Well, this is bipartisan, so this thread won't devolve into a flamewar about Iraq. Good.

There's an oil fairy and he'll put some magic oil barrels under our pillow to make up for the $5000+ each American now owes on this war.

No, they couldn't. We've already promised the oil to the oil companies with terms that the Iraqi's will never fairly benefit from.

Why would they do that when we're paying all their bills? Iraq won't return to their major oil operations until after we're mostly gone. And that's only if they can keep them secure.

Also, we can kiss all the money we spent in the Middle East goodbye. We're never going to see it again. We're never going to get re-paid. Why would they pay us back? And what are we going to do if they don't?

No doubt that the war could be paid for with oil. Doesn't mean that money will somehow go to the tax payers that originally footed the bill.

Nightenstaff: Why would they do that when we're paying all their bills? Iraq won't return to their major oil operations until after we're mostly gone. And that's only if they can keep them secure.

Also, we can kiss all the money we spent in the Middle East goodbye. We're never going to see it again. We're never going to get re-paid. Why would they pay us back? And what are we going to do if they don't?

This is America, where the computers in military bases are leased to the government from a company, and include a special corporate technician/help person on base. At taxpayer expense.

That's some very solid sense of responsibility right there.

We blew th' damn countru up! Shouldn't we pay to fix it?

/B-b-b-but... WMDs
//B-b-b-but... al-queda
///B-b-b-but... National Security

Mohawk742 2008-03-09 11:23:06 AM
WeBushco and the neocons blew th' damn countru[sic] up! Shouldn't weThe Carlisle Group and PNAC pay to fix it?

FTFY

/obscure?

We blew up their infrastructure and should be the ones to pay for it. We know now Saddam had no WMDs and our government knew they didn't. Saddam also told Bush he would leave the country he just wanted to take money and his sons with him. But our government said no farking way we're going in there and blowing the shiat up out of everything.

It's like if someone came into your house and broke all the furniture in your living room and then looked at you and said "you can afford to fix this yourself I'm not paying for it." Then took your credit card to the most expensive stores in town to buy you more shiat.

We broke it we bought it.

Wait, Iraq pays for a war that the US and UK started?

What?

Did not read the article but why should they pay for us invading them?
Also, why should Americans great-grand-children pay for this because we will just spend any money we get from Iraq?

hej: No doubt that the war could be paid for with oil. Doesn't mean that money will somehow go to the tax payers that originally footed the bill.

No it will go to the company who won the reconstruction contracts. They'll just get richer because Iraq will pay them even more than we did. Our government has a teensy bit of over sight. Those companies can rape the Iraqis for billions.

Glasgowsfinest: Wait, Iraq pays for a war that the US and UK started?

What?

Come to America where nothing is every your responsibility!

Mohawk742: We blew th' damn countru up! Shouldn't we pay to fix it?

/B-b-b-but... WMDs
//B-b-b-but... al-queda
///B-b-b-but... National Security

The United States of America all ready did pay to fix it, but Halliburton and other multi-national companies stole the money. The American tax payer is just now beginning to realize that the looting from the Gulf War II was not done to Iraq, but to America. That our government allowed foreign national companies to loot the American treasury in the name of "rebuilding".

The next president should call for a full audit of all US Armed Forces contracts and where ever there is discrepancies call those foreign national companies like Halliburton to account for it. The US should also refuse to do business for key critical military services with any non-American company like Halliburton.

Lord Bauli
WeBushco and the neocons blew th' damn countru[sic] up! Shouldn't weThe Carlisle Group and PNAC pay to fix it?

FTFY

Well, I'll accept your correction of my typo (my hand's in a splint), but th' rest of your FIFY is nonsense. You can't opt out of responsibility for this. This country's electorate (that would be "we" in my first statement) put those dorks in office... TWICE! Anybody who could hear or read (yeah, I know - almost nobody does either during an election campaign) knew before he was elected the FIRST time that we were going to war with Iraq if he got in office. He did... and we did. And even if you voted against him both times, as I did, you and I didn't get enough like-minded folks to the polls in Ohio to make Florida irrelevant... either election.

