Iraq funding pledges up to $38billion - Edit - Some Congressmen change tune after visiting

[CADsortaGUY]

A summit of international donors has reportedly raised pledges for the reconstruction of Iraq totalling around $18bn, on top of $20bn promised by the United States.

<snip>
Pledges already made include:


$20bn from the United States
$5bn from Japan
$3bn-$5bn from the World Bank
$4.35bn over three years from International Monetary Fund
$1bn from Saudi Arabia
$1bn from Kuwait
$835m from Britain
$300m from Spain
$231m from the European Union
$200m from South Korea
$174m from Italy
$150m from Canada
$32.6m from Sweden
$5.9m from Belgium
</snip>

CkG

 

[nowareman]

The pledges amount to $13 bn not $18bn. Most are in the form of grants. Please check your numbers.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3212439.stm

The pledges included:


$5bn from Japan in grants and loans
$500m from Kuwait
$500m from Saudi Arabia in loans plus $500m in export credits
$232m from Italy
$812m from the European Union
$290,000 from Slovakia
$24.2m from China
$3bn-$5bn from the World Bank
$4.35bn over three years from International Monetary Fund

 

[Zebo]

Iraq "donations" fall well short of admins begging

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: nowareman
The pledges amount to $13 bn not $18bn. Most are in the form of grants. Please check your numbers.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3212439.stm

The pledges included:


$5bn from Japan in grants and loans
$500m from Kuwait
$500m from Saudi Arabia in loans plus $500m in export credits
$232m from Italy
$812m from the European Union
$290,000 from Slovakia
$24.2m from China
$3bn-$5bn from the World Bank
$4.35bn over three years from International Monetary Fund

They aren't "MY" numbers - read the link. I didn't add anything. Both sets of info are from the same news agency.

CkG

PS add up the numbers you posted - it adds up to more than 13B

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Iraq donations in Madrid top expectations

Well, anyway - that funding seems to put things on the right path. It's good to see that funding is being pledged and that it seems to be appreciated.

CkG

 

[nowareman]

The link I posted doesn't include the $20bn from the USA which makes up the bulk of the money and even when included still falls far short of the $56bn sighted by the World Bank. Most of the other funds are in the form of loans to a country which is already in debt to the tune of $125bn. This is not going to be enough to fund rebuilding Iraq and I am guessing the US is at some point going to have to come up with the difference. That would be around $23bn more not counting the money Iraq will need to repay the loans which make up the bulk of the pledges. Also realize that many of the same nations pledging money to Iraq pledged money to Afghanistan too. After over 2 years they haven't made good on those pledges. What makes the US think they will make good on these pledges except for the amount pledged as loans?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: nowareman
The link I posted doesn't include the $20bn from the USA which makes up the bulk of the money and even when included still falls far short of the $56bn sighted by the World Bank. Most of the other funds are in the form of loans to a country which is already in debt to the tune of $125bn. This is not going to be enough to fund rebuilding Iraq and I am guessing the US is at some point going to have to come up with the difference. That would be around $23bn more not counting the money Iraq will need to repay the loans which make up the bulk of the pledges. Also realize that many of the same nations pledging money to Iraq pledged money to Afghanistan too. After over 2 years they haven't made good on those pledges. What makes the US think they will make good on these pledges except for the amount pledged as loans?

Yes yours doesn't add the 20B from the US, but it still doesn't change the fact that it is more than 13B being pledged. Add up the money in what you posted - it is more than 13B.

Yes, it's only pledges and loans, but it is a start. I hope these people don't back out of their pledges as it would only hurt the Iraqi people. Do they need more? Supposedly yes, but as has been reported - they can only absorb about 4-5Billion in the first year.

CkG

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

The pledges amount to $13 bn not $18bn. Most are in the form of grants. Please check your numbers.

The pledges amount to somewhere between 13B and 18B. Most are in the form of loans.

Japan 3.5B . . . loan.
World Bank 3-5B . . . better be a loan.
IMF . . . 2.5-4.25B is likely mostly loans plus comes with a lot of caveats.

