just seems like an insane risk to start a war with a nation, piss off the world, and extraordinary legal risks all for a few billion dollars that would easily be awarded via your regular pork channels in the govt.
Maybe so, but that doesn't make it out of the realm of feasibility, does it? Maybe Dubya and his cronies didn't count on such a big stink being made over this? I dunno, but if fellowship is upset at the conservatives, they screwed up badly...
Personally, I think that we decided we should start this war and the US should not be profiting from it. At all. It just reaks of conflict of interest.
sure, but you really think that they're willing to spend 200+ billion dollars to make maybe 3-5 billion back? (assuming 10% - 15% profit margins)
One, I'm not saying this was the motivation for the war. I'm just undermining those arguments that claimed that a war for profit was basically an impossibility.
Second, I'm not sure your 3-5 Billion would be correct. I don't know how to calculate it, but a number of factors come into play.
First, under normal circumstances, the $30 Billion goes back to U.S. companies. So, in that sense, perhaps 3-5 Billion is correct. Of course, salaries and other expenses from that remaining 25-27 Billion also go back to other U.S. companies and employees, so a portion of that gets dumped into the U.S. economy as well.
Second, the interest on $30 Billion would be astronomical. Trumptman, if you're around, what would a $30 Billion mortgage be worth to a bank if paid back over 10, 15 or 30 years? Even at current super low interest rates?
In reality we don't know how the loans would be structured, but those figures might give us a clue. It's going to be a lot more than 3-5 Billion though.
And we should not have been helping him up until bush senior's (not junior's) gulf war.
We only supported him briefly, the majority of the support that Saddam and his B'aath predecessors received was from the Soviets. The B'aath party was originally a Marxist party, at that time the US loathed to have much to do with anyone having any sorta Marxism in 'em. We only gave up the money to Saddam to keep the crazy Iranians in check.
We only supported him briefly, the majority of the support that Saddam and his B'aath predecessors received was from the Soviets. The B'aath party was originally a Marxist party, at that time the US loathed to have much to do with anyone having any sorta Marxism in 'em. We only gave up the money to Saddam to keep the crazy Iranians in check.
You mean we supported Saddam so that he would fight a war against Iran that we didn't want to directly get involved in and then when the Iran-Iraq conflict ended we thanked Iraq for fighting the war we didn't want to get directly involved in by essentially kicking them out of our car and ditching them in the middle of nowhere? That's what I thought. More STUPID foreign policy. UGH.
I didn't say it was a bright thing to do, hell, our government has been in practice of that same method for some time now, Iraq wasn't the first, can anyone say "Bay of Pigs".
I was just making the point that we were not the major supporter of Iraq's Baath party for the majority of it's life, nor the majority of Saddams stay in power, we just wanted him to do a little of our dirty work.
Yes, but I doubt that the US is the only nation to be guilty of such stupidity. Hell, every nation has made major political blunder. "Treaty of Vesaille" anyone, I think the Brits were heavily involved in that mess, or how about the mess that colonial Europe left in the Mid East and Africa, we're still flabbergasted on how to cope with that.
We only supported him briefly... We only gave up the money to Saddam to keep the crazy Iranians in check.
Actually we supported both sides in that war. Remember Iran-Contra? That was where we (indirectly) sold the Iranians weapons and used the proceeds from the sales to fund the Nicaraguan Contras.
Besides that, the interest on bank loans undermines the pre-war argument that no money is to be made by going to war with Iraq.
Interest free loans? You guys tell me how far you get with that. The belief that nobody should be profiting in post-war Iraq is crazy. Companies making profit over there is exactly what Iraq needs. If Iraq is going to have a normal economy it needs foreign investment. If some bank makes money off of this with a loan at fair market value, more capital will follow. This would be an unalloyed good thing.
Second, the interest on $30 Billion would be astronomical. Trumptman, if you're around, what would a $30 Billion mortgage be worth to a bank if paid back over 10, 15 or 30 years? Even at current super low interest rates?