Oil will buy new husbands, fathers, wheelchairs, long term care.

/There is an upside to going to war for oil

Gwendolyn: hej: No doubt that the war could be paid for with oil. Doesn't mean that money will somehow go to the tax payers that originally footed the bill.

No it will go to the company who won the reconstruction contracts. They'll just get richer because Iraq will pay them even more than we did. Our government has a teensy bit of over sight. Those companies can rape the Iraqis for billions.

...pretty good scam - have the taxpayers and their descendents foot the bill to establish your corporate operations in a foreign country so that you can use the company to rape the natives.

It sounds kind of familiar, actually.

The Iraq reconsturction thing that the article is talking about, isn't that the one done by non-Iraqi companies for the profit of non-Iraqis with work hired from everywhere bit Iraq and with the Iraqi government having absolutely no control or oversight over it?

You know if you make Iraq pay for it they might probably want to have some say in it and one of the first things they would say is goodbye Kuwaitees, goodbye Americans, goodbye Dubaians, don't let the door hit you on the way out and be sure to take your Asian slave labor with you. I don't think any US politicians really want to deprive the people currently making a killing in Iraq of their well earned profits.

I am sure there are valid reasons why most of the money that gets spend on the Iraq reconstruction ends up in the economies of other countries and why the work can't be done by locals, I just don't think that the locals will see it the same way.

So there is a chance that it is possible that we could get the Iraqi people to pay for a continuing occupation they don't want by taking their oil? Hearts and minds here we come!

All the freedom your oil can buy.

milk_plus: So there is a chance that it is possible that we could get the Iraqi people to pay for a continuing occupation they don't want by taking their oil? Hearts and minds here we come!

I think the hearts and mind where lost when we started dropping depleted uranium on their heads.

Popcorn, please.

Now to read TFA and TFT.

We're at war with oil?

It's amazing how the conversation can change over the course of a few years. Back in 2003, anyone who suggested oil was a factor in our decision to invade Iraq was branded a traitor, Saddam-lover, anti-American or unpatriotic. Now Iraq's oil is trotted out in a desperate attempt to convince us the invasion was a good idea.

Hundreds of billions of dollars spent, thousands of Americans dead, many more injured. And for what?

Reconstruction != War.

They might be able to pay for the reconstruction, if they can find where all the money is going, because it isn't in Iraq or Iraqi banks.

They money spent so far is gone. It has paid for what is currently in Iraq.

If you believe that we have made Iraq a better place, now less likely to harbor terrorists or extremists, and less likely to encourage young men to join such groups worldwide, than it might have had a least some measurable value.

If you hold stock in military suppliers, are employed by them, or in some consultant corps, you might be getting some return, but if we spend about 1 trillion, you had better see an additional 3,000 per person in your family to break even, since there are about 300 million people in the United States.

If you're more sensitive to the deaths, etc, than you might need to see a bit more cash.

The article is crap and subby is an idiot for writing that headline. The article only address the amount of gross oil revenue Iraq can potentially get this year. It says nothing about how much the net figure is, and with rapidly escalating field development costs getting it out of the ground isn't cheap. In addition, I find it very hard to believe that Iraq will chose to allocate all the oil earnings to pay for the war. Even if you assume that they get the crude out of the ground for free and use all of it to finance the war effort it still doesn't cover the aggregate outlays in a year. So how's that paying for the war?!?

Didn't Germany pay up after they were done playing hide the Führer the last time?

/a very week godwin

DeRosso: /a very week godwin
Fark!

WEAK

If any of the oil money goes into a reconstruction fund it will be looted like all of the other money there. The fairly corrupt country has more crooks than ever since the war and adding money is just chumming the sharks.

Why should Iraq pay for their own reconstruction or security if we are willing to do it for them? If McCain wins the election, he wants to keep us there for the foreseeable future, and we will continue to pay.

I understand the we broke it we bought it sentiments, and agree to an extent. But using Iraqi oil profits to pay for the war was part of the plan early on, really the one part that I can recall made any sense. (I may be wrong about that, the plan changes every time a new farkup happens)

jcooli09: Why should Iraq pay for their own reconstruction or security if we are willing to do it for them? If McCain wins the election, he wants to keep us there for the foreseeable future, and we will continue to pay.

