Given that the Bush policy has already cost the US economy about a trillion (1,000,000,000,000) dollars according to a report released today, and that the full cost for the deployment is yet to be known we should start making plans for how we are going to pay for it.

Here is one idea that Congress has already started with:
<a href="http://capwiz.com/dav/issues/alert/?alertid=1691076&type=CU" target="_blank">
House Budget Resolution Will Slash $9.7 Billion from Veterans Medical Care and $15 Billion from Disability Compensation and Other Benefit Programs</a>
Write the Speaker of the House of Representatives to express your opposition today

By a vote along party lines, the majority members of the House Budget Committee passed and reported for a vote by the House a budget resolution that would cut $844 million from veterans’ medical care next year and $9.7 billion over the next 10 years. In addition, the budget resolution would cut $15 billion from the disability compensation and other benefit programs over the next 10 years. The House leadership are pushing these cuts to offset the cost of the President’s $1.57 trillion tax reduction plan. Send an e-mail to the Speaker of the House today. A vote on this resolution by the entire House membership could come as early as Wednesday, March 19, 2003. Please enter your zip code in the box provided, and send the prepared e-mail message today!
------------------------------------------------------------

This is a great way to thank the men and woman over fighting in Iraq...

That isn't even considering the post-war cost.

You are going to have to pay for the post war after the Iraqi leader has been removed. The initial post-war phase of the occupation and reconstruction of Iraqi as been estimated to be at another $900-million.

My money is on the US abandoning Iraq after a few years, and the Iraqi people being worse off than before just because the US can't really aford it and have no real post war plan. Bush isn't one who is able to look to far ahead, he is more a here and now type person. They is also why his environmental policies are horrible, as well as alienating allies.

I'd like to see Bush show some balls (figurativly of course) and veto any spending bill sent up that has all this pork barrel spending that congress is so famous for. Remember the money spent on a museum celebrating the life and accomplishments of Lauwrence Welk? Another way to save money is to abolish the Department of Education. Just take the money and send it directly to the states. Something like 75% of every dollar spent on education is spent on administration. And alot of that administration is in DC. I'd also get rid of NPR, PBS, and the NEA. And then I'd cut the rate of growth in spending on EVERYTHING. Sorry to go off subject a bit, but if he does this we'd have plenty of money for the vets.

Alas, as usual, when money needs to be found for some pol's pet project, the first place they look is the "benefits" of the men and women that dedicate their lives (sometimes literally) to protecting this nation.

When was the last time Congress voted to slash it's own salary or benefits? [img]graemlins/madhell.gif[/img]

and not to get all partisan here, but it's the Republicans that are slashing these benefits, all the Democrats on the committee voted against it.

To go beyond being partisan ... I could care less about political parties. Thomas Jefferson was very prophetic when lamenting that political parties would be the ruin of the nation.

I hear you on that one!!

I would like to see the interim government last only long enough for them to vote for Iraqis to run their country.

Bush is creating a deficit that is historical, both is scope and in the short amount of time he has been in office.

If he goes through with those tax cuts for the rich, heck, I am already ticked at him.

It's quite ironic isn't it? To pay for the war, the government will cut the benefits of the men and women who fought in that very same war. A bit of a slap in the face, if you ask me.

It's quite ironic isn't it? To pay for the war, the government will cut the benefits of the men and women who fought in that very same war. A bit of a slap in the face, if you ask me.</font>[/QUOTE]That's exactly the same impression i got. Although i was also under the impression that the US was expending less than 4% of its GDP in waging a war on Iraq.

Call me a cynic but is not the reason they have captured the oil wells and supply ports just so they can sell the oil to finance the war?

And before you shoot me down let me say that I think it would be justified to offset some of the costs of liberating the Iraq people. Not to make a profit but to ease the burden on the allied taxpayer.

What do you think to that?

