Eighty-seven Billion Dollars
Windelkron
Join Date: 2002-04-11 Member: 419Members
Join Date: 2002-04-11 Member: 419Members
in Discussions
<a href='http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&ncid=564&e=1&u=/nm/20030908/ts_nm/iraq_bush_dc_6' target='_blank'>http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor.../iraq_bush_dc_6</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->White House Breakdown of $87 Billion Anti-Terror Money
Mon Sep 8, 4:09 PM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House on Monday gave a breakdown of where the $87 billion requested by President Bush (news - web sites) for the war on terror would be spent.
Lawmakers Backing Bush's $87B War Request
AP - 43 minutes ago
Special Coverage
"Most of these funds ($66 billion) are dedicated to give our men and women in uniform the resources they need to succeed in their missions in Iraq (news - web sites), Afghanistan (news - web sites) and elsewhere in the war on terror," the White House said in a statement.
"The remainder of the funds ($21 billion) are dedicated to helping to build safe, stable and self-governing societies in these nations ravaged by decades of misrule."
-- In Iraq, about $51 billion will support ongoing military operations. Of that, $800 million will provide transport and support to troops of coalition partners that are willing to commit to the operation.
Another $300 million will buy body armor and $140 million will deliver heavily armored Humvees to protect U.S. forces.
An unspecified amount of the money will pay for two-week furloughs for U.S. troops who have been in Iraq for a year. Unspecified amounts will be used to repair and replace damaged or lost equipment and provide "rapid fielding support."
-- About $20 billion will be used for Iraqi reconstruction. The Bush administration said initial estimates put the total cost of reconstruction at $50 billion to $75 billion.
Of the $20 billion, about $5 billion will be spent to train border guards, a new Iraqi army, police force and local civilian defense corps, as well as building a judicial and penal system.
The other $15 billion will go for infrastructure: building and repairing clinics; providing drinking water; opening ports, railroad lines and airports; restoring oil production and providing electrical service.
-- In Afghanistan, about $11 billion will be spent to support U.S. forces' efforts to "track down terrorists and provide stability."
In addition, the administration will take $400 million from existing accounts to accelerate progress on Afghanistan reconstruction. The president's request seeks $800 million to address "critical remaining security and reconstruction needs." Some $1.8 billion has previously been appropriated for these purposes, in addition to $5 billion pledged by the international community.
This aid includes over $400 million to train and support the Afghan National Army and national police, border and highway patrol; over $300 million to accelerate construction of roads, schools, clinics and local small-scale projects; over $120 million will be used to train and employ demobilized militiamen; and nearly $300 million will support efforts to establish the rule of law, elections and the Afghanistan government's operational requirements. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<span style='font-size:16pt;line-height:100%'>So where's it going?</span>
Share your thoughts, explanations, theories.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->White House Breakdown of $87 Billion Anti-Terror Money
Mon Sep 8, 4:09 PM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House on Monday gave a breakdown of where the $87 billion requested by President Bush (news - web sites) for the war on terror would be spent.
Lawmakers Backing Bush's $87B War Request
AP - 43 minutes ago
Special Coverage
"Most of these funds ($66 billion) are dedicated to give our men and women in uniform the resources they need to succeed in their missions in Iraq (news - web sites), Afghanistan (news - web sites) and elsewhere in the war on terror," the White House said in a statement.
"The remainder of the funds ($21 billion) are dedicated to helping to build safe, stable and self-governing societies in these nations ravaged by decades of misrule."
-- In Iraq, about $51 billion will support ongoing military operations. Of that, $800 million will provide transport and support to troops of coalition partners that are willing to commit to the operation.
Another $300 million will buy body armor and $140 million will deliver heavily armored Humvees to protect U.S. forces.
An unspecified amount of the money will pay for two-week furloughs for U.S. troops who have been in Iraq for a year. Unspecified amounts will be used to repair and replace damaged or lost equipment and provide "rapid fielding support."
-- About $20 billion will be used for Iraqi reconstruction. The Bush administration said initial estimates put the total cost of reconstruction at $50 billion to $75 billion.
