I agree with the GWB administration here, the $20G for rebuilding Iraq reconstruction should be grants or gifts. If Congress wants to make a statement, it can easily done in a multitude of ways.
If we want to do this right however, it'll probably take a trillion dollars for Iraq and Afghanistan over the next ten years to turn them into functioning countries.
If we want to do this right however, it'll probably take a trillion dollars for Iraq and Afghanistan over the next ten years to turn them into functioning countries.
If we want to do this right however, it'll probably take a trillion dollars for Iraq and Afghanistan over the next ten years to turn them into functioning countries.
Germany has spent around $150bn rebuilding the eastern part, the former GDR over the last 10 years. This was a functional state not devastated by a war which had 17mio inhabitants. Extrapolating, I'd say a trillion is a bit high, but 90bn is surely not enough. Maybe some 300-500bn, nevertheless quite a lot...
As we noted last year, Murray has described Osama bin Laden as a philanthropist: "He's been out in these countries for decades, building schools, building roads, building infrastructure, building day care facilities, building health care facilities, and the people are extremely grateful. We haven't done that."
Not that Murray necessarily wants us to do that. On Sept. 27 she delivered the Democratic response to President Bush's weekly radio address, and she sounded like a right-wing crank railing against foreign aid: "While ._._. families struggle to make ends meet, they are watching billions of their tax dollars go to rebuild Iraq. ._._. Democrats have proposed policies that will get us back on track. ._._. Investments will be made in America first, not last."
Im with the bush administration on this one. You really can´t dump enough money into Iraq at this moment. When you decided to 1) devastate the economy for ten years and 2) go and kick out the old administration out you took responsibility for the welfare of the iraqis as were they your own citizents.
Each time I hear one of the democratic candidates say something in the lines of "How can Bush use X amount dollars on issue Y in Iraq when he cut on the same issues at home" I loose more faith in the democratic party. And unfortunetly its Dean and Kucinich that are doing it the most
Well, your version of the events isn't exactly fair. Bush dug his own grave and should pay for it. We as Americans should pay out the wazoo to make sure Iraq is OK, but Bush shouldn't be allowed to paint a pretty picture about it. Put a democrat in power and let them pay for Iraq while correctly attributing the necessary cuts in service (or hike in taxes) to the unnecessary war fought by the republicans.
Well no she's wrong. Plus she can't have it both ways. She can't badmouth the US saying OBL pays for daycare centers (which is of course stupid) while the US does THEN when the US is ready to pay for something beat the home front isolationist bullshit. It also shows she has no position other than opposition. So vote her out.
Well no she's wrong. Plus she can't have it both ways. She can't badmouth the US saying OBL pays for daycare centers (which is of course stupid) while the US does THEN when the US is ready to pay for something beat the home front isolationist bullshit. It also shows she has no position other than opposition. So vote her out.
It's not wrong to say that OBL did things to make himself popular to the general public. It's true.
It's not wrong to criticise the administration's method of counter-acting OBL's good will gestures.
Germany has spent around $150bn rebuilding the eastern part, the former GDR over the last 10 years. This was a functional state not devastated by a war which had 17mio inhabitants. Extrapolating, I'd say a trillion is a bit high, but 90bn is surely not enough. Maybe some 300-500bn, nevertheless quite a lot...
I'm not even sure a trillion would do it. The burn rate for US troops is $50G a year for the currently undermanned troops. If we did this right, troop numbers really need to double to +300k, which doubles the burn rate to $100G a year for military activities. For reconstruction, virtually every single thing has to be rebuilt, and it better not be some crony capitalist American company that does the building. Iraqis have to their own skill base, experience with business, etc, and reconstruction activities would be a good place to develop an ecosystem for business.
Afghanistan would be just like Iraq, except the costs maybe a bit less. The burn rate will decrease as time goes on, but in the beginning, it'll get very costly very very quickly. $1T for both Iraq and Afghanistan over the next 10 years may not be enough.
I'm also beginning to buy into the thought that Western and Eastern style cultures, especially those in colder climates, are more apt to become "modern" countries than equatorially bound Islam dominated countries. For example, North Korea would be easier and cheaper to "modernize" than Iraq. The climate of equatorially bound countries plus being dominated with Islamic culture may make impossible. Being mostly desert doesn't provide a good agricultural base while Islam isn't exactly the most forward thinking thing in the world...
