Baghdad had a $29 billion budget surplus between 2005 to 2007. With the price of crude roughly doubling in the past year, Iraq's surplus for 2008 is expected to run between $38 billion and $50 billion, according to a report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office.
The United States has put about $48 billion toward reconstruction since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, auditors reported. About $23 billion of that was spent on the oil and electricity industries, water systems and security.
Didn't the Bush Administration say that Iraq's Oil revenues would be paying for most of the reconstruction and that it will be cheap on the American Taxpayer? Meanwhile the US is looking at a record deficit.
"Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a big fat white guy who is threatened by change."
Kappel From Suriname, joined Jul 2005, 3533 posts, RR: 18 Reply 2, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1822 times:
I saw this on the NY Times website too. Totally unbelievable. So what has happened to all that money? This is not the first year they have a surplus. Why is unemployment still ramapant in Iraq. If you put everybody to work, I'm certain security will be much less of an issue.
There always is talk about the USA losing money in Iraq. BUT the question is WHO exactly is losing money! Nobody talks about the profits achieved by US-American companies active in Iraq (oil companies, seaport-handling-companies, computer-services-companies, etc). It might be interesting to know whether a combined total does show a profit.
Seb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 10771 posts, RR: 16 Reply 6, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 1750 times:
Quoting Mdsh00 (Thread starter): About $23 billion of that was spent on the oil and electricity industries, water systems and security.
Does the average Iraqi have the stable electric and water systems they had before the invasion?
How are companies like KBR and others that got no-bid contracts doing in Iraq? How much American government money was walked away with from building a prison that has never been used? How much of Iraqs budget surplus actually came from the United States government?
And people wonder why the Untied States has such a huge deficit.
Yfbflyer From Canada, joined Sep 2006, 297 posts, RR: 1 Reply 8, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 1724 times:
Quoting Mdsh00 (Thread starter): Didn't the Bush Administration say that Iraq's Oil revenues would be paying for most of the reconstruction and that it will be cheap on the American Taxpayer?
They also said that it would only cost about 1 billion dollars. Is there anything else you government has said that isn't true?
"The US does not torture"
"We are not in a recession"
" 9/11 changed everything"
As for Iraq you boke it you bought it.
"pottery barn rule" ex Sec. of State Colin L. Powell.
Baroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 60 Reply 11, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 1654 times:
Quoting YOWza (Reply 10): I think I just blew a hemisphere... stunning statement.
Great summary of a suitable reaction Y.
Apparently about USD10 bill is propping up a bank vault in NY.
I long for the GAO being let loose in Iraq, it would be worse (or better) than the Assyrians coming down like a wolf on the fold. Forget tanker contracts folk, get with where the real money has been going.
Baroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 60 Reply 17, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1522 times:
Quoting Mir (Reply 16): What are we, an international squeegee guy?
Hopefully not, but Wolfowitz certainly seemed to fit your elegant description Mir. Let us not forget who proposed this nonsense in the first place. Nobody in the administration seemed to notice that post 1991, Iraq was having trouble repaying its debts, nor to enquire why that might be. No, it was all Saddam's fault.
PPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8767 posts, RR: 42 Reply 18, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1490 times:
Quoting Oldeuropean (Reply 12): Quoting ADXMatt (Reply 9):
Maybe they'll pay some of our bills since we are in such debt and they have a surplus?
Why? Ain't the US has attacked Iraq without a reason?
Must be the problem of the US taxpayer, because they have believed in the lies of their government. Big grin
Home Depot can't bomb my house, rebuild it with their own materials, than charge me. Iraq doesn't owe anyone anything
Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 13):
Again, if you include the profits of US-American companies in Iraq it no longer is a debt, but rather certainly a profit.
I doubt it, especially considering how expensive it is to keep troops there and maintain the operations. The money tends to come from U.S. taxpayers anyways, so it just kinda cycles. Of course it is being used to build useful things in Iraq, not the U.S., but that's something else. . .
[Edited 2008-08-10 22:23:33]
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
how much of what is built by the US armed forces in Iraq will be really useful in the future is rather doubtful. Quite a lot actually is built by private US companies in Iraq and THESE things indeed WILL be useful.
Quoting PPVRA (Reply 18): if you include the profits of US-American companies in Iraq it no longer is a debt, but rather certainly a profit.
I doubt it,
As there are no figures about the private profits done by US-companies in Iraq, as companies do the accounting not geographically but by business sectors/sections and profit-centers, nothing can be proven. You may of course be right, but I am convinced that there already now is a profit on the bottom-line. And if the USA go forward more wisely in the future than in the past 5 years, the "venture" will be a most definite profit for the USA in total.
ME AVN FAN From Switzerland, joined May 2002, 13877 posts, RR: 26 Reply 21, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1447 times:
Quoting MattRB (Reply 20): this comment was coming from some naive 14-year old..
I would not attack him in such a way. His comment is not childish but out of frustration about the whole matter and in disregard of the point that the USA right from the beginning wanted to conquer new markets and drive out Russia and France from the Iraqi market. The two countries will be back on the spot upon Iraq gathering more sovereignty, BUT US-companies made an entry into Iraq in a considerable way and if doing good work will stay big players there in future.