Of the $20 billion, about $5 billion will be spent to train border guards, a new Iraqi army, police force and local civilian defense corps, as well as building a judicial and penal system.
The other $15 billion will go for infrastructure: building and repairing clinics; providing drinking water; opening ports, railroad lines and airports; restoring oil production and providing electrical service.
-- In Afghanistan, about $11 billion will be spent to support U.S. forces' efforts to "track down terrorists and provide stability."
In addition, the administration will take $400 million from existing accounts to accelerate progress on Afghanistan reconstruction. The president's request seeks $800 million to address "critical remaining security and reconstruction needs." Some $1.8 billion has previously been appropriated for these purposes, in addition to $5 billion pledged by the international community.
This aid includes over $400 million to train and support the Afghan National Army and national police, border and highway patrol; over $300 million to accelerate construction of roads, schools, clinics and local small-scale projects; over $120 million will be used to train and employ demobilized militiamen; and nearly $300 million will support efforts to establish the rule of law, elections and the Afghanistan government's operational requirements. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<span style='font-size:16pt;line-height:100%'>So where's it going?</span>
Share your thoughts, explanations, theories.
Comments
I wonder where all of that went.
Well, by that, you make one major point: The sums that're put into the reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan are ridiculous, especially considering that the Marshall Plan was sheer economic support, while the reconstruction of infrastructure and social systems were based on other funds.
For the 'Halliburton'-argument, let's get a few things straight:
<li>Does anyone in here believe that the American President <i>wouldn't</i> want to get profitable contracts to American firms? Anyone? Thought so.
<li>Does anyone in here believe that the United States' economy (which consits of American companies) <i>isn't</i> the strongest economy on Earth? Anyone? Thought so.
So we all agree that Bush will, simply to fullfill his role as leader of a nation, open the Iraq, which is cursed with a shattered economy that's on the brink of total collapse, to the strongest economic force on Earth?
Then it doesn't matter whether his intention are genuine or not, or whether corruption is involved or not, because, no matter whether Iraqs railroads and streets will be rebuilt, its economy will be put to death in the process, and of what use are good streets when they're filled with unemployed people?
(j/k)
Not all the money spent by the Bush administration neccesarily can be listed, i.e. you aren't allowed to know where some of it goes (and there's a reason for that), but it's fairly obvious where it does go <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
<a href='http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/082003Burns/082003burns.html' target='_blank'>This is evil</a> they had technology to disprove the WMD theory and kept it quiet
<a href='http://www.corpwatch.org/issues/PID.jsp?articleid=7729' target='_blank'>And Here we have</a> halliburton rips off our allies <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> woot!
People are always so quick to jump on board any time "money" and "government" is mentioned in the same sentance and start saying "OH YEAH THE MONEY WILL JUST GO TO BIG AMERICAN CORPERATIONS" or "OLD GEORGE WILL POCKET THAT". Have you stopped to think that George Bush is already very rich, and he has <b>absolutely no motive</b> for wanting more money, and he is faced with the task of having to rebuild 2 countries from the ground up because of crazy former leaders who were more interested in blowing up other countries than making their country a proper place to live.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"reconstruction costs" equivalent to "money for companies who are in charge of rebuilding"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is prescisely the kind of drivel I'm talking about - beleive it or not, somebody does actually have to do the rebuilding! you cant just take a briefcase of money and throw it on the ground and hospitals and schools magically appear, they have to be (gasp) built by (OMG) COMPANIES! Ok, so next you will argue that its american companies doing the building - This is largely true and I personally think its fully justifiable as it helps in bringing the economy back to balance after the war, and the quality of work done by the american companies will surpass the poor standards of the few iraqi building firms that exist (Who I'm sure will also get contracts, but not as big as for the american companies).
In short, I think the money will be spent exactly as they say it will be - on suppies & rebuilding.
Greypaws, what exactly are you trying to prove with this? It is an article explaining that some software made by Landmark is capable of seeing distances of 200ft or more (but not less), that the technology is not good at spotting caves or tunnels, that all it can really do is search for huge caverns that are deep underground, and that it would take an unimaginable amount of time to search iraq for WMD using the technology.