Don't forget that Iraq has an abundant and sought after natural resource. It was hoped that this would be tapped rather quickly to restart the economy and get the government some funds. Maybe it didn't happen as fast as we would have liked but it's still a viable plan that will work over time.
Don't forget that Iraq has an abundant and sought after natural resource. It was hoped that this would be tapped rather quickly to restart the economy and get the government some funds. Maybe it didn't happen as fast as we would have liked but it's still a viable plan that will work over time.
Bah. That plan is idiotic. I hope Iraq doesn't export 1 quart of oil. Oil has only been a curse for 3rd world countries all over the world.
Yea that may be true but every country has to tap it's natural resources. The port in the south will be handed back to Iraqis within the month I believe. Progress is slow. Tourism is up in the north. Kurds reconnecting with their pals in the south. Step by step things are getting better, QUAGMIRE QUAGMIRE QUAGMIRE SHUT UP QUAGMIRE!
Don't forget that Iraq has an abundant and sought after natural resource. It was hoped that this would be tapped rather quickly to restart the economy and get the government some funds. Maybe it didn't happen as fast as we would have liked but it's still a viable plan that will work over time.
Actually, I am pretty sure this will prove to be a pipe dream. Iraqs oil wells are in very bad repair, same goes for the infrastructure, refineries and pipelines. You cannot just open the tap and the stuff is shooting out of the wells. You need to invest heavily before you can harvest here, and it will take time (and of course, ramping up production will send the price downward, diminishing returns).
Furthermore, the US is faced with a critical decision: contract local companies or lean on american ones for the work that has to be done. Shelling out the money for iraqi companies is going to start some protests at home, otoh it is the only way to get a self sustaining economy going in Iraq.
Unfortunately, there is not a single example of a country that grew rich and developed a stable political and economical system based on natural resources. Unless the US is really good at handling affairs in Iraq, the oil might well be more of a curse than a boon (oil production brings in lots of cheap money without requiring to build a industrial and technically intelligent society - if you look at the tiger economies, you'll see they all lack natural resources).
Come hell or high water (speaking of high water the marsh arabs have their marsh back, oh wait no sorry QUAGMIRE QUAGMIRE!) Iraq will get the oil running again. I'm not sure what "protests" you're talking about though.
Come hell or high water (speaking of high water the marsh arabs have their marsh back, oh wait no sorry QUAGMIRE QUAGMIRE!) Iraq will get the oil running again. I'm not sure what "protests" you're talking about though.
He means that exporting oil doesn't help the Iraqi people, in the same way the oil doesn't really help Nigeria, Venezuela, and all those countries in the Arabian peninsula. Tiger economies as seen in the East Asian countries, Ireland, et al are all technology and manufacturing driven. It effects a large portion of the labor force and requires a certain amount of education amongst the populace to support. In reconstruction, the trick will be creating economic conditions that require the public to be more and more educated.
Oil exports do none of that. If Iraq has a good internal oil industry, it probably is helpful. But if all Iraq does is export oil, in specific, sells it supercheap to the US as part of repayment to reconstruction costs, it does nothing to help the Iraqi public at large and only enriches a select few.
I'm not sure what "protests" you're talking about though.
Just imagine media reports about billions and billions of $$ going to iraqi companies instead of being spent in the US. Lobby groups and news commentators will go into a feeding frenzy (note that I am not advocating shelling out the big bucks to iraqi firms based on ideology, but strictly because you cannot rebuild a country without leaving money there).
Well we can imagine any future nightmare situation we want. They're all meaningless.
Imagine what would happen if oil exports funded the new government of Iraq to rebuild, employ people, offer business loans, fund democracy and start an arab muslim renaissance.
Imagine what would happen if oil exports funded the new government of Iraq to rebuild, employ people, offer business loans, fund democracy and start an arab muslim renaissance.
If that happened, I would be having a nice meal of crow. I'd actually wish, I was wrong here.
