(01-24-2017, 03:11 AM)Dill Wrote: Historically based policy analysis of Trump's statements and values=complicated.
Just listening to what is in his heart=simple.
Actually I was curious as to why we didn't work out a deal with Iraq and use their oil as a means to pay for the invasion. Seems more befitting than always the US taxpayer footing the bill for another country's freedom.
(01-25-2017, 02:00 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Actually I was curious as to why we didn't work out a deal with Iraq and use their oil as a means to pay for the invasion. Seems more befitting than always the US taxpayer footing the bill for another country's freedom.
Quote:Would the war be cheap and would Iraq pay for it?
The projections: Ahead of and shortly after the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, a number of officials, including former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz suggested the war could be done on the cheap and that it would largely pay for itself. In October 2003, Rumsfeld told a press conference about President Bush's request for $21 billion for Iraq and Afghan reconstruction that "the $20 billion the president requested is not intended to cover all of Iraq's needs. The bulk of the funds for Iraq's reconstruction will come from Iraqis -- from oil revenues, recovered assets, international trade, direct foreign investment, as well as some contributions we've already received and hope to receive from the international community." In March 2003, Mr. Wolfowitz told Congress that "we're really dealing with a country that could finance its own reconstruction." In April 2003, the Pentagon said the war would cost about $2 billion a month, and in July of that year Rumsfeld increased that estimate to $4 billion.
What happened? The Iraq war cost about $800 billion, or about $7.6 billion a month. When long term benefits are paid out connected with the death and injury of US troops there, the number is expected to rise to about $1 trillion, or about $9.5 billion a month. About $60 billion was spent directly on Iraq reconstruction efforts.
Quote:[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]In his new book and in recent media appearances promoting it, former top Bush aide Karl Rove has been revising the history of the Iraq war, particularly regarding the issue of Saddam Hussien’s alleged weapons of mass destruction.[/color]
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]Today on NBC’s Meet the Press, Rove continued with his Iraq war history revision campaign. Noting that the Bush administration had mishandled the management of the war, host Tom Brokaw mentioned that “the cost of the war skyrocketed almost from the beginning. There was not a sharing of the oil revenue that a lot of people had promised.” But Rove flatly denied that the Bush administration said Iraqi oil revenues would help pay for the war:[/color]
Quote:[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]ROVE: No, no. Tom with all due respect that was not the policy of our government that we were going to go into Iraq and take their resources in order to pay for the cost of the war. … [T]he suggestion that somehow or another the administration had as its policy, “We’re going to go in to Iraq and take their resource and pay for the war” is not accurate.[/color]
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]Watch it:[/color]
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]Rove’s claim is simply not true. In fact, days after the U.S. invasion, then-Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz told a congressional panel that Iraqi oil revenues would help pay for reconstructing the country, i.e. a cost of the war. “The oil revenue of that country could bring between 50 and 100 billion dollars over the course of the next two or three years. We’re dealing with a country that could really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon,” he said.[/color]
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]One month before the war, then-White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said Iraq “is a rather wealthy country. … And so there are a variety of means that Iraq has to be able to shoulder much of the burden for their own reconstruction.”[/color]
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]Since the start of the Iraq war, the U.S. has spent tens of billions of dollarsin reconstruction costs.[/color]
Quote:The following quotes were compiled by Christopher Cerf and Victor Navasky in their capacity as CEO and president of the Institute of Expertology, which has just issued a report on the experts who were wrong about Iraq–before, during and after the invasion–under the title Mission Accomplished! Or, How We Won the War in Iraq; The Experts Speak (Simon & Schuster). Here, the “experts” speak about the costs of war.
“Iraq is a very wealthy country. Enormous oil reserves. They can finance, largely finance the reconstruction of their own country. And I have no doubt that they will.” ADVERTISING
Richard Perle, chair
The Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board
July 11, 2002 “The likely economic effects [of a war in Iraq] would be relatively small…. Under every plausible scenario, the negative effect will be quite small relative to the economic benefits.” Lawrence Lindsey
White House economic adviser
September 16, 2002 “It is unimaginable that the United States would have to contribute hundreds of billions of dollars and highly unlikely that we would have to contribute even tens of billions of dollars.” Kenneth Pollack
former director for Persian Gulf affairs
National Security Council
September 2002 “The costs of any intervention would be very small.” Glenn Hubbard
White House economic adviser
October 4, 2002 “Iraq has tremendous resources that belong to the Iraqi people. And so there are a variety of means that Iraq has to be able to shoulder much of the burden for their own reconstruction.” Ari Fleischer
White House press secretary
February 18, 2003 “When it comes to reconstruction, before we turn to the American taxpayer, we will turn first to the resources of the Iraqi government and the international community.” Donald Rumsfeld
Secretary of Defense
March 27, 2003 “There is a lot of money to pay for this that doesn’t have to be US taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people. We are talking about a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon.” Paul Wolfowitz
Deputy Secretary of Defense
testifying before the defense subcommittee
of the House Appropriations Committee
March 27, 2003 “The United States is very committed to helping Iraq recover from the conflict, but Iraq will not require sustained aid.” Mitchell Daniels, director
White House Office of Management and Budget
April 21, 2003 “The allies [have contributed] $14 billion in direct aid.” Dick Cheney
vice presidential debate with
Democratic candidate John Edwards
October 5, 2004 Actually, only $13 billion was pledged, and on the date Cheney spoke only $1 billion had arrived. As of October 28, 2007, the National Priorities Project estimated that the share of Iraq War costs that had been borne by American taxpayers exceeded $463 billion.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
(01-25-2017, 02:00 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Actually I was curious as to why we didn't work out a deal with Iraq and use their oil as a means to pay for the invasion. Seems more befitting than always the US taxpayer footing the bill for another country's freedom.