From these entities alone a minimum of $9B (of the $13B total) and as much as $12.75B (of the $18B total) will be loans. Colin Powell should be commended on the tremendous job he's done in securing a single dime of assistance for Iraq considering the ridiculous and divisive policies of the Bush regime. The largest donors are unlikely to give more assistance so look out for a NASA model in Iraq (faster, better, cheaper)

 

[nowareman]

Here is a link to the Washington Post article on this. Iraq definitely needs the money but let's not act as though this is anything but what it is. The nations participating are not contributing they are offering loans. And out of 73 nations attending the bulk of the money came from Japan, the World Band and the IMF. Even if the money was all in the form of grants, and the bulk of it is not, it leaves the US holding $20bn PLUS another $23bn even if all the pledges come through. This is not good.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14279-2003Oct24.html

"International donors Friday promised at least $9 billion in future loans and as much as $4 billion in grants to help with Iraq's postwar reconstruction over the next five years, following a two-day conference marked by continuing differences over the war and how money would be spent.

With the Bush administration pledging $20 billion, the total from the meeting came to about $33 billion -- well short of the $56 billion that the World Bank and the United Nations have said Iraq would need over the next five years.

The bulk of the money was promised in the form of loans, not the grants that U.S. officials said they preferred, at a time when Iraq is already burdened with $125 billion in foreign debt.

While 73 countries attended the session, more than three-quarters of the non-U.S. pledges came from just three sources -- Japan, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. The numbers suggest that the United States could end up carrying most of the international burden for rebuilding Iraq."

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

I guess it's only fair that America shoulder much of the costs because our leadership has chosen this course of action. Curiously, the time horizon for our committment in Iraq all of the Republicans that are so eager to grant money to Iraq will have a convenient excuse to limit spending. It's a shame responsible fiscal policy is no longer important in the GOP.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

" It's a shame responsible fiscal policy is no longer important in the GOP"

I'm sorry, it's been so long. When was this a priority?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
It's a shame responsible fiscal policy is no longer important in the GOP.

True true... It's also a shame that the "other side" isn't either. They ALL need to become "fiscally responsible" with our tax dollars.

CkG

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

I hate to hijack the thread but it's your thread so it's OK . . . Democrats; particularly turds like Byrd are far from being reputable when it comes to fiscal restraint (or even responsible deficit spending). But the GOP cannot point to spendthrift Dems from the 70-80s and then do the SAME damn thing in the 21st century and call it good for America.

Granted, I may be a bit harsh on the Byrd turd b/c WV is a damn poor state . . . it's basically MS with fewer black people.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
I hate to hijack the thread but it's your thread so it's OK . . .

That seems to be the trend so why should this one be different

Democrats; particularly turds like Byrd are far from being reputable when it comes to fiscal restraint (or even responsible deficit spending). But the GOP cannot point to spendthrift Dems from the 70-80s and then do the SAME damn thing in the 21st century and call it good for America.

Granted, I may be a bit harsh on the Byrd turd b/c WV is a damn poor state . . . it's basically MS with fewer black people.

Meh - they all need to tighten their spending belts. It's tough when you have constituents at home that want you to get them something from the big evil Gov't though. It's the people's mindset that have to change. The gov't isn't the answer to everything but that seems to be what people think -so their elected officials throw money at the supposed problem. It all stinks - replace them all - they all need to be taken down a peg or two

CkG

 

[nowareman]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
I hate to hijack the thread but it's your thread so it's OK . . .

That seems to be the trend so why should this one be different

Democrats; particularly turds like Byrd are far from being reputable when it comes to fiscal restraint (or even responsible deficit spending). But the GOP cannot point to spendthrift Dems from the 70-80s and then do the SAME damn thing in the 21st century and call it good for America.

Granted, I may be a bit harsh on the Byrd turd b/c WV is a damn poor state . . . it's basically MS with fewer black people.

Meh - they all need to tighten their spending belts. It's tough when you have constituents at home that want you to get them something from the big evil Gov't though. It's the people's mindset that have to change. The gov't isn't the answer to everything but that seems to be what people think -so their elected officials throw money at the supposed problem. It all stinks - replace them all - they all need to be taken down a peg or two

CkG

If we should be tightening our spending belts why are we spending billions in Iraq? If the government isn't the answer to everything why are they trying to be the answer in Iraq? If throwing money at problems at home doesn't work how will it work in Iraq?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: nowareman

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
I hate to hijack the thread but it's your thread so it's OK . . .

That seems to be the trend so why should this one be different

Democrats; particularly turds like Byrd are far from being reputable when it comes to fiscal restraint (or even responsible deficit spending). But the GOP cannot point to spendthrift Dems from the 70-80s and then do the SAME damn thing in the 21st century and call it good for America.