Your turn: if in 12 month, the situation has not been bettered much, billions of $$ are still pouring out of your country and into Iraq, oil prices have become cheaper but the lions share of iraqi oil dollars are going into the coffers of western oil companies and a semi-corrupt iraqi elite, what are you going to say?
- keep spending until a generation has grown up that has never experienced dictatorship and will hopefully turn to democracy?
- pull out, them arabs are never going to be civilized enough to apprehend the US's intentions and it's a waste of money?
Comments
If we want to do this right however, it'll probably take a trillion dollars for Iraq and Afghanistan over the next ten years to turn them into functioning countries.
Originally posted by THT
If we want to do this right however, it'll probably take a trillion dollars for Iraq and Afghanistan over the next ten years to turn them into functioning countries.
We should do it right.
Originally posted by THT
If we want to do this right however, it'll probably take a trillion dollars for Iraq and Afghanistan over the next ten years to turn them into functioning countries.
Germany has spent around $150bn rebuilding the eastern part, the former GDR over the last 10 years. This was a functional state not devastated by a war which had 17mio inhabitants. Extrapolating, I'd say a trillion is a bit high, but 90bn is surely not enough. Maybe some 300-500bn, nevertheless quite a lot...
As we noted last year, Murray has described Osama bin Laden as a philanthropist: "He's been out in these countries for decades, building schools, building roads, building infrastructure, building day care facilities, building health care facilities, and the people are extremely grateful. We haven't done that."
Not that Murray necessarily wants us to do that. On Sept. 27 she delivered the Democratic response to President Bush's weekly radio address, and she sounded like a right-wing crank railing against foreign aid: "While ._._. families struggle to make ends meet, they are watching billions of their tax dollars go to rebuild Iraq. ._._. Democrats have proposed policies that will get us back on track. ._._. Investments will be made in America first, not last."
Let's hope she gets voted out.
Originally posted by Scott
Let's hope she gets voted out.
But she's correct.
Each time I hear one of the democratic candidates say something in the lines of "How can Bush use X amount dollars on issue Y in Iraq when he cut on the same issues at home" I loose more faith in the democratic party. And unfortunetly its Dean and Kucinich that are doing it the most
Originally posted by Anders
Im with the bush administration on this one.
Well, your version of the events isn't exactly fair. Bush dug his own grave and should pay for it. We as Americans should pay out the wazoo to make sure Iraq is OK, but Bush shouldn't be allowed to paint a pretty picture about it. Put a democrat in power and let them pay for Iraq while correctly attributing the necessary cuts in service (or hike in taxes) to the unnecessary war fought by the republicans.
Originally posted by bunge
But she's correct.
Well no she's wrong. Plus she can't have it both ways. She can't badmouth the US saying OBL pays for daycare centers (which is of course stupid) while the US does THEN when the US is ready to pay for something beat the home front isolationist bullshit. It also shows she has no position other than opposition. So vote her out.
Originally posted by Scott
Well no she's wrong. Plus she can't have it both ways. She can't badmouth the US saying OBL pays for daycare centers (which is of course stupid) while the US does THEN when the US is ready to pay for something beat the home front isolationist bullshit. It also shows she has no position other than opposition. So vote her out.
It's not wrong to say that OBL did things to make himself popular to the general public. It's true.
It's not wrong to criticise the administration's method of counter-acting OBL's good will gestures.
Originally posted by Smircle
Germany has spent around $150bn rebuilding the eastern part, the former GDR over the last 10 years. This was a functional state not devastated by a war which had 17mio inhabitants. Extrapolating, I'd say a trillion is a bit high, but 90bn is surely not enough. Maybe some 300-500bn, nevertheless quite a lot...
I'm not even sure a trillion would do it. The burn rate for US troops is $50G a year for the currently undermanned troops. If we did this right, troop numbers really need to double to +300k, which doubles the burn rate to $100G a year for military activities. For reconstruction, virtually every single thing has to be rebuilt, and it better not be some crony capitalist American company that does the building. Iraqis have to their own skill base, experience with business, etc, and reconstruction activities would be a good place to develop an ecosystem for business.
Afghanistan would be just like Iraq, except the costs maybe a bit less. The burn rate will decrease as time goes on, but in the beginning, it'll get very costly very very quickly. $1T for both Iraq and Afghanistan over the next 10 years may not be enough.
