Iraq rake

[Cyrus]

Bush demands $ 25 billion more for the war in Raq (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/05/05/war.spending/index.html)

"$25 billion will not be enough," said House Appropriations Committee Chairman Bill Young, Rep-Florida, after the budget meeting.

[MMMMMM]

Obviously the Iraqis should be paying for this war. And if I were President, they would be, too.

[ACPlayer]

And why exactly should they be paying for a war that they never asked for? Are you in the habit of paying for things that a vendor hands you even if you never asked for it, did not know what it would cost, when it would end and whether you would be alive to see it end?

I really want you in my poker games!

[John Cole]

"The Iraqis should be paying for this war."

M,

Don't worry. They will.

[nicky g]

The Iraqis are already paying for the war in a dozen different ways.

[MMMMMM]

They did ask for this war--at least, a lot of Iraqi dissidents and exiles requested it, to remove Saddam Hussein's political terror machine and to give them a chance at freedom. And Saddam Hussein himself asked for it too, in his own peculiar way.

The Iraqis stand to benefit more from this war, by far, than anybody else.

They should at least pay half. Future oil revenues would be OK.

We have the know-how and capability to modernize their entire oil industry and increase production, so they would be paying for it with extra revenues they would not otherwise have attained in the first place. Now that's a win-win situation for everyone.

Also, people tend to appreciate things more when they have to pay something for them. Maybe they'd better appreciate the gift and chance at freedom this way.

Anyway, that would be my plan, if I were President.

[nicky g]

"They did ask for this war--at least, a lot of Iraqi dissidents and exiles requested it"

These people spoke for themselves or a specific political viewpoint; often that of the INC which was being funded by the US anyway. There were exiles both for and against the war; neither side necessarily spoker for the Iraqi people. More importantly, it wasn't the exiles who had to endure the effects of the war, it was the people in Iraq.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
More importantly, it wasn't the exiles who had to endure the effects of the war, it was the people in Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well they're close to not having to endure the casualties of war any longer, nicky--and a year is far less to endure than another twenty years under Saddam Hussein.

[nicky g]

"Well they're close to not having to endure the casualties of war any longer"

Maybe you should read a serious newspaper.

[MMMMMM]

Even two years is far less than twenty.

[nicky g]

Regardless the point is that a hadnful of politicised exiles did not hace the right to "ask" for anything on behalf of Iraqis as a whole, and the Iraqi people should not have to pay for what they didn't ask for.

[MMMMMM]

We can presume that all those killed, tortured or raped by Saddam's regime would have asked for a war of liberation, so they get votes in absentia. Also their relatives would likely have asked. There was hardly an extended family in Iraq that did not have a relative who had "disappeared." How many Jews in Germany "asked" the world to rescue them before they were gassed? Some things can be presumed with good confidence. And a great many exiles, and some internal dissidents, did in fact specifically ask. Some exiles even held pro-war rallies, before the war--which were not widely covered by the generally biased, anti-war news media. And of course the Shiites who are the majority population have long wanted Saddam gone--as have the Kurds--this is not even debatable.

If the Jews in Auschwitz would have had to have been "asked" before a war which could free them could be undertaken, I'm afraid this world will never be set right. The victims of tyranny are always asking--all you have to do is put yourself in their places, and you will hear their quiet voices carried on the wind--but it is something which only those who are trying to listen can hear.

[nicky g]

"Some things can be presumed with good confidence. And a great many exiles, and some internal dissidents, did in fact specifically ask. Some exiles even held pro-war rallies, before the war--"

Must we go round in circles? Some also did the opposite, and as I've pointed out these were not the people who had to endure the war. Neither of us know how many exiles were in favour, how many were against, and to what extent they represented Iraqi opinion as a whole.

"If the Jews in Auschwitz would had to have been "asked" before a war which could free them could be underttaken, I'm afraid this world will never be set right. The victims of tyranny are always asking--all you have to do is put yourself in their place, and you will hear their voices, quietly carried on the wind, but only to those who are trying to listen."

This is a different argument. We can debate on the one hand the merit of interventions both in general and in specific instances. I am not hostile to all such interventions. The question is whether people should have to pay for things they had no say in; of course they should not. If the RAF had bombed the lines to the gas chambers (as they famously didn't), should the victims of the Holocaust have had to pay for the bombs?

The argument is particularly ridiculous given past Western support for Saddam's regime. If any suibstantial sums of money belonging to senior members of the former regime can be found, then spend away. The Iraqi nation on the other hand was not responsible for Saddam or the war and needs all the revenues it can get its hands on.