Granted, I may be a bit harsh on the Byrd turd b/c WV is a damn poor state . . . it's basically MS with fewer black people.

Meh - they all need to tighten their spending belts. It's tough when you have constituents at home that want you to get them something from the big evil Gov't though. It's the people's mindset that have to change. The gov't isn't the answer to everything but that seems to be what people think -so their elected officials throw money at the supposed problem. It all stinks - replace them all - they all need to be taken down a peg or two

CkG

If we should be tightening our spending belts why are we spending billions in Iraq? If the government isn't the answer to everything why are they trying to be the answer in Iraq? If throwing money at problems at home doesn't work how will it work in Iraq?

Does it take money to rebuild a country? (yes) Does it take money to fight a war? (yes) Does removing a menace from Iraq take money?(yes)
I don't like the fact that we have to spend the money we are now on Iraq, but it was very neccessary to remove him and I think that we made a huge mistake to not remove him sooner - it'd have cost less too

CkG

 

[nowareman]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: nowareman

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
I hate to hijack the thread but it's your thread so it's OK . . .

That seems to be the trend so why should this one be different

Democrats; particularly turds like Byrd are far from being reputable when it comes to fiscal restraint (or even responsible deficit spending). But the GOP cannot point to spendthrift Dems from the 70-80s and then do the SAME damn thing in the 21st century and call it good for America.

Granted, I may be a bit harsh on the Byrd turd b/c WV is a damn poor state . . . it's basically MS with fewer black people.

Meh - they all need to tighten their spending belts. It's tough when you have constituents at home that want you to get them something from the big evil Gov't though. It's the people's mindset that have to change. The gov't isn't the answer to everything but that seems to be what people think -so their elected officials throw money at the supposed problem. It all stinks - replace them all - they all need to be taken down a peg or two

CkG

If we should be tightening our spending belts why are we spending billions in Iraq? If the government isn't the answer to everything why are they trying to be the answer in Iraq? If throwing money at problems at home doesn't work how will it work in Iraq?

Does it take money to rebuild a country? (yes) Does it take money to fight a war? (yes) Does removing a menace from Iraq take money?(yes)
I don't like the fact that we have to spend the money we are now on Iraq, but it was very neccessary to remove him and I think that we made a huge mistake to not remove him sooner - it'd have cost less too

CkG

So throwing money at problems here at home won't work but throwing our money at problems in Iraq will work. That makes a lot of sense. Somehow I just know this isn't going to work out the way we are being told it will work out. If as you say the big evil government can't get the job done here why should anyone believe they can get the job done in Iraq and why would they want to?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: nowareman
So throwing money at problems here at home won't work but throwing our money at problems in Iraq will work. That makes a lot of sense. Somehow I just know this isn't going to work out the way we are being told it will work out. If as you say the big evil government can't get the job done here why should anyone believe they can get the job done in Iraq and why would they want to?

Did I say that? No. We aren't throwing money at Iraq and hoping it'll get better. That's what has been happening with the NK problem for years We are over there trying to take care of the situation - not just throwing money at it. And I suggest you learn the difference between them.
We needed to rid the ME of Saddam because he was a threat to the security of the region and In't peace(even the blessed UN say so) but this isn't another pro/anti war thread this is a World rebuilding Iraq thread, and you seem to want to not help. Fine - you can have that position - I do not.

The Int'l community looks to be wishing to help Iraq(albeit slowly). I hope they come through with their pledges.

CkG

 

[nowareman]

I don't know how anyone can call spending $157 bn not throwing money at Iraq.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: nowareman
I don't know how anyone can call spending $157 bn not throwing money at Iraq.

I don't know how someone call call having troops overthere fighting a war - "throwing money" at Iraq.

We are asking other nations to throw money at Iraq or maybe even send troops. Lets hope we get the Iraqis some help one way or another.

CkG

 

[nowareman]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: nowareman
I don't know how anyone can call spending $157 bn not throwing money at Iraq.

I don't know how someone call call having troops overthere fighting a war - "throwing money" at Iraq.

We are asking other nations to throw money at Iraq or maybe even send troops. Lets hope we get the Iraqis some help one way or another.

