• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Rebuilding Iraq Likely to Top War's Cost

D

Drift3r

Guest
"Rebuilding Iraq Likely to Top War's Cost
13 minutes ago


By ALAN FRAM, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The U.S. bill for rebuilding Iraq and maintaining security there is widely expected to far exceed the war's price tag, and some private analysts estimate it could reach as high as $600 billion. The Bush administration is offering only hazy details so far, and that is upsetting Republican as well as Democratic lawmakers. The closest the administration has come to estimating America's postwar burden was when L. Paul Bremer, the U.S. administrator of occupied Iraq, said last month that "getting the country up and running again" could cost $100 billion and take three years. He estimated that repairing Iraq's electrical grid alone will cost $13 billion and getting the water system in shape will require an additional $16 billion. In a recent interview on CNBC's "Capital Report," Bremer said of rebuilding costs: "It's probably well above $50 billion, $60 billion, maybe $100 billion. It's a lot of money."

Guess who is going to pay for it all and how they are going to pay for it !

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030812/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_costs&cid=540&ncid=716
 
Can you give me an estimate of how much it would cost if the sanctions on Iraq had continued?

Add in the continued cost of keeping the sanctions in place.

Add in Saddam's support of Palestinian terrorists helping to keep that conflict alive.

Add in the economic cost of keeping what could be a very properous country in the Middle East under sanctions.

Add in the possible cost of terrorists being created by the poor economies of the region.
 
Originally posted by: etech
Can you give me an estimate of how much it would cost if the sanctions on Iraq had continued?

Add in the continued cost of keeping the sanctions in place.

Add in Saddam's support of Palestinian terrorists helping to keep that conflict alive.

Add in the economic cost of keeping what could be a very properous country in the Middle East under sanctions.

Add in the possible cost of terrorists being created by the poor economies of the region.
Click to expand...

Good point, you really just justified the use of 600 billion dollars that could of been use to help the poor and needy in our own nation. But they don't have oil, which is what you are talking about, "very properous country" as you Bush fan boys finally admit the reason we went there.
 
I know of plenty of kids that could have used a few thousand bucks in tuition grants for school. Maybe a program to give free health care to all children. $600 billion could have gone a long way in this country for plenty of people who have lost their jobs in free health care. Screw the little people, allow the hundred or so elitists to rape us even more. I can't believe people actually voted a chimp into the white house.
 
Originally posted by: bigdog1218
Originally posted by: etech
Can you give me an estimate of how much it would cost if the sanctions on Iraq had continued?

Add in the continued cost of keeping the sanctions in place.

Add in Saddam's support of Palestinian terrorists helping to keep that conflict alive.

Add in the economic cost of keeping what could be a very properous country in the Middle East under sanctions.

Add in the possible cost of terrorists being created by the poor economies of the region.
Click to expand...

Good point, you really just justified the use of 600 billion dollars that could of been use to help the poor and needy in our own nation. But they don't have oil, which is what you are talking about, "very properous country" as you Bush fan boys finally admit the reason we went there.
Click to expand...

Yes, Iraq has oil. Now the people of Iraq will benefit from the selling of that oil instead of it going to Palestinian terrorists and for building Saddam another mansion. Now the people of the entire Middle East will benefit from an open economy with increased trade and more jobs for all. The improved economies of the entire region will very possibly reduce the chance of terrorism from that region. The increased trade and reduced chances of terrorism will benefit the world. Eventually that investment could pay off with much more prosperity and peace for the entire world than leaving that cancer there to grow and spread.

But all you want to do in your myopic little vision of the world is say that "we wanted the oil". So be it. Keep your blinders on.


 
What is the cost of giving freedom to fellow man?



BF - UHC isn't free. I thought the deficit was "bad", would you have supported UHC if Bush was pushing a 100+ billion UHC package? Hmmm...

BD - We have oil - some don't want us to get it though.

CkG
 
Amazing. First Bush shamefully failed to mention the cost of war and rebuilding to the people forced to finance it before even invading Iraq. Next, war costs exceed estimates and we're up to $4 billion/month including Afghanistan. Now reconstruction costs are reaching insane levels.

Containment costs would have been far, far less than this war/nation building effort. U.S. lead sanctions were a crime against humanity to begin. Using them to justify these war expenses seems ridiculous. Removing Saddum had zero net effect on Israeli-Palestinian terrorism from what I can see.

The fact is Bush is more spendthrifty will other people's money as the worst stereotypically-created, night-mare inspired democrat "big spender" conceivable. The constitution authorizes Bush to defend the nation. It's been clearly shown Iraq was no threat and though national building is not a constitutional function of our government, here we sit.

It saddens me they're willing to sacrafice the economic prosperity of this nation and burden future generations with atrocious debt.
 