A 10 year loan at 5% would mean roughly $8.18B in interest.
Am I ignoring the debt forgiveness? No. It's not related to the profits the U.S. is going to take from the new debt they create.
But it is directly related to the suffering that these US loans will supposedly cause, which is the entire case against the loans, so they are 100% on topic.
Quote:
Would they get better terms from someone else? It's their job to shop around, not ours to force the debt down their throats for our own economic interests.
Who is "their"?
Quote:
Who would the loans go to and what would they do with it? It could go to the interim government and they could start the rebuilding process.
What interim government?
Quote:
There is money to be made in everything? Not when forced by my government, or any government for that matter. You can't hide behind 'global economics' as a justification for war or theft.
Securing a loan is theft? heh
If the money is used to buy condos for Halliburton execs you'll have a point.
Quote:
I said the necessity of the loans has nothing to do with the thread.
How can that not be a part of consideration?
Quote:
If they are necessary, Iraq should decide where they come from and the terms they agree to.
Who is "Iraq"?
Quote:
Wow. You're grasping at straws groverat. Just admit that those claiming that profit couldn't be a motivation for war were wrong.
Companies making profit over there is exactly what Iraq needs. If Iraq is going to have a normal economy it needs foreign investment. If some bank makes money off of this with a loan at fair market value, more capital will follow.
This is fine. It's not against my point at all though.
Quote:
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
A 10 year loan at 5% would mean roughly $8.18B in interest.
And over 30 years I think it's almost $30 Billion in interest.
But it is directly related to the suffering that these US loans will supposedly cause, which is the entire case against the loans, so they are 100% on topic.
Um, no, no and no.
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
Who is "their"?
How many times to I have to say it? Read the thread.
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
What interim government?
Ask the U.N., they'll know who I'm talking about.
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
Securing a loan is theft? heh
If the money is used to buy condos for Halliburton execs you'll have a point.
Well, it is when you secure me a loan out of your bank when I don't ask for the loan from you.
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
How can that not be a part of consideration?
Didn't you read my reply in the post you quoted? The necessity or lack there of doesn't have any effect on my argument. Well, it's either neutral or supports my case.
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
Who is "Iraq"?
Ask the U.N., they'll know who I'm talking about.
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
You fight your own battles with other people.
That's the point of the thread. Either you discuss it, or you're trolling. You're attempting to undermine my argument, but you're undermining an argument I haven't made in this thread. You're just trolling because...I attack your points in a lot of threads as well?
I recommend we stay on the topic at hand. Feel free to start any other threads based on any conclusions we come up with in this thread.
Your point doesn't speak to the needs of Iraq. It's about some make-believe morality where "profit" is a dirty word.
You're wrong on both counts. You're just not comprehending because you don't want to believe what I've said is true, even though it is. I'm sorry you're wrong too.
You're wrong on both counts. You're just not comprehending because you don't want to believe what I've said is true, even though it is...
You're right. I'm not comprehending you. I don't want believe someone's going to profit in post-war Iraq? WHERE have I said anything that even remotely indicates this? I?m PERFECTLY OKAY with us making money in post-war Iraq. I think I?ve been pretty consistent and pretty clear about this.
You're wrong on both counts. You're just not comprehending because you don't want to believe what I've said is true, even though it is. I'm sorry you're wrong too.
It may or may not be true. You just haven't cited anything at all to show any type of "profit" at all. The original article makes no mentions of it. At face value it's a pure fabrication on your part.
Comments
Originally posted by alcimedes
just seems like an insane risk to start a war with a nation, piss off the world, and extraordinary legal risks all for a few billion dollars that would easily be awarded via your regular pork channels in the govt.
Maybe so, but that doesn't make it out of the realm of feasibility, does it? Maybe Dubya and his cronies didn't count on such a big stink being made over this? I dunno, but if fellowship is upset at the conservatives, they screwed up badly...