The second technology it mentions is GPR, which sounds slightly more promising than the Landmark technology, except it has a 50foot boundary, and not only would it take a huge amount of time to scan iraq using it, we would first have to conduct a (very expensive) seismic survey of the entire country before we could even start that scanning!
I dont see the link here either... Ok, so **** Cheney is president of this company until 2000. I doubt that **** Cheney had even heard of the Landmark software as the president of the company and we have already established that this Landmark technology is useless. The following link to GPR (Which even if it had been considred, would not have been an effective alternative to war) is made by the editor of the article, it has no relation to the Halliburton company or **** Cheney.
Finally, even if **** Cheney knew about GPR, it is not his role to suggest using it - the government employs a lot of scientists & researchers to make descisions like that - and its that fact which also leads me to thinking that GPR most likely was considered & dismissed before the war.
Anyone who says that is just sickening. Honestly, I hate all these baseless accusations saying corporations have every politican in their pocket. The money is actually going to some good use here, while I do think it is a bit much.
People are always so quick to jump on board any time "money" and "government" is mentioned in the same sentance and start saying "OH YEAH THE MONEY WILL JUST GO TO BIG AMERICAN CORPERATIONS" or "OLD GEORGE WILL POCKET THAT". Have you stopped to think that George Bush is already very rich, and he has <b>absolutely no motive</b> for wanting more money, and he is faced with the task of having to rebuild 2 countries from the ground up because of crazy former leaders who were more interested in blowing up other countries than making their country a proper place to live.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"reconstruction costs" equivalent to "money for companies who are in charge of rebuilding"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is prescisely the kind of drivel I'm talking about - beleive it or not, somebody does actually have to do the rebuilding! you cant just take a briefcase of money and throw it on the ground and hospitals and schools magically appear, they have to be (gasp) built by (OMG) COMPANIES! Ok, so next you will argue that its american companies doing the building - This is largely true and I personally think its fully justifiable as it helps in bringing the economy back to balance after the war, and the quality of work done by the american companies will surpass the poor standards of the few iraqi building firms that exist (Who I'm sure will also get contracts, but not as big as for the american companies).
In short, I think the money will be spent exactly as they say it will be - on suppies & rebuilding. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Amen men, about time to see another sane person in here.
The best part is, just about none of those that do, would have questioned such things under Clinton.
Bullcrap I say, just plain, flat out bullcrap.
I also would like to point out that (even myself at times) everyone is biased. Everyone has preconceived expectations of what political leaders will do despite what they say they are going to do.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> this money is going to go towards Halliburton and other companies, and end up going right back into Bush's reelection fund.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
More political propoganda used to unpopularize Bush and gain popularity for the democratic party.
I was going to type more, but I have to get off the computer now <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo-->. Expect more from me tomarrow.
I also would like to point out that (even myself at times) everyone is biased. Everyone has preconceived expectations of what political leaders will do despite what they say they are going to do.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> this money is going to go towards Halliburton and other companies, and end up going right back into Bush's reelection fund.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
More political propoganda used to unpopularize Bush and gain popularity for the democratic party.
I was going to type more, but I have to get off the computer now <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo-->. Expect more from me tomarrow. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly.
Keep in mind that most 'rich' people don't have most of their funds in liquid form, but rather have it in holdings, stocks, bonds, and etcetera. Also keep in mind that Dubya and Cheney both used to work in the oil business, and still have strong ties to them. 41 Senior White House executives were also oil execs previously and also have strong financial ties to the oil business. I wouldn't put it past them to choose reconstruction companies that they also have holdings in. Sure, assuming that they've been satiated money-wise, and have no motive to want more money, they still want to not *lose* money, as an eligible company being overlooked for a huge government contract can cause some stock tankage, which translates to those politicians losing money. And no one wants to lose money.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->and he is faced with the task of having to rebuild 2 countries from the ground up because of crazy former leaders who were more interested in blowing up other countries than making their country a proper place to live.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yep, we have to rebuild those two countries. Do you know who put those crazy former leaders into power in the first place? Yep, the United States. We extensively armed *BOTH* Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, Osama because he fought against the Soviets in Afghanistan, and Saddam because he was willing to (at the time) sell oil for cheap, and was willing to fight Iran. Are you aware that WE are the ones who gave Saddam the plans for the chemical weapons in the first place? That we were aware that he was using those chemical weapons on the Kurds -- and yet we continued giving him weapons? Or that Osama bin Laden received training from our very own CIA? Sadly, in the past, when we're choosing which dictator to install in place of the one we've just ousted, we don't really care about how they treat their countrymen, but rather our own economic interests.