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: bigdog1218
Originally posted by: etech
Can you give me an estimate of how much it would cost if the sanctions on Iraq had continued?

Add in the continued cost of keeping the sanctions in place.

Add in Saddam's support of Palestinian terrorists helping to keep that conflict alive.

Add in the economic cost of keeping what could be a very properous country in the Middle East under sanctions.

Add in the possible cost of terrorists being created by the poor economies of the region.
Click to expand...

Good point, you really just justified the use of 600 billion dollars that could of been use to help the poor and needy in our own nation. But they don't have oil, which is what you are talking about, "very properous country" as you Bush fan boys finally admit the reason we went there.
Click to expand...

Yes, Iraq has oil. Now the people of Iraq will benefit from the selling of that oil instead of it going to Palestinian terrorists and for building Saddam another mansion. Now the people of the entire Middle East will benefit from an open economy with increased trade and more jobs for all. The improved economies of the entire region will very possibly reduce the chance of terrorism from that region. The increased trade and reduced chances of terrorism will benefit the world. Eventually that investment could pay off with much more prosperity and peace for the entire world than leaving that cancer there to grow and spread.

But all you want to do in your myopic little vision of the world is say that "we wanted the oil". So be it. Keep your blinders on.
Click to expand...

Etech surely has his blinders on

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030810/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_s_pipe_dream_2
 
No Barney, it is you who has the blinders on. Read your article again. It does not say that is the way it has to be. It says that is the way it could be. It is also a study funded by people with an agenda. I can point to Norway and the way oil revenues have helped that country. You will find the worst case possible and say that is the way it will be in Iraq.

Now we are both looking at cases that bolster our position and the most likely will be somewhere in the middle. The people of Iraq will get some benefit from the oil. The trade and opening up of their borders will help the economies of all the nations in that area. That will spread and help all other countries. It will take time, it won't be easy or cheap, but the dividends in peace and prosperity for the world will be worth it in the long run.


 
The problem I see is the people with an agenda say this will be very expensive . . . the people running an agenda don't want to say how expensive it will be. And the people who have to ultimately pay the bill apparently don't care enough to demand answers.
 
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
What is the cost of giving freedom to fellow man?

CkG
Click to expand...

Or maybe it's something like the cost of freedom to tell the "liberators" to go home or like the cost of freedom to elect your own leaders.....oh wait we appointed a council for them instead and we have put out oil contracts to so that foriegn companies will own the oil fields instead anhd we ain't leaving anything soon.
 
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: bigdog1218
Originally posted by: etech
Can you give me an estimate of how much it would cost if the sanctions on Iraq had continued?

Add in the continued cost of keeping the sanctions in place.

Add in Saddam's support of Palestinian terrorists helping to keep that conflict alive.

Add in the economic cost of keeping what could be a very properous country in the Middle East under sanctions.

Add in the possible cost of terrorists being created by the poor economies of the region.
Click to expand...

Good point, you really just justified the use of 600 billion dollars that could of been use to help the poor and needy in our own nation. But they don't have oil, which is what you are talking about, "very properous country" as you Bush fan boys finally admit the reason we went there.
Click to expand...

Yes, Iraq has oil. Now the people of Iraq will benefit from the selling of that oil instead of it going to Palestinian terrorists and for building Saddam another mansion. Now the people of the entire Middle East will benefit from an open economy with increased trade and more jobs for all. The improved economies of the entire region will very possibly reduce the chance of terrorism from that region. The increased trade and reduced chances of terrorism will benefit the world. Eventually that investment could pay off with much more prosperity and peace for the entire world than leaving that cancer there to grow and spread.

But all you want to do in your myopic little vision of the world is say that "we wanted the oil". So be it. Keep your blinders on.
Click to expand...

Those oil fields were opened up to foriegn ownership without the Iraqi peoples consent. They no longer own the oil fields anymore just like they do not have a controling intrest in the US appointed council. Never had they gotten a say or vote in both cases.

 
Originally posted by: etech
Can you give me an estimate of how much it would cost if the sanctions on Iraq had continued?

Add in the continued cost of keeping the sanctions in place.

Add in Saddam's support of Palestinian terrorists helping to keep that conflict alive.

Add in the economic cost of keeping what could be a very properous country in the Middle East under sanctions.

Add in the possible cost of terrorists being created by the poor economies of the region.
Click to expand...


Let's see a hell of a lot less then what it is costing us now and will cost us later. Not to mention the fact that other countries in the UN helped in picking up part of that tab just like 90% of Desert storm was paid off by other countries in the UN who helped out with that war effort. Oh wait we don't need the stinking UN for that anymore ! Let the poor slob of the average American tax payer pay for the full cost instead. Who gives a damn it's only tax dollars and we all know it grows on trees in DC.