Personally, I think that we decided we should start this war and the US should not be profiting from it. At all. It just reaks of conflict of interest.
Originally posted by alcimedes
sure, but you really think that they're willing to spend 200+ billion dollars to make maybe 3-5 billion back? (assuming 10% - 15% profit margins)
One, I'm not saying this was the motivation for the war. I'm just undermining those arguments that claimed that a war for profit was basically an impossibility.
Second, I'm not sure your 3-5 Billion would be correct. I don't know how to calculate it, but a number of factors come into play.
First, under normal circumstances, the $30 Billion goes back to U.S. companies. So, in that sense, perhaps 3-5 Billion is correct. Of course, salaries and other expenses from that remaining 25-27 Billion also go back to other U.S. companies and employees, so a portion of that gets dumped into the U.S. economy as well.
Second, the interest on $30 Billion would be astronomical. Trumptman, if you're around, what would a $30 Billion mortgage be worth to a bank if paid back over 10, 15 or 30 years? Even at current super low interest rates?
In reality we don't know how the loans would be structured, but those figures might give us a clue. It's going to be a lot more than 3-5 Billion though.
originally posted by keyboard
And we should not have been helping him up until bush senior's (not junior's) gulf war.
We only supported him briefly, the majority of the support that Saddam and his B'aath predecessors received was from the Soviets. The B'aath party was originally a Marxist party, at that time the US loathed to have much to do with anyone having any sorta Marxism in 'em. We only gave up the money to Saddam to keep the crazy Iranians in check.
Originally posted by LiquidR
We only supported him briefly, the majority of the support that Saddam and his B'aath predecessors received was from the Soviets. The B'aath party was originally a Marxist party, at that time the US loathed to have much to do with anyone having any sorta Marxism in 'em. We only gave up the money to Saddam to keep the crazy Iranians in check.
You mean we supported Saddam so that he would fight a war against Iran that we didn't want to directly get involved in and then when the Iran-Iraq conflict ended we thanked Iraq for fighting the war we didn't want to get directly involved in by essentially kicking them out of our car and ditching them in the middle of nowhere? That's what I thought. More STUPID foreign policy. UGH.
I was just making the point that we were not the major supporter of Iraq's Baath party for the majority of it's life, nor the majority of Saddams stay in power, we just wanted him to do a little of our dirty work.
PS. Another example would be Noriega.
And a fourth would be Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan
Originally posted by groverat
A lot of different reasons.
- Remove Hussein.
- Remove the need for troops in Saudi Arabia.
- Gain influence on Iraq's economy that is bound to be growing exponentially.
- Gain an ally in a dangerous region, or at the very least remove an enemy.
Those answers come from the "administration motivations" page but there are more reasons we should be.
Then you are a nation of war criminals, as that is no basis to invade a country.
You need to find WMD (at least).
Originally posted by LiquidR
We only supported him briefly... We only gave up the money to Saddam to keep the crazy Iranians in check.
Actually we supported both sides in that war. Remember Iran-Contra? That was where we (indirectly) sold the Iranians weapons and used the proceeds from the sales to fund the Nicaraguan Contras.
Originally posted by bunge
Besides that, the interest on bank loans undermines the pre-war argument that no money is to be made by going to war with Iraq.
Interest free loans? You guys tell me how far you get with that. The belief that nobody should be profiting in post-war Iraq is crazy. Companies making profit over there is exactly what Iraq needs. If Iraq is going to have a normal economy it needs foreign investment. If some bank makes money off of this with a loan at fair market value, more capital will follow. This would be an unalloyed good thing.
Originally posted by bunge
Second, the interest on $30 Billion would be astronomical. Trumptman, if you're around, what would a $30 Billion mortgage be worth to a bank if paid back over 10, 15 or 30 years? Even at current super low interest rates?
A 10 year loan at 5% would mean roughly $8.18B in interest.
Am I ignoring the debt forgiveness? No. It's not related to the profits the U.S. is going to take from the new debt they create.