Have you ever moved into someone else's house and promptly destroyed their plumbing, electrical, gas, framing, foundation, floors, etc then asked them to pay for all the shit you broke?
(01-25-2017, 02:00 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Actually I was curious as to why we didn't work out a deal with Iraq and use their oil as a means to pay for the invasion. Seems more befitting than always the US taxpayer footing the bill for another country's freedom.
Well, that is a good question, Mike. I think Dino has pretty well laid out the political context--the plan to use the oil to pay for an invasion on the cheap--without first asking the Iraqis what they thought.
Thing is, one third of the Iraqi's for sure did not see the US invasion as "liberation." To them it was just an invasion. Many Shia who initially rejoiced that Saddam was gone sang another tune as the families died and houses were destroyed in the ensuing civil war. To this day, electricity and water do run as they did under Saddam.
The other aspect of the war was that it was the fruit of neo-con ideology, with no relation to reality except that created by twisted intel. We broke the country for no good reason and no plan for repairing it--no "nation building." Few were ready to thank us for that.
Finally, once we had won--i.e., once we were riding the Tiger--we lost control of the country. The insurgency arose and thousands of ordinary Iraqis who hated Al Qaeda were fighting the invaders. One great rallying cry of the insurgency was "The Americans are taking our oil to give to the Jews!"
The country was dependent upon its oil proceeds for reconstruction and for maintenance of the state (including schools and universities and hospitals). Take the oil and you have an ongoing occupation, thousands of Americans dying year after year, and an international community accusing the US (correctly) of using military force to rob another country of its resources, much as Nazis did in Eastern Europe.
The US taxpayer should not have had to pay for this useless invasion, that is for sure. 4500 US dead, over 1,000,000 Iraqis, the rise of ISIL, Loss of control of Afghanistan, 3 trillion in debt--all flowed from that one bad decision to invade.
(01-25-2017, 02:44 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Have you ever moved into someone else's house and promptly destroyed their plumbing, electrical, gas, framing, foundation, floors, etc then asked them to pay for all the shit you broke?
Depends, if you are there to chase the bogeyman out then yes, they should pay. I'm doing them a favor.
(01-25-2017, 04:12 PM)Dill Wrote: Well, that is a good question, Mike. I think Dino has pretty well laid out the political context--the plan to use the oil to pay for an invasion on the cheap--without first asking the Iraqis what they thought.
Thing is, one third of the Iraqi's for sure did not see the US invasion as "liberation." To them it was just an invasion. Many Shia who initially rejoiced that Saddam was gone sang another tune as the families died and houses were destroyed in the ensuing civil war. To this day, electricity and water do run as they did under Saddam.
The other aspect of the war was that it was the fruit of neo-con ideology, with no relation to reality except that created by twisted intel. We broke the country for no good reason and no plan for repairing it--no "nation building." Few were ready to thank us for that.
Finally, once we had won--i.e., once we were riding the Tiger--we lost control of the country. The insurgency arose and thousands of ordinary Iraqis who hated Al Qaeda were fighting the invaders. One great rallying cry of the insurgency was "The Americans are taking our oil to give to the Jews!"
The country was dependent upon its oil proceeds for reconstruction and for maintenance of the state (including schools and universities and hospitals). Take the oil and you have an ongoing occupation, thousands of Americans dying year after year, and an international community accusing the US (correctly) of using military force to rob another country of its resources, much as Nazis did in Eastern Europe.
The US taxpayer should not have had to pay for this useless invasion, that is for sure. 4500 US dead, over 1,000,000 Iraqis, the rise of ISIL, Loss of control of Afghanistan, 3 trillion in debt--all flowed from that one bad decision to invade.
Close to my line of thinking, but I didn't refer to out right taking it. I was more along on the lines of splitting it up somehow so that we get paid back over time, like 70-30 etc. With that in mind, I don't think the UN or anyone would've royally complained about that.
It seems this whole war was nothing but a giant clusterfuck in an attempt to hit someone for 9-11.
(01-25-2017, 06:18 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Depends, if you are there to chase the bogeyman out then yes, they should pay. I'm doing them a favor.
Close to my line of thinking, but I didn't refer to out right taking it. I was more along on the lines of splitting it up somehow so that we get paid back over time, like 70-30 etc. With that in mind, I don't think the UN or anyone would've royally complained about that.
It seems this whole war was nothing but a giant clusterfuck in an attempt to hit someone for 9-11.
Do you think they would pay for their broken shit (which you broke) if you told the world they had a bogeyman, but it turned out you lied?
(01-25-2017, 06:18 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Depends, if you are there to chase the bogeyman out then yes, they should pay. I'm doing them a favor.
Close to my line of thinking, but I didn't refer to out right taking it. I was more along on the lines of splitting it up somehow so that we get paid back over time, like 70-30 etc. With that in mind, I don't think the UN or anyone would've royally complained about that.
It seems this whole war was nothing but a giant clusterfuck in an attempt to hit someone for 9-11.
Rachel Maddow has a good segment on this. Throughout Iraq and Syria now ISIL propaganda is showing Trump saying he will take the oil. This is putting US troops at risk in theater.
Yeah. No way the DOJ would **** up the accounting. Take a look st your minuscule ***** bank account and realize you're not going to benefit from anything like this. If you think otherwise, stop with your low T treatments and reconnect with your family. It's all you have in the end.
National Stats during Obama Admin
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media0.giphy.com/media/1kwsTjL8BNqlszNtnCE/giphy.gif)