 
We have limited $ to disburse. To decide to use some to effect foreign affair agenda versus using it here at home to effect domestic affair agenda is the debate, I gather. One side would argue that the folks here that would benefit by a $ infusion are too lazy for us to be pumping money in their direction and the other side might argue that the Iraqi freedom and economic stability is a long term necessary goal and one worth pursuing at the cost of the domestic alternative. My argument is simply to involve the UN and member nations in the salvation of the Iraqi people while providing the dollars for the obvious needs of this nations population.

I see Iraqi issues as being UN issues and nothing more or less..
 
just in case someone wanted to know where that $600 billion figure came from. the report is rather long and covers many issues.
?War with Iraq: Costs, Consequences, and Alternatives?
A December 2002 report, published under the auspices of the Academy?s Committee on International Security Studies (CISS), finds that the political, military, and economic consequences of war with Iraq could be extremely costly to the United States.

it's a worst case analysis. 200k troops for 10 years at a cost of $250k per troop per year, which is $500b. then assuming a marshall plan $105b for reconstruction.
 
Originally posted by: Tabb
This where France Germany and Iraq's vast oil reserves come in. 😀
Click to expand...
Then principles, ethics and morals mean nothing? These exploitive endeavors are wrong. It was wrong historically when kings and tyrants engaged in pillaging and empire and it's wrong now. War begets war and these acts will bring consequences but I suppose if a small percentage of people greatly benefit, it's worth it eh?
 
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: bigdog1218
Originally posted by: etech
Can you give me an estimate of how much it would cost if the sanctions on Iraq had continued?

Add in the continued cost of keeping the sanctions in place.

Add in Saddam's support of Palestinian terrorists helping to keep that conflict alive.

Add in the economic cost of keeping what could be a very properous country in the Middle East under sanctions.

Add in the possible cost of terrorists being created by the poor economies of the region.
Click to expand...

Good point, you really just justified the use of 600 billion dollars that could of been use to help the poor and needy in our own nation. But they don't have oil, which is what you are talking about, "very properous country" as you Bush fan boys finally admit the reason we went there.
Click to expand...

Yes, Iraq has oil. Now the people of Iraq will benefit from the selling of that oil instead of it going to Palestinian terrorists and for building Saddam another mansion. Now the people of the entire Middle East will benefit from an open economy with increased trade and more jobs for all. The improved economies of the entire region will very possibly reduce the chance of terrorism from that region. The increased trade and reduced chances of terrorism will benefit the world. Eventually that investment could pay off with much more prosperity and peace for the entire world than leaving that cancer there to grow and spread.

But all you want to do in your myopic little vision of the world is say that "we wanted the oil". So be it. Keep your blinders on.
Click to expand...

etech -- while I admire your optimism, I think it's a little early to be writing the happy-ending story that you've laid out here.
 
Originally posted by: JellyBaby
Originally posted by: Tabb
This where France Germany and Iraq's vast oil reserves come in. 😀
Click to expand...
Then principles, ethics and morals mean nothing? These exploitive endeavors are wrong. It was wrong historically when kings and tyrants engaged in pillaging and empire and it's wrong now. War begets war and these acts will bring consequences but I suppose if a small percentage of people greatly benefit, it's worth it eh?
Click to expand...

What do you expect us to do then? Take money out of our education and healthcare systems and pay for rebuilding? You think the Iraqs are going to go enviormentalist on our asses and not continue drilling for oil? France and Germany are int this too. Not to mention I am sure they wont mind help rebuilding, as they've gotten oil from Iraq before 😉 Let the spoils go to the victor.
 
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: bigdog1218
Originally posted by: etech
Can you give me an estimate of how much it would cost if the sanctions on Iraq had continued?

Add in the continued cost of keeping the sanctions in place.

Add in Saddam's support of Palestinian terrorists helping to keep that conflict alive.

Add in the economic cost of keeping what could be a very properous country in the Middle East under sanctions.

Add in the possible cost of terrorists being created by the poor economies of the region.
Click to expand...

Good point, you really just justified the use of 600 billion dollars that could of been use to help the poor and needy in our own nation. But they don't have oil, which is what you are talking about, "very properous country" as you Bush fan boys finally admit the reason we went there.
Click to expand...

Yes, Iraq has oil. Now the people of Iraq will benefit from the selling of that oil instead of it going to Palestinian terrorists and for building Saddam another mansion. Now the people of the entire Middle East will benefit from an open economy with increased trade and more jobs for all. The improved economies of the entire region will very possibly reduce the chance of terrorism from that region. The increased trade and reduced chances of terrorism will benefit the world. Eventually that investment could pay off with much more prosperity and peace for the entire world than leaving that cancer there to grow and spread.