I'm sure that Bush can think up some more taxcuts (for the rich) to pay for it ;)

Indeed... it is also no coincidence that the US gov already has US companies linded up to do the rebuilding of iraq (thus excluding others such as the UN). The oil will be the icing on the cake. :mad:

I hate to shoot you down, but...

No, it is not the reason they captured the oil fields, and no, it would not be justified to use the oil to pay for the war.

The oil belongs to the Iraqi people, and while it will be used to help rebuild Iraqi, it will not be used to finance the war for the coalition. That is propaganda pure and simple, so do not believe it until you see proof that the coalition is stealing oil. ;)

Saddam has a history of destroying oil wells and/or setting them on fire. The resulting smoke covers the battlefield and effects military operations. That's only a part of why he does it though. His most important reason though is so he can claim he's destroying the oil before the Americans can steal it. Yet another patriotic act by Saddam, done for his people, and against the evil, oil hungry, Muslim hating Americans. :(

The thick black smoke clouds are also toxic. Toxic to soldiers and civilians. The incidences of respiratory disease and ailments in Kuwait after the first Gulf War are up by hundreds of percentage points due to Saddam lighting off their wells prior to his retreat from their country, and the ensuing toxic cloud left behind for months.

During the last Gulf War, he also opened the oil pipeline at their major coastal facility and poured oil into the Gulf for days and days until the coalition could turn it off. The largest oil spill ever, and it was done intentionally by Saddam.

Saddam has already set fire to wells, has filled trenches with oil around Baghdad and set them on fire, and in southern Iraq, he's opened the taps a created a huge spill in the desert.

There are many reasons for securing Iraqi oil fields and facilities, but none of those reasons include stealing oil.

[ 03-23-2003, 09:54 AM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

I don't think you are lying, but do you have a link showing which US companies the US has lined up, or are you speculating on the matter?

Either way, I bet there are some British companies and Australian companies, too. As a matter of fact, I bet there are companies lined up from... what was it.... 52 nations at last count? ;)

The UN seemed pretty uninterested in disarming Iraq and removing Saddam, so what makes you think the UN wants to help rebuild it? (I wrote that with my tongue firmly in my cheek [img]smile.gif[/img] )

I don't think you are lying, but do you have a link showing which US companies the US has lined up, or are you speculating on the matter?

Either way, I bet there are some British companies and Australian companies, too. As a matter of fact, I bet there are companies lined up from... what was it.... 52 nations at last count? ;) </font>[/QUOTE]Actually, no. The last I heard, the US government had stated that only US companies could bid for the rebuilding Iraq project. I'll go hunt a link.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/W...act030322.html

"British troops are serving alongside U.S. troops in Iraq. But the closed process blocked British companies, as well as any foreign firm, from bidding."

[ 03-24-2003, 03:29 PM: Message edited by: Bardan the Slayer ]

Well that was a stupid political move. :(

The rebuilding hasn't started yet, and my guess is that when it does, there will be international involvement in spite of this move.

I certainly hope so, but not because I want the wealth spread around - I couldn't care less about that.

My fear is that if this 'closed bidding' results in a US decree that only US firms may take part in (and profit) in the rebuilding of Iraq, that will cause even more people to hbelieve that the war was waged purely for economic reasons, and for the interests of the large businesses in the USA. This would mean that some of the mud thrown at the US would stick to us for aiding you, and I don't like that :(

What ever the reason for capturing the oil wells I am glad they did it first.
Even if Bush agreeed to do this for political, money, and business principles, which I think he did, it is also good in preventing an environmental disaster so I would not complain about them being secured.

It is very unlike the US to not wish to get the best bang for the buck as well as support free trade and a free world. However many governments support, and cater to businesses and I really dislike it. My government does the same for Bombardier and would not surprise me that Bush will have a few companies lined up to do the work. However it is also likely that a work around to this policy is that the companies that are doing much of the work will not be capable of doing all work and require expertise in other areas so they will contract jobs out to other companies to complete the work, many of which may be foreign. We will see how it plays out or even if this policy stays.