Yet another 100 BILLION for Iraq.

[techs]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20051214/pl...OrgF;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE-

US may seek 100 billion dollars more for Iraq
The White House said that it would seek more money for Iraq next year in an emergency spending bill that one prominent lawmaker recently suggested could total 100 billion dollars.

Its a good time to refresh my memory. Wasn't the war and the rebuilding going to be totally paid for by Iraqs oil revenues? And wasn't that when oil was 30.00 per barrel?
I am not mistaken, am I?

 

[Meuge]

Rebuilding of New Orleans would cost less... but I guess U.S. could do without a whole city... especially since it's full of sinners and black people.

/sarcasm

 

[dahunan]

[typical brainwashed republican] Why do you hate America?[/typical brainwashed republican]

 

[Kntx]

Wasn't the war and the rebuilding going to be totally paid for by Iraqs oil revenues? And wasn't that when oil was 30.00 per barrel?

I don't think you can invade a country, destroy all of the infrastructure then ask for them to pay the bill... lol.

 

[Todd33]

It was $1.7B, then $50B, then they laughed at Kerry saying $300B. Now it's $400B and no end in sight.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Todd33
It was $1.7B, then $50B, then they laughed at Kerry saying $300B. Now it's $400B and no end in sight.

QFT.
I need to stick my head back in the sand, this is beginning to hurt too much!

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: Kntx

Wasn't the war and the rebuilding going to be totally paid for by Iraqs oil revenues? And wasn't that when oil was 30.00 per barrel?

I don't think you can invade a country, destroy all of the infrastructure then ask for them to pay the bill... lol.

Wolfowitz did.

It doesn't matter though, we're in the last throes!

 

[dahunan]

The American voting public are a bunch of overworked mindless bots .. who listen to Zionists like Wolfowitz who claim to be Americans and listen to people whose father was the head of the cia..

There really should be some sort of test for voters.. to figure out if they know anything at all about what they are voting for

 

[tommywishbone]

"I need to stick my head back in the sand, this is beginning to hurt too much!"

You'd probably just hit your head on a piece of Haliburton drilling equipment and hurt yourself even more... I'd advise against it.

 

[catnap1972]

Originally posted by: Meuge
Rebuilding of New Orleans would cost less... but I guess U.S. could do without a whole city... especially since it's full of sinners and black people.

/sarcasm

Don't forget the bonbon eating welfare leeches! Can't support none of that shyt while Halliburton needs a new fleet of yachts!

[typical brainwashed republican]"Fsck everyone else but ME ME ME!"[/tbr]

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Todd33
It was $1.7B, then $50B, then they laughed at Kerry saying $300B. Now it's $400B and no end in sight.

Who told you it was going to cost 1.7 billion?

 

[kage69]

Don't forget the bonbon eating welfare leeches! Can't support none of that shyt while Halliburton needs a new fleet of yachts!

Doh! Red state welfare kinda ruins your adventure in sarcasm there. Bonbons? Aren't those *gasp* French?!

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: dahunan
[typical brainwashed republican] Why do you hate America?[/typical brainwashed republican]

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Todd33
It was $1.7B, then $50B, then they laughed at Kerry saying $300B. Now it's $400B and no end in sight.

Who told you it was going to cost 1.7 billion?

quick google gives this
http://www.fas.org/sgp/temp/natsios042303.html

or if you like the official version
http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/nightline_042403_t.html

 

[Todd33]

Yep, that is a classic interview.

ANDREW NATSIOS
No, no. This doesn't even compare remotely with the size of the Marshall Plan.

TED KOPPEL
(Off Camera) The Marshall Plan was $97 billion.

ANDREW NATSIOS
This is 1.7 billion.

TED KOPPEL
(Off Camera) All right, this is the first. I mean, when you talk about 1.7, you're not suggesting that the rebuilding of Iraq is gonna be done for $1.7 billion?

ANDREW NATSIOS
Well, in terms of the American taxpayers contribution, I do, this is it for the US. The rest of the rebuilding of Iraq will be done by other countries who have already made pledges, Britain, Germany, Norway, Japan, Canada, and Iraqi oil revenues, eventually in several years, when it's up and running and there's a new government that's been democratically elected, will finish the job with their own revenues. They're going to get in $20 billion a year in oil revenues. But the American part of this will be 1.7 billion. We have no plans for any further-on funding for this.

TED KOPPEL
(Off Camera) I understand. But as far as reconstruction goes, the American taxpayer will not be hit for more than $1.7 billion no matter how long the process takes?

ANDREW NATSIOS
That is our plan and that is our intention. And these figures, outlandish figures I've seen, I have to say, there's a little bit of hoopla involved in this.

TED KOPPEL
(Off Camera) But what you are saying is, maybe, maybe fewer tasks will be accomplished. The amount of money, however, is gonna be the same?

ANDREW NATSIOS
That's correct. 1.7 billion is the limit on reconstruction for Iraq. It's a large amount of money but, compared to other emergencies around the world. But in terms of the amount of money needed to reconstruct the country, it's a relatively small amount.

It's surprising how little those who support this war seem to know about the lead up and past promises. do you cherry pick what you want to hear or just watch Fox news?