But it is directly related to the suffering that these US loans will supposedly cause, which is the entire case against the loans, so they are 100% on topic.
Would they get better terms from someone else? It's their job to shop around, not ours to force the debt down their throats for our own economic interests.
Who is "their"?
Who would the loans go to and what would they do with it? It could go to the interim government and they could start the rebuilding process.
What interim government?
There is money to be made in everything? Not when forced by my government, or any government for that matter. You can't hide behind 'global economics' as a justification for war or theft.
Securing a loan is theft? heh
If the money is used to buy condos for Halliburton execs you'll have a point.
I said the necessity of the loans has nothing to do with the thread.
How can that not be a part of consideration?
If they are necessary, Iraq should decide where they come from and the terms they agree to.
Who is "Iraq"?
Wow. You're grasping at straws groverat. Just admit that those claiming that profit couldn't be a motivation for war were wrong.
You fight your own battles with other people.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
Companies making profit over there is exactly what Iraq needs. If Iraq is going to have a normal economy it needs foreign investment. If some bank makes money off of this with a loan at fair market value, more capital will follow.
This is fine. It's not against my point at all though.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
A 10 year loan at 5% would mean roughly $8.18B in interest.
And over 30 years I think it's almost $30 Billion in interest.
Originally posted by groverat
But it is directly related to the suffering that these US loans will supposedly cause, which is the entire case against the loans, so they are 100% on topic.
Um, no, no and no.
Originally posted by groverat
Who is "their"?
How many times to I have to say it? Read the thread.
Originally posted by groverat
What interim government?
Ask the U.N., they'll know who I'm talking about.
Originally posted by groverat
Securing a loan is theft? heh
If the money is used to buy condos for Halliburton execs you'll have a point.
Well, it is when you secure me a loan out of your bank when I don't ask for the loan from you.
Originally posted by groverat
How can that not be a part of consideration?
Didn't you read my reply in the post you quoted? The necessity or lack there of doesn't have any effect on my argument. Well, it's either neutral or supports my case.
Originally posted by groverat
Who is "Iraq"?
Ask the U.N., they'll know who I'm talking about.
Originally posted by groverat
You fight your own battles with other people.
That's the point of the thread. Either you discuss it, or you're trolling. You're attempting to undermine my argument, but you're undermining an argument I haven't made in this thread. You're just trolling because...I attack your points in a lot of threads as well?
I recommend we stay on the topic at hand. Feel free to start any other threads based on any conclusions we come up with in this thread.
OMG TEH DEBIL!
Originally posted by bunge
This is fine. It's not against my point at all though.
Your point doesn't speak to the needs of Iraq. It's about some make-believe morality where "profit" is a dirty word.
And over 30 years I think it's almost $30 Billion in interest.
Roughly $27.98B to be more precise - which is why you shouldn't get a 30 year mortgage on a house.
Originally posted by groverat
And over 8000 years it would be $12,000,000,000.
Hate to be wrong, don't you?
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
Your point doesn't speak to the needs of Iraq. It's about some make-believe morality where "profit" is a dirty word.
You're wrong on both counts. You're just not comprehending because you don't want to believe what I've said is true, even though it is. I'm sorry you're wrong too.
Originally posted by bunge
You're wrong on both counts. You're just not comprehending because you don't want to believe what I've said is true, even though it is...
You're right. I'm not comprehending you. I don't want believe someone's going to profit in post-war Iraq? WHERE have I said anything that even remotely indicates this? I?m PERFECTLY OKAY with us making money in post-war Iraq. I think I?ve been pretty consistent and pretty clear about this.
Originally posted by bunge
You're wrong on both counts. You're just not comprehending because you don't want to believe what I've said is true, even though it is. I'm sorry you're wrong too.
It may or may not be true. You just haven't cited anything at all to show any type of "profit" at all. The original article makes no mentions of it. At face value it's a pure fabrication on your part.