suggesting that Saddam single-handedly ran Iraqi oil?
No? That would be a stupid interpretation of your sarcastic post?
Well, presumably, the same guys who looked after the oil when Saddam was in charge could do it after (minus the Russian and French guys).
Next: I don't give a monkeys how good the US is at rebuilding things the US bombed to pieces: to suggest that Iraq is somehow incapable of doing it itself is classic imperial bullshit. If that money went to Iraqi construction companies, who could then hire Halliburton themselves for all I care, the dividend it would have for the local economy would be enormous. The plain fact is that you don't understand economics, even though it's gratifying you've stopped pretending that there's there's not much evidence as you did above.
Where's Jay Garner? Uh, at home probably. Pretty sad you have to use a blindingly obvious fact unrelated to the force of my argument to hide your total lack of blah blah blah don't know why I bother with you.
Originally posted by alcimedes
problem is, (from what i've heard) is that everyone in any position of power in Iraq before was there because they were corrupt toadies of Saddam's. so you can't really offer contracts to the entrenched business when said business are extensions of what you're working to get rid of.
So what you are saying is...
We are replacing Iraqi crooks with American crooks?
Fellowship
We are replacing Iraqi crooks with American crooks?
yes, that's it exactly.
we're sending the Soprano's over to Iraq. screw waste disposal.
Originally posted by alcimedes
problem is, (from what i've heard) is that everyone in any position of power in Iraq before was there because they were corrupt toadies of Saddam's. so you can't really offer contracts to the entrenched business when said business are extensions of what you're working to get rid of.
Of course that hasn't stopped us from taking the ex-military personnel and making them police...
alclimedes, it sounds to me like you're at least admitting 'we' are going to make a healthy profit from post war reconstruction, are 'we' not? And that this undermines the pre-war argument that we couldn't go to war for directed profit, correct?
There is an Iraqi government in place right now that's sending a delegation to the U.N. What are they considered 'good enough' for governing and what are they not good enough to govern?
as for profits. if it is costing $1 billion a week to run things in Iraq right now, and you're looking at reconstruction dollars of $30 billion (of which only a small percentage will actually be profit) then we look to "make" $3-5 billion. that will be overshadowed by costs of staying there in two months.
i think the problem is that it depends on how you look at it. it is a negative sum total, but there are groups that will make money out of this whole deal.
Originally posted by alcimedes
as for profits. if it is costing $1 billion a week to run things in Iraq right now, and you're looking at reconstruction dollars of $30 billion (of which only a small percentage will actually be profit) then we look to "make" $3-5 billion. that will be overshadowed by costs of staying there in two months.
i think the problem is that it depends on how you look at it. it is a negative sum total, but there are groups that will make money out of this whole deal.
So what you are saying is...
We are replacing Iraqi crooks with American crooks at tax payer expense and those who loose their life in this?
Fellowship
right again! you're batting 1.000 today!
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
We are replacing Iraqi crooks with American crooks at tax payer expense and those who loose their life in this?
That is unfortunately my take on the issue. Everyone in the country pays for the war, a very few make literally billions of dollars.
As for the $3-5 Billion figure, that doesn't include interest on a $30 Billion loan, does it?