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Todd33
Yep, that is a classic interview.

ANDREW NATSIOS
No, no. This doesn't even compare remotely with the size of the Marshall Plan.

TED KOPPEL
(Off Camera) The Marshall Plan was $97 billion.

ANDREW NATSIOS
This is 1.7 billion.

TED KOPPEL
(Off Camera) All right, this is the first. I mean, when you talk about 1.7, you're not suggesting that the rebuilding of Iraq is gonna be done for $1.7 billion?

ANDREW NATSIOS
Well, in terms of the American taxpayers contribution, I do, this is it for the US. The rest of the rebuilding of Iraq will be done by other countries who have already made pledges, Britain, Germany, Norway, Japan, Canada, and Iraqi oil revenues, eventually in several years, when it's up and running and there's a new government that's been democratically elected, will finish the job with their own revenues. They're going to get in $20 billion a year in oil revenues. But the American part of this will be 1.7 billion. We have no plans for any further-on funding for this.

TED KOPPEL
(Off Camera) I understand. But as far as reconstruction goes, the American taxpayer will not be hit for more than $1.7 billion no matter how long the process takes?

ANDREW NATSIOS
That is our plan and that is our intention. And these figures, outlandish figures I've seen, I have to say, there's a little bit of hoopla involved in this.

TED KOPPEL
(Off Camera) But what you are saying is, maybe, maybe fewer tasks will be accomplished. The amount of money, however, is gonna be the same?

ANDREW NATSIOS
That's correct. 1.7 billion is the limit on reconstruction for Iraq. It's a large amount of money but, compared to other emergencies around the world. But in terms of the amount of money needed to reconstruct the country, it's a relatively small amount.

It's surprising how little those who support this war seem to know about the lead up and past promises. do you cherry pick what you want to hear or just watch Fox news?

I'd venture to say both. I wish I had such selective memory, maybe then I wouldn't be so bent out of shape over how much this stupid Iraqi adventure is costing the US.

And just to add to this thought, none of us can really understand just how much money that is. So it hurts our ability to really grasp the amount of money that is taken out of other areas of government expenditures, or borrowing, or whatever the case is, to fund this war.

If we could visually picture 1.7 billion dollars in our lap, and then imagine that figure balloning to 400+ billion...holy crap!!!

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: Todd33
Yep, that is a classic interview.

ANDREW NATSIOS
No, no. This doesn't even compare remotely with the size of the Marshall Plan.

TED KOPPEL
(Off Camera) The Marshall Plan was $97 billion.

ANDREW NATSIOS
This is 1.7 billion.

TED KOPPEL
(Off Camera) All right, this is the first. I mean, when you talk about 1.7, you're not suggesting that the rebuilding of Iraq is gonna be done for $1.7 billion?

ANDREW NATSIOS
Well, in terms of the American taxpayers contribution, I do, this is it for the US. The rest of the rebuilding of Iraq will be done by other countries who have already made pledges, Britain, Germany, Norway, Japan, Canada, and Iraqi oil revenues, eventually in several years, when it's up and running and there's a new government that's been democratically elected, will finish the job with their own revenues. They're going to get in $20 billion a year in oil revenues. But the American part of this will be 1.7 billion. We have no plans for any further-on funding for this.

TED KOPPEL
(Off Camera) I understand. But as far as reconstruction goes, the American taxpayer will not be hit for more than $1.7 billion no matter how long the process takes?

ANDREW NATSIOS
That is our plan and that is our intention. And these figures, outlandish figures I've seen, I have to say, there's a little bit of hoopla involved in this.

TED KOPPEL
(Off Camera) But what you are saying is, maybe, maybe fewer tasks will be accomplished. The amount of money, however, is gonna be the same?

ANDREW NATSIOS
That's correct. 1.7 billion is the limit on reconstruction for Iraq. It's a large amount of money but, compared to other emergencies around the world. But in terms of the amount of money needed to reconstruct the country, it's a relatively small amount.

It's surprising how little those who support this war seem to know about the lead up and past promises. do you cherry pick what you want to hear or just watch Fox news?

I'd venture to say both. I wish I had such selective memory, maybe then I wouldn't be so bent out of shape over how much this stupid Iraqi adventure is costing the US.

And just to add to this thought, none of us can really understand just how much money that is. So it hurts our ability to really grasp the amount of money that is taken out of other areas of government expenditures, or borrowing, or whatever the case is, to fund this war.

If we could visually picture 1.7 billion dollars in our lap, and then imagine that figure balloning to 400+ billion...holy crap!!!

Here .. you can

http://www.costofwar.com/

 

[Jhhnn]

Since it's all being done on borrowed money, maybe the price of debt maintenance needs to be figured in, too, since the current leadership obviously has no plans to reduce the total debt, ever, other than to renounce the SS trust...

And they'd very much like for us all to forget about the low budget flowers in the streets party they represented it to be-

http://www.house.gov/schakowsky/iraqquotes_web.htm

And, uhh, just how much "rebuilding" has actually occurred, anyway? damned little, that's how much. The Bushies sent the troops in to drain the swamp, conveniently forgetting that it was full of crocodiles...