I'm also beginning to buy into the thought that Western and Eastern style cultures, especially those in colder climates, are more apt to become "modern" countries than equatorially bound Islam dominated countries. For example, North Korea would be easier and cheaper to "modernize" than Iraq. The climate of equatorially bound countries plus being dominated with Islamic culture may make impossible. Being mostly desert doesn't provide a good agricultural base while Islam isn't exactly the most forward thinking thing in the world...
Originally posted by Scott
Don't forget that Iraq has an abundant and sought after natural resource. It was hoped that this would be tapped rather quickly to restart the economy and get the government some funds. Maybe it didn't happen as fast as we would have liked but it's still a viable plan that will work over time.
Bah. That plan is idiotic. I hope Iraq doesn't export 1 quart of oil. Oil has only been a curse for 3rd world countries all over the world.
Originally posted by Scott
Don't forget that Iraq has an abundant and sought after natural resource. It was hoped that this would be tapped rather quickly to restart the economy and get the government some funds. Maybe it didn't happen as fast as we would have liked but it's still a viable plan that will work over time.
Actually, I am pretty sure this will prove to be a pipe dream. Iraqs oil wells are in very bad repair, same goes for the infrastructure, refineries and pipelines. You cannot just open the tap and the stuff is shooting out of the wells. You need to invest heavily before you can harvest here, and it will take time (and of course, ramping up production will send the price downward, diminishing returns).
Furthermore, the US is faced with a critical decision: contract local companies or lean on american ones for the work that has to be done. Shelling out the money for iraqi companies is going to start some protests at home, otoh it is the only way to get a self sustaining economy going in Iraq.
Unfortunately, there is not a single example of a country that grew rich and developed a stable political and economical system based on natural resources. Unless the US is really good at handling affairs in Iraq, the oil might well be more of a curse than a boon (oil production brings in lots of cheap money without requiring to build a industrial and technically intelligent society - if you look at the tiger economies, you'll see they all lack natural resources).
Originally posted by Scott
Come hell or high water (speaking of high water the marsh arabs have their marsh back, oh wait no sorry QUAGMIRE QUAGMIRE!) Iraq will get the oil running again. I'm not sure what "protests" you're talking about though.
He means that exporting oil doesn't help the Iraqi people, in the same way the oil doesn't really help Nigeria, Venezuela, and all those countries in the Arabian peninsula. Tiger economies as seen in the East Asian countries, Ireland, et al are all technology and manufacturing driven. It effects a large portion of the labor force and requires a certain amount of education amongst the populace to support. In reconstruction, the trick will be creating economic conditions that require the public to be more and more educated.
Oil exports do none of that. If Iraq has a good internal oil industry, it probably is helpful. But if all Iraq does is export oil, in specific, sells it supercheap to the US as part of repayment to reconstruction costs, it does nothing to help the Iraqi public at large and only enriches a select few.
Originally posted by Scott
I'm not sure what "protests" you're talking about though.
Just imagine media reports about billions and billions of $$ going to iraqi companies instead of being spent in the US. Lobby groups and news commentators will go into a feeding frenzy (note that I am not advocating shelling out the big bucks to iraqi firms based on ideology, but strictly because you cannot rebuild a country without leaving money there).
Imagine what would happen if oil exports funded the new government of Iraq to rebuild, employ people, offer business loans, fund democracy and start an arab muslim renaissance.
Originally posted by Scott
Imagine what would happen if oil exports funded the new government of Iraq to rebuild, employ people, offer business loans, fund democracy and start an arab muslim renaissance.
If that happened, I would be having a nice meal of crow. I'd actually wish, I was wrong here.
Your turn: if in 12 month, the situation has not been bettered much, billions of $$ are still pouring out of your country and into Iraq, oil prices have become cheaper but the lions share of iraqi oil dollars are going into the coffers of western oil companies and a semi-corrupt iraqi elite, what are you going to say?
- keep spending until a generation has grown up that has never experienced dictatorship and will hopefully turn to democracy?
- pull out, them arabs are never going to be civilized enough to apprehend the US's intentions and it's a waste of money?