Sv7887 From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1025 posts, RR: 0 Reply 22, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1445 times:
Quoting MattRB (Reply 20): You broke it, you bought it. Iraq doesn't owe the US a penny.
And the US doesn't "owe" Iraq anything...Go look at the British and the state they left their colonies in...
Quoting Baroque (Reply 15): Humour me and tell me how it changed everything. How does the damage compare, for example, with that done to Beirut in 2006?
How does it compare with thirty years of IRA bombing in N Ireland and the UK? Want more comparisons?
30 yrs of IRA bombing didn't result in the death of several thousand citizens did it?
Look at the massive spending on Domestic security in the USA and the damage done to the Airline industry. Air travel in the USA has been completely transformed, (for the worse) because of 9/11.
Then look at Afghanistan, the London and Madrid Train bombings..It's this climate of fear that allowed GWB to get re-elected.
Imagine if 9/11 hadn't occurred. We wouldn't be in Afghanistan, and GWB never would have been able to make the case to attack Iraq. We wouldn't have the TSA, the Patriot Act, Iranians making noise because we were nice enough to knock off their arch enemy.
I do understand what you are saying, but 9/11 was more damaging then you think it was in the big picture sense.
Sv7887 From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1025 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1432 times:
Quoting MattRB (Reply 23): Quoting Sv7887 (Reply 22):
And the US doesn't "owe" Iraq anything
Um.. the US bombed & invaded the country under false pretenses, wrecking the infrastructure and plunging Iraq into chaos. The US has the duty to fix everything at its own cost.
Just like the British invaded sovereign countries, looted them and just left? There is no such thing as Duty otherwise the EU would be active in Darfur and the international community wouldn't have let Rwanda rot.
You speak of the highest principles yet seem to ignore the fact the international community failed to remove Saddam Hussein from power in 1991. Then they proceeded to pass sanctions that only punished the Iraqi people. Sorry, Iraqi blood is on everyone's hands, not just the US.
False pretenses? Go read the Senate Foreign Intelligence Committee Report led by Democrats, who couldn't find a shred of evidence saying the evidence for Iraq was made up. If you read it you will see, "Generally substantiated by available intelligence." They would impeach him in two seconds if they had any real evidence.
Portraying Iraq as some sort of functioning state prior to the war is misleading and you know it. It was run by a ruthless dictator who actually used Chemical Weapons on his own people, killed scores of political opponents, jailed and murdered innocents, and kept his country starving while he and his sons lived the high life.
You call that a functioning state?
25 Baroque: More or less, it did. http://www.ocregister.com/ocr/sectio...ld/nation_world/article_614859.php The IRA killed 638 members of British security forces
26 Sv7887: You pretty much nailed it. It was the first time someone brought the fight to US soil. It's not that US interests weren't attacked before (Embassies
27 Baroque: You and I know that, as do a goodly few others, but you would not call it a 100% conversion - yet. We will keep trying, however. Mmmm, I think it is
28 Sv7887: I have the same trouble..Remember Bush for all purposes is a "Born again" Christian, so he might have thought he could use Democracy as a cure all fo
29 ME AVN FAN: - well, he MAY take it negatively ! -- whatever, I did NOT take it as "naïve" but rather as a frustrated comment of a US-American seeing how his gov
30 Sv7887: Right and they've stopped what violence exactly? How did they stop the violence in Rwanda? Rebuilding a country and spending billions of US money is
31 ME AVN FAN: -- HOW should they have stopped it ? They and the Arab League have put pressure onto General Bashir to at least stop the government support for the W
32 Baroque: The normal cycle will mean that it will be 10+ years to know what effects new exploration will have. There has been little or no recent surface mappi
33 ADXMatt: I didn't mean to STIR THE POT so to speak and I'm not naive. I was making a joke. I thought it would be obvious. If Iraq wasn't an oil country would
34 Flighty: It's their money. How dare we suggest we should take it. It's not our oil in the Iraqi ground. At least, not until we offer them statehood, citizenshi
35 ME AVN FAN: - the USA in fact trained TWO armies. Roughly half of the recruits of the "New Iraqi Army" were Kurds, who took the education and training and then v
36 Moo: And quite probably could be using that training against Turkey...
37 ME AVN FAN: - possible, but it is not the same organisations on the Turkish side, which means intra-Kurdish rivals, and it is to build up a Kurdish army for the
38 Baroque: Six years to train even two armies is not really efficient especially as the army was probably sympathetic until Bremer and his gang dismissed it. Ba
39 Planemaker: No 1920's here! The fact of the matter is that there wasn't isolationism... but American military presence and interventions in the Middle East that
40 Seb146: Not only is Iraq running a surplus (thanks to the Bush Administration) but they are in negotiations with China for oil drilling rights. http://www.ira
41 ME AVN FAN: - The whole handling of post-2003-Iraq lacked ANY efficiency. And Bremer was a thoroughly negative contribution to the mess. The "old" army was anti-
42 Baroque: The new army I was referring to was the one that Kitchener found he needed by Sept 1914 when the old professional force had been partly destroyed by
43 ME AVN FAN: - ok, but Kitchener clearly had format !