CkG

Throwing money at Iraq is spending billions to rebuild what the war destroyed. Having troops there to keep every nation in the middle east from entering Iraq to fill the power vacuum the war created is throwing money at Iraq. If by your own statement throwing money at problems here doesn't work throwing money at problems over there won't work either.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: nowareman

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: nowareman
I don't know how anyone can call spending $157 bn not throwing money at Iraq.

I don't know how someone call call having troops overthere fighting a war - "throwing money" at Iraq.

We are asking other nations to throw money at Iraq or maybe even send troops. Lets hope we get the Iraqis some help one way or another.

CkG

Throwing money at Iraq is spending billions to rebuild what the war destroyed. Having troops there to keep every nation in the middle east from entering Iraq to fill the power vacuum the war created is throwing money at Iraq. If by your own statement throwing money at problems here doesn't work throwing money at problems over there won't work either.

You don't give up do you See my sig. You fit that nicely....no not the Iacocca quote

CkG

 

[nowareman]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: nowareman

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: nowareman
I don't know how anyone can call spending $157 bn not throwing money at Iraq.

I don't know how someone call call having troops overthere fighting a war - "throwing money" at Iraq.

We are asking other nations to throw money at Iraq or maybe even send troops. Lets hope we get the Iraqis some help one way or another.

CkG

Throwing money at Iraq is spending billions to rebuild what the war destroyed. Having troops there to keep every nation in the middle east from entering Iraq to fill the power vacuum the war created is throwing money at Iraq. If by your own statement throwing money at problems here doesn't work throwing money at problems over there won't work either.

You don't give up do you See my sig. You fit that nicely....no not the Iacocca quote

CkG

Trying to change the subject won't work. We're spending billions in Iraq and as you said our big evil government throwing money at problems doesn't work. You said it not me. If spending billions there is worthwhile why not spend them here for Americans. I couldn't care less about Iraqis and their freedom. Their freedom is up to them. I care about Americans and our freedom. I care about solving America's problems not getting involved in a nation half way around the world when there was no reason to. I can't understand how you would call that liberal but I've noticed you like to throw around labels when people disagree with you and you can't win a point. As for your Reagan quote he was another fake conservative who increased the size of government as well as the deficit. As for your Iacocca quote he was a failed automotive CEO who relied on the American people to bail him out and then took credit for it. We threw money at Chrysler and look what it got us. Mercedes Benz ownership and layoffs. Some heros.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: nowareman
Trying to change the subject won't work. We're spending billions in Iraq and as you said our big evil government throwing money at problems doesn't work. You said it not me. If spending billions there is worthwhile why not spend them here for Americans. I couldn't care less about Iraqis and their freedom. Their freedom is up to them. I care about Americans and our freedom. I care about solving America's problems not getting involved in a nation half way around the world when there was no reason to. I can't understand how you would call that liberal but I've noticed you like to throw around labels when people disagree with you and you can't win a point. As for your Reagan quote he was another fake conservative who increased the size of government as well as the deficit. As for your Iacocca quote he was a failed automotive CEO who relied on the American people to bail him out and then took credit for it. We threw money at Chrysler and look what it got us. Mercedes Benz ownership and layoffs. Some heros.

You are a liberal...or atleast keep spouting like one and no it wasn't changing the subject - I was trying not to call your statements ignorant, but I now will - that reply was the most ignorant thing I've heard in this thread. Until you realize that actually doing something about Iraq and throwing money at Iraq are two different things then you'll just keep sputtering this endless nonsense. Agree or disagree with our actions in Iraq - it isn't just throwing money at a problem.

Buahaha - You don't have a clue about Iacocca He wasn't a "failed CEO" He was fired from Ford because of his vision. A vision he took to Chrysler and took them from a failed Automotive company to arguably the most successful Car company of the 80's. Sure he got some loan guarantees from the gov't - but he succeeded did he not? Thought so I'll politely ignore your comments about Reagan - he had a thing about ignoring people who attacked him, so I'll let his actions speak here.

I suggest you put your shovel away and climb out of the hole. The Iraq situation and outlook is getting better and with some international help it will become better quicker -which is what we all want right? For it to become better so our troops can come home? You can fight it all you want, but it doesn't change things - I suggest you join the rest of us in our hopes and best wishes for Iraq.

CkG

 

[her209]

I suggest you join the rest of us in our hopes and best wishes for Iraq.

don't forget about afghanistan.