Who's this "we" who's paying for anything in Iraq?

pup.socket:
Who's this "we" who's paying for anything in Iraq?

The American taxpayer.

Didn't we try this already with the Iraq Development Fund? You know, the one which went missing under Bremer?

jcooli09: pup.socket:
Who's this "we" who's paying for anything in Iraq?

The American taxpayer.

And what are you paying for _exactly_?

pup.socket: Who's this "we" who's paying for anything in Iraq?

If you're an American taxpayer, "we" is you.

This country's electorate (that would be "we" in my first statement) put those dorks in office... TWICE!

A fraction of "us" did, ITYM. A fraction that may not even have been a "simple majority," although they were obviously simple.

jcooli09: But using Iraqi oil profits to pay for the war

Isn't that piracy? Or at least theft? You invade someone on false pretences and then use their natural resources to pay for it?

pup.socket: jcooli09: pup.socket:
Who's this "we" who's paying for anything in Iraq?

The American taxpayer.

And what are you paying for _exactly_?

I don't understand what you're getting at. We're paying to transport and support troops in Iraq, the equipment they use to defend themselves, supplies and material to do whatever construction we do, costs associated with contractors, etc.

pup.socket: And what are you paying for _exactly_?

That's what I've been asking war supporters for years. Other than a few pictures of Iraqis holding up a purple stained finger, I don't see what we've gotten out of this invasion for our hundreds of billions of dollars.

jcooli09:
I don't understand what you're getting at.

Well, since you said Why should Iraq pay for their own reconstruction or security if we are willing to do it for them? , I was curious which part of their reconstruction were you referring to.

Glasgowsfinest: jcooli09: But using Iraqi oil profits to pay for the war

Isn't that piracy? Or at least theft? You invade someone on false pretences and then use their natural resources to pay for it?

No question about it, I totally agree. There is nothing about the war that I support now or supported then.

The plan has changed so many times that I may have it wrong, but as I recall here it was:

1:Unseat Saddam.
2:Find and destroy the WMD stashed throughout the country.
3:Install western style democracy to the cheers of all iraqis everywhere.
4:Use oil profits to fund reconstruction of Iraq's infrastructure.

I suppose that #4 depended heavily on #3, and we kind of broke down after #1.

pup.socket: Well, since you said Why should Iraq pay for their own reconstruction or security if we are willing to do it for them? , I was curious which part of their reconstruction were you referring to.

I see.

I'm referring to whatever part of the reconstruction that US policy makers will pay for, and by extension, the US taxpayers.

Why should they, in this case, refers to the fact that there is no incentive for them to pay if we will.

Turns out we were greeted as liberators

Turns out Saddam had WMD and was a threat to the world

Turns out the Iraqi people are better off now than they were under Saddam

Turns out we've turned a corner in Iraq

Turns out the Mission is Accomplished

Turns out Abu Ghraib was just a few bad apples

Turns out it was a cakewalk


Shove it, subby.

bheilig: Turns out we were greeted as liberators

Turns out Saddam had WMD and was a threat to the world

Turns out the Iraqi people are better off now than they were under Saddam

Turns out we've turned a corner in Iraq

Turns out the Mission is Accomplished

Turns out Abu Ghraib was just a few bad apples

Turns out it was a cakewalk


Shove it, subby.

Whoa, somebody that can afford opiates. At noon. On a Sunday.

jcooli09: I'm referring to whatever part of the reconstruction that US policy makers will pay for, and by extension, the US taxpayers.

Why should they, in this case, refers to the fact that there is no incentive for them to pay if we will.

Well, considering the amount US has paid so far for Iraqi reconstruction, I don't think the incentives not to pay have been great.

pup.socket:
Well, considering the amount US has paid so far for Iraqi reconstruction, I don't think the incentives not to pay have been great.

OK, I'm not really up on that. Have the Iraqi's paid for whatever reconstruction has been done? Or are you saying that none has yet been done?