But all you want to do in your myopic little vision of the world is say that "we wanted the oil". So be it. Keep your blinders on.
Click to expand...

etech -- while I admire your optimism, I think it's a little early to be writing the happy-ending story that you've laid out here.
Click to expand...

That looks like pretty much common sense to me. Whats your version of the story? Bush goes for world domination and Cheny gets more oil reserves?
 
What do you expect us to do then? Take money out of our education and healthcare systems and pay for rebuilding? You think the Iraqs are going to go enviormentalist on our asses and not continue drilling for oil? France and Germany are int this too. Not to mention I am sure they wont mind help rebuilding, as they've gotten oil from Iraq before Let the spoils go to the victor.
Click to expand...
I expect us not to dirty up the world so that we're forced to clean it later. Actually our domestic programs will eventually be affected by gross spendthriftiness of today. But what do you care, you may be long gone by then right?

If a goal of invasion was to tear down Iraq's infrastructure so key members of elite global groups can profiteer in the aftermath then I cry foul. We shouldn't be in that filthy business.
 
Originally posted by: etech
Can you give me an estimate of how much it would cost if the sanctions on Iraq had continued?

Add in the continued cost of keeping the sanctions in place.

Add in Saddam's support of Palestinian terrorists helping to keep that conflict alive.

Add in the economic cost of keeping what could be a very properous country in the Middle East under sanctions.

Add in the possible cost of terrorists being created by the poor economies of the region.
Click to expand...

Sounds like the sanctions should have been lifted huh?

 
Originally posted by: etech
Can you give me an estimate of how much it would cost if the sanctions on Iraq had continued?

Add in the continued cost of keeping the sanctions in place.

Add in Saddam's support of Palestinian terrorists helping to keep that conflict alive.

Add in the economic cost of keeping what could be a very properous country in the Middle East under sanctions.

Add in the possible cost of terrorists being created by the poor economies of the region.
Click to expand...

Ok, so you are saying if Iraq is friendly to US, we won't have terrorism problem and all ME problem will go away?

Let me remind you that Saudi Arabia has one of the strongest tie to the US, but the terrorists that caused 911 came from SA, Bin Laden came from SA, one of Bin Laden's draw to would be terrorist is the inequality in SA and the presence of the US in SA.

You gotta be kidding yourself if you think us being in Iraq will make Iraq a paradise to live in and all problem in ME will be solved.

And BTW, your statement of Saddam's support of Palestinian terrorists helping to keep that conflict alive is beyond ridiculous. You gotta be crazy to think Saddam has any affect on the conflicts between Palestainian and Isreal, and the conflict will cease or reduce in magnitude just because Saddam is out.
 
Originally posted by: rchiu
Originally posted by: etech
Can you give me an estimate of how much it would cost if the sanctions on Iraq had continued?

Add in the continued cost of keeping the sanctions in place.

Add in Saddam's support of Palestinian terrorists helping to keep that conflict alive.

Add in the economic cost of keeping what could be a very properous country in the Middle East under sanctions.

Add in the possible cost of terrorists being created by the poor economies of the region.
Click to expand...

Ok, so you are saying if Iraq is friendly to US, we won't have terrorism problem and all ME problem will go away?

Let me remind you that Saudi Arabia has one of the strongest tie to the US, but the terrorists that caused 911 came from SA, Bin Laden came from SA, one of Bin Laden's draw to would be terrorist is the inequality in SA and the presence of the US in SA.

You gotta be kidding yourself if you think us being in Iraq will make Iraq a paradise to live in and all problem in ME will be solved.

And BTW, your statement of Saddam's support of Palestinian terrorists helping to keep that conflict alive is beyond ridiculous. You gotta be crazy to think Saddam has any affect on the conflicts between Palestainian and Isreal, and the conflict will cease or reduce in magnitude just because Saddam is out.
Click to expand...

Why do you think that rewriting what I posted is a good way to have a discussion?

There is more terrorism in the world than just what occurred on 9/11. Much of it is fueled by poverty. The poverty will be alleviated by the increased prosperity of the Middle East once Iraq is on the path to a free and open society. Will it solve every problem, no, will it help in many ways, yes.

I made my points and you have not refuted them in any way by posting your version of what I said. Try again.

And BTW, you are ignoring many points in the I/P conflict.
Saddam paying money to the families of those killed in the conflict but paying much more to the families of those who strapped on some dynamite and took a few Israelis with them.
Saddam was the last Arab leader of a country that attacked Israel. His removal from his role of despot of Iraq means that the Palestinians cannot look to him to attack Israel again. Peace is an alternative now that they have one fewer ally to turn to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top