Consider the case of Nicaragua. When the Sandinistas overthrew the very brutal (but American friendly) Somoza in 1979, the US fought hard to regain economic control over Nicaragua. Keep in mind that the US *knew* that Somoza was a crazy leader. FDR himself said, 'Somoza may be a ****, but he's our ****." So anyway, while the Sandinistas were trying to redistribute the land to the poor and get health care out and such, the US send contras in to try to reinstate a new puppet leader. Note that the contras were so despised by the PEOPLE of Nicaragua that they had to station them in Honduras and make raids from there. We certainly don't really care about if a leader tries to make their country a proper place to live. In fact, despite the fact that ALL of the last seven wars that we fought (under the guise of 'human rights') have been with countries to which we had previously given military aid and known about their violations of human rights, the government STILL persists on supplying weapons to other countries even today who violate human rights.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->argue that its american companies doing the building - This is largely true and I personally think its fully justifiable as it helps in bringing the economy back to balance after the war, and the quality of work done by the american companies will surpass the poor standards of the few iraqi building firms that exist (Who I'm sure will also get contracts, but not as big as for the american companies).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, it's American companies doing the building. If you want to bring the economy back after a war, however, you need to get the country's own companies working on their reconstruction -- or you're not stimulating their economy -- you're stimulating your own. If Iraq's building firms are not up to par at the moment, that's not really their fault. If recall, we bombed the crap out of that place.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm happy to see the President is still committed to rebuilding Iraq and defeating terrorism no matter the cost. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There was no terror in Iraq to defeat in the first place. Keep in mind that Hussein is a completely secular ruler. He isn't supporting religiously zealous terrorists. We knew this, too. A senior CIA official said "Saddam Hussein initiating an attack in the foreseeable future is…low" (10/02). Not enough? George Tenet, the head of the CIA, which, obviously is the source of all of the US's military intelligence, said on November 7th, 2002 that Iraq "appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or chemical weapons against us."
So clearly, as demonstrated above, we did *not* go into Iraq to:
* Fight for human rights
* Pre-empt an attack on us
* Fight Terror
Rather, in light of Bush and Cheney and 41 Senior White House Officials' major ties with oil companies, I stipulate that we went in for oil. And given this first already shady motive, I would also stipulate that the military budget probably isn't all what they claim it to be.
Rhuadin
Rhuadin
They've made my life miserable for the last decade, and they're working on less than a few square miles of Boston highway.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->White House Breakdown of $87 Billion Anti-Terror Money
Mon Sep 8, 4:09 PM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House on Monday gave a breakdown of where the $87 billion requested by President Bush (news - web sites) for the war on terror would be spent.
Lawmakers Backing Bush's $87B War Request
AP - 43 minutes ago
Special Coverage
"Most of these funds ($66 billion) are dedicated to give our men and women in uniform the resources they need to succeed in their missions in Iraq (news - web sites), Afghanistan (news - web sites) and elsewhere in the war on terror," the White House said in a statement.
"The remainder of the funds ($21 billion) are dedicated to helping to build safe, stable and self-governing societies in these nations ravaged by decades of misrule."
-- In Iraq, about $51 billion will support ongoing military operations. Of that, $800 million will provide transport and support to troops of coalition partners that are willing to commit to the operation.
Another $300 million will buy body armor and $140 million will deliver heavily armored Humvees to protect U.S. forces.
