allthumbs Posted October 22, 2003 Posted October 22, 2003 It seemed when we entered into the war in Iraq the Administration at least allowed people to think that the effort would be "self funding" since Iraq sits on top of the second largest oil reserves in the world. As the cost ledger has been exposed--one page at a time--the concept of "self funding" seems to have been replaced with "future funding" on the part of the US. The current proposal---obviously not the last page in the ledger--calls for the US to fund not only the cost of restoring what was destroyed during the war but building a new Iraq. Obviously these funds come from what amounts to a re-mortgaging of the US. I would be interested in knowing your the thoughts regarding this proposal. Please include such things as: 1. Can the US reasonably absorb these costs. 2. Is this a good investment in the future. 3. Do we set a precedent for any future "preemptive strikes". Quote
b-rock Posted October 22, 2003 Posted October 22, 2003 Formula for world economic dominance: Invade country, destroy infastructure. Give all reconstruction contracts to Haliburton. Pay for it with incapacitating loans to said invaded country. Repeat. Quote
johnny_destiny Posted October 22, 2003 Posted October 22, 2003 Nothing more than Manifest Destiny in the new millennium. Quote
chelle Posted October 22, 2003 Posted October 22, 2003 trask said: I would be interested in knowing your the thoughts regarding this proposal. Please include such things as: 1. Can the US reasonably absorb these costs. 2. Is this a good investment in the future. 3. Do we set a precedent for any future "preemptive strikes". Trask - good to see a hardcore conservative like yourself thinking about this sort of thing. 1) I'm not an economist and don't know whether we can absorb these costs without significant impact to the US economy. What does cause me to be concerned is that we are spending so much money over there when there are a lot of domestic issues at home that also need attention. I think it will be hard to tackle both things, particularly now that the administration is admitting they will need to request more money in the future. 2) It is a necessary investment for the future. We bombed their country and have to at least get it back to where it was before that. However, doing only that and walking away would be insufficient and would likely create resentment on the part of the people of Iraq. We need to help get them to the point of stability and independence, which will hopefully help the middle east region. Unfortunately there is no guarantee that rebuilding Iraq will create stability in the region, nor create strong allies with any country including Iraq. And the current foreign policy has not really focused on creating allies and long lasting diplomatic ties. 3) I think we have set many precedents as a country through this war and how it has been dealt with at home and on the world stage. I only hope that some of them will be lessons learned that will not be repeated should the leadership of this country feel the need to preemptively take out a potential foe in the future. Quote
Greg_W Posted October 22, 2003 Posted October 22, 2003 I've applied for 2 or three jobs in Iraq. Global contractors (not just Halliburton) are already looking. Two year commitments or less. Could be a very interesting opportunity. Quote
allthumbs Posted October 22, 2003 Author Posted October 22, 2003 Will they let you bring your firearm and carry/use it if necessary? (I wouldn't consider going if not) Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.