How to pay for the war?

[Ar-Cunin]

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

[esquire]

Originally posted by wellard: 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?

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.

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by wellard: 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 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 ]

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by esquire: 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.

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] )

[Bardan the Slayer]

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: Quote: Originally posted by esquire: 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.

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? [/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 ]

[Ronn_Bman]

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.

[Bardan the Slayer]

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

[pritchke]

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.

Originally posted by Bardan the Slayer: 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

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.