An unspecified amount of the money will pay for two-week furloughs for U.S. troops who have been in Iraq for a year. Unspecified amounts will be used to repair and replace damaged or lost equipment and provide "rapid fielding support."
-- About $20 billion will be used for Iraqi reconstruction. The Bush administration said initial estimates put the total cost of reconstruction at $50 billion to $75 billion.
Of the $20 billion, about $5 billion will be spent to train border guards, a new Iraqi army, police force and local civilian defense corps, as well as building a judicial and penal system.
The other $15 billion will go for infrastructure: building and repairing clinics; providing drinking water; opening ports, railroad lines and airports; restoring oil production and providing electrical service.
-- In Afghanistan, about $11 billion will be spent to support U.S. forces' efforts to "track down terrorists and provide stability."
In addition, the administration will take $400 million from existing accounts to accelerate progress on Afghanistan reconstruction. The president's request seeks $800 million to address "critical remaining security and reconstruction needs." Some $1.8 billion has previously been appropriated for these purposes, in addition to $5 billion pledged by the international community.
This aid includes over $400 million to train and support the Afghan National Army and national police, border and highway patrol; over $300 million to accelerate construction of roads, schools, clinics and local small-scale projects; over $120 million will be used to train and employ demobilized militiamen; and nearly $300 million will support efforts to establish the rule of law, elections and the Afghanistan government's operational requirements. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<span style='font-size:16pt;line-height:100%'>So where's it going?</span>
Share your thoughts, explanations, theories. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Certainly not to the 1 in every 6 child in poverty in the U.S
Much like hitler did for germany, Saddam managed to pull Iraq from the ground into one of the most industrialised civilazations in the east. However, Saddam also started to follow hitlers footsteps in that he started to ban opposition trade unions and political parties. Saddam started using his chemical weapons to put down internal rebellions and this is when the country started to fall into trouble because it lost US support & the Iraq-Iran war left the economy very weak. In a desperate attempt to save the country, Saddam invaded kuait in 1990 and siezed 20% of the worlds known oil reserves (Hitler-Poland?).
By this point the US was becoming increasingly worried that Saddam was going to launch a strike on Saudi Arabia and thus launched operation Desert Storm in 1991 to drive saddam back into Iraq. The operation was a success, but Saddam was never removed from power because it ran the risk of leading to the break-up of the Iraqi state, which would seriously destabilize the region. To avoid such a scenario, the US would have had to occupy Iraq to maintain stability but Bush sr was not willing to do this at the time. Instead, a set of military restrictions were imposed on Iraq, much like on Germany after world war 1. Low and behold, over the next 10 years Saddam slowly broke every single military restriction rule that had been imposed on Iraq - Exactly like hitler did with Germany. It was at this point that Bush stepped in and made the very sensible descision to stop Saddam before he can do any more damage. I beleive that they looked at saddams track record (which is remarkably similar to that of hitler) and decided that the world would be a better place with him gone, and I couldnt agree more. Imagine if our leaders had made the descision to remove hitler before he started invading europe - we saw all the signs coming but at the time we just turned a blind eye to it. Bush actually did something about it, and good for him.
Saying that we invaded for money or oil doesnt make sense, the country is extremely poor - it is going to cost the US billions in order to get the country back on track, and the oil reserves have been returned to their rightful owners, the US hasnt sized control of a single one of them. I feel quite sorry for bush that he has to put up with these popular conspiracy theories surrounding everything he does. There was an article in the newspaper a week ago that showed Bush dropping his dog and it was titled "How can this man lead America when he cant hold a dog" or soemthing equally ridiculous - it just seems to me that people are looking for evetry little opportunity to badmouth the poor guy. Keep in mind that George has had to deal with the largest terrorist attack in world history on his country & he potentially stopped the third world war from starting.
Dude, get over yourself, sure he had to go, blah blah blah, but if you can explain why we spend so much money abroad, but refuse to help our own people, I would LOVE to hear it
I dont think theres anything remotely "extreme" about my opinions... I have just evaluated the facts surrounding the situation and used common sense to piece it together. Going back to the topic at hand: America is one of the world most afluent countries - there is a minimal amount of poverty in the US compared to a country like Iraq so wouldnt you rather see the money being spent on helping those people who truly in need of it, rather than trying to stamp out the tiny population in america which lies in "poverty" (Mainly through their own fault too - drug abuse being a large factor here).
Communist, that argument is also flawed in that the US government spends vast amounts of money to strengthen its economy & support public sectors every year, a lot more than 87 billion! If this isnt "helping the people" then I dont know what is.
Actually he was never officially voted in. Hussein was vice president but assumed the presidency of Iraq when the former president, Ahmed Hasan al-Bakr stepped down claiming suspiciously that he had 'bad health'
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Initially he was doing a very good job with support from the US because he was a good ally against Iran (And like it or not, America does have to try to defend itself), who at the time (1970-1980) were a large threat to the west because of their theocratic, anti-Western ideology.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Believe it or not, just because a country's theocratic doesn't mean it's automatically a threat to western civilization. Furthermore, Saddam didn't really care about the US other than the fact that we were giving him weapons to fight a war that he started for Iranian land, and voiding the previous Algiers Agreement about the Iraq/Iran border. Basically, we were supporting a full on invasion.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The plans for "chemical weapons" that we gave saddam were for botulinum and phosgene, 2 gasses which are still used by most armies around the world and are perfectly legal - We did not give him any information about nerve gas which he later publicly claimed to have thousands of gallons of in the mid-90's. We did also not provide him with any information on nuclear technology, another weapon that saddam has tried to threaten us with.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Regardless of what we gave him, it was still known to US Intelligence that he used illegal nerve agents on the Kurdish civilians at Halabja, killing around 5000 civilians, and yet we still gave him weapons. We knew that he had the illegal nerve gas then and we didn't do anything about it. I never said anything about Saddam and us giving him nuclear information, so I don't know where you got that last bit from. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Saddam started using his chemical weapons to put down internal rebellions and this is when the country started to fall into trouble because it lost US support & the Iraq-Iran war left the economy very weak. In a desperate attempt to save the country, Saddam invaded kuait in 1990 and siezed 20% of the worlds known oil reserves (Hitler-Poland?).
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, Saddam did not lose US support after using nerve agents on his own countrymen. The US Congress *tried* to impose sanctions on Iraq, but those efforts were foiled by Bush and his administration. It is true that the Iraq-Iran war left their economy very weak, but who was it who allowed them to have that war in the first place? Oh yeah, it was us.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->By this point the US was becoming increasingly worried that Saddam was going to launch a strike on Saudi Arabia and thus launched operation Desert Storm in 1991 to drive saddam back into Iraq. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree that Operation Desert Storm was probably necessary, but keep in mind that we were cleaning up our own mess that never should've happened -- The Iraqis were using weapons that we had given them, and it was actually the US's promise (given by April Glasbie, the US Ambassador to Iraq) that the US would NOT get involved against any Iraqi conflicts that probably caused them to make the decision to attack Kuwait.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The operation was a success, but Saddam was never removed from power because it ran the risk of leading to the break-up of the Iraqi state, which would seriously destabilize the region. To avoid such a scenario, the US would have had to occupy Iraq to maintain stability but Bush sr was not willing to do this at the time. Instead, a set of military restrictions were imposed on Iraq, much like on Germany after world war 1. Low and behold, over the next 10 years Saddam slowly broke every single military restriction rule that had been imposed on Iraq - Exactly like hitler did with Germany. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Recall the set of restrictions imposed on Germany? The Treaty of Versailles? The unfairness of that treaty is what many sociologists and historians consider the seed for WWII. Why? Because it was impossible for the Germans to have any sort of economy afterwards. They simply could not live under the treaty. With the fact that the restrictions imposed on Iraq are like those on Germany after WW1, is it surprising that Iraq's economy has been in bad shape? No. Is it surprising that Iraq broke (supposedly, as no one ever found proof of WMD in Iraq) those restrictions? If he really did, it's probably not surprising anyway.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It was at this point that Bush stepped in and made the very sensible descision to stop Saddam before he can do any more damage. I beleive that they looked at saddams track record (which is remarkably similar to that of hitler) and decided that the world would be a better place with him gone, and I couldnt agree more. Imagine if our leaders had made the descision to remove hitler before he started invading europe - we saw all the signs coming but at the time we just turned a blind eye to it. Bush actually did something about it, and good for him.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bush should've stepped in and had the common sense to tell his dad not to give weapons to people using illegal chemical weapons on people. Sure, the world will be a better place with him gone, but who made him that way? We did.
Imagine if our leaders had never forced Germany to submit to such an inhumane treaty as that of Versailles. Then we'd never had had WWII -- it would've been harder for Hitler to rally the people of Germany if they had a good economy, and even harder for him to find a scapegoat (the jews) and motivate them to go to war.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Saying that we invaded for money or oil doesnt make sense, the country is extremely poor - it is going to cost the US billions in order to get the country back on track, and the oil reserves have been returned to their rightful owners, the US hasnt sized control of a single one of them. I feel quite sorry for bush that he has to put up with these popular conspiracy theories surrounding everything he does. There was an article in the newspaper a week ago that showed Bush dropping his dog and it was titled "How can this man lead America when he cant hold a dog" or soemthing equally ridiculous - it just seems to me that people are looking for evetry little opportunity to badmouth the poor guy. Keep in mind that George has had to deal with the largest terrorist attack in world history on his country & he potentially stopped the third world war from starting. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, invading for money or oil does make sense. It will cost the US billions to get the country back on track, but where are those billions going? US companies. The Oil reserves have not been returned to their rightful owners (if you consider the rightful owners to be of Iraqi descent), since as the US is occupying the territory we have full control over them. We're holding them under the ruse that Saddam might try to torch them.
EDIT: Ooops, I forgot to mention. Yep, it costs the US billions in order to get the country back on track, but it costs George Dubya Bush and his administration *nothing*. They make money from stock holdings and oil ties while the rest of us taxpayers get to shoulder the cost and effects of his war.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You're forgetting the fact that Iraq simply doesnt have the money or resources to rebuild, thats why we're stepping in and helping them out. kthxbi <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, no they don't have the money or resources to rebuild. That's what the 87 Billion *should* be used for, in giving them money and resources to rebuild. Instead, it's being used to pay american companies (and drive up their stock) to go in and make infrastructure. What are the Iraqi's going to do with infrastructure when they have no money? Over 500,000 Iraqi children have died, and the government gives money to American companies to build stuff? That doesn't even make any sense.
It's clear, looking at the past, that a unfairly imposed poor economy can cause a country to go to war. Maybe we should try to improve their economy instead of ours.
Rhuadin
You know, I really hate quoting myself, but you keep jumping up and down on that point:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><li>Does anyone in here believe that the American President <i>wouldn't</i> want to get profitable contracts to American firms? Anyone? Thought so.
<li>Does anyone in here believe that the United States' economy (which consits of American companies) <i>isn't</i> the strongest economy on Earth? Anyone? Thought so.
So we all agree that Bush will, simply to fullfill his role as leader of a nation, open the Iraq, which is cursed with a shattered economy that's on the brink of total collapse, to the strongest economic force on Earth?
Then it doesn't matter whether his intention are genuine or not, or whether corruption is involved or not, because, no matter whether Iraqs railroads and streets will be rebuilt, its economy will be put to death in the process, and of what use are good streets when they're filled with unemployed people?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Rhu stated the same numerous times, and honestly, I'd really like to get an answer.
Dude, get over yourself, sure he had to go, blah blah blah, but if you can explain why we spend so much money abroad, but refuse to help our own people, I would LOVE to hear it <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Um, I'd like to see you make an argument that brings up nearly as many well thought up points as he does.
Usually I hold respect for you Commie, considering I was the first to under stand your name :-p, but what you just said there was flat out rude, and quite stupid. You rarely contribute anything above a sentence to any discussion, so I don't see how you can put down his points as you did there without offering any logic.