[MMMMMM]

Look, Nicky, my original post was made partly tongue-in-cheek, but now you've ruined it;-) The Iraqis, however, do stand to benefit more from this than anyone else, and the costs to the USA are very high. Why should the USA have to bear ALL the costs, and the Iraqis not pay anything financially, if they could pay something effortlessly through increased oil production? Also I do think it is clear that most of Iraq wanted Saddam gone--his was a minority rule which brutally oppressed everyone else, so of course everyone but the Sunnis wanted him gone.

[nicky g]

You said yourself that the war was partly to further US interests and you don't see anything wrong with that. Given that noone else asked for it, whether they hypotheically might have or nor, furthering those interests can be the US's pay off. Iraq has spent long enough having had to underpropduce its oil and being financially crippled. Saddling it with further obligations now is insane. The US is currently asking other countries to forgive their debts to Iraq - why should they if that money is simply going to be used to repay the costs of the war?
I'll ask you again: the main beneficiaries of fighting to liberate the concentration camps would have been holocaust victims; should they have had to pay, even in part, for their liberation? The whole question is absurd. I don't object to the international community, which can well afford it, helping out with the reconstruction costs (not the war) - in fact I'd welcome an international fund for such costs. But the burden should not be on those who can least afford it and didn't ask for the war.

[MMMMMM]

If the costs are spread out over time, and tied to oil revenues which are increased by greater modernization in the oil infrastructure thanks to US investment, the Iraqis could enjoy greater oil revenues for themselves as well as offset some of the financial burden for this war, which has fallen squarely and heavily on the shoulders of the American taxpayer. And I think that could probably all be done painlessly.

[nicky g]

The vast bulk of most invesment made by "the US" in the Iraqi oil sector is going to be in the form of private IOC invesments, who will presumably get a return in the form of a share of the profits. What is done in the form of aid (which in the case of evelopments that are going to be handed over to IOCs should be as little as possible; I see no reason to further subsidise the likes of ExxonMobil)could perhaps be shared by the international community, with perhaps some contribution by Iraq in the future when it is back on its feet, but not for a long time. As for the costs of the actual war, the American taxpayer is going to bear it the because the American taxpayer's government was the one that decided to go to war.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
As for the costs of the actual war, the American taxpayer is going to bear it the because the American taxpayer's government was the one that decided to go to war.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not if I were President, Nicky.

[Cyrus]

Not that this is what will happen but I will say it anyway : It is wrong for anyone else but the Americans to pay for this war's cost. The reason is purely economic logic. Free rides are bad (if they exist at all!) and America getting a free ride here will make it unappreciative of a war's cost. Thus the U.S. will be unable to accurately examine and weigh its options between the benefits and the costs of war and peace, respectively, since war will be essentially without cost!

(The rest of your contention is completely childish! Who ever heard of getting a "present" by some benefactor because someone else asked your benefactor to give it to you and then on top of that having to pay for that "present"! Please refrain from this line of "logic", it is embarassingly pathetic.)

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Cyrus: "The reason is purely economic logic..."

[/ QUOTE ]

(this from a guy who believes that higher gas prices are just what America needs... /images/graemlins/tongue.gif )

[Tuco]

[ QUOTE ]

(this from a guy who believes that higher gas prices are just what America needs... )


[/ QUOTE ]

The world needs higher gas prices for so many reasons.

Two off the top of my head. One, market forces will make alternative fuel transportation more attractive. Technology is a wonderful thing when "want" and "need" converge. Two, as countries become less dependant on oil producing countries, the world will stabilize somewhat.

Flame away.

Tuco.

[MMMMMM]

No flames;-)

Artificially higher oil prices, however, won't achieve the results you would like to see. I believe Cyrus and another poster supported the idea of a 50 cent gas tax in another thread, for reasons similar to yours (if memory serves). I also suppose I should have mentioned this in the above post, but to do so would have ruined the quote for Andy's collection;-)

Anyway, to justify R & D investment, prices must be solid, not merely inflated by a tax which could be lifted at any time.

A large additional gas tax would harm the economy.

Now, I know you didn't argue for a tax in your post, so I'm not trying to put words in your mouth.

Higher oil prices help a handful of countries and hurt every other country. Overall, high energy costs are a huge drain not only on the USA, but on most of the rest of the world.

Alternate energy technologies do keep developing. Part of the problem is that most of them just aren't as efficient as oil. Granted, with greater economic incentives, the development would speed up somewhat. But would that be worth the economic pain? Economic pain translates to lost lives, too, in a roundabout way, and this is not an insignificant factor. Prosperity saves lives and lack of prosperity costs lives. Higher oil/gas prices would definitely cost lives.

Environmentally, some technologies would be very good for the planet. But not all alternate technologies are necessarily better for he environment. On a side note, I read where certain community recycling programs actually use more energy than they save and cost more to implement than throwing the stuff away. One example was a certain plastic recycling program, and another was a diaper pickup program where the cost of washing and re-delivering the diapers was actually greater than using disposable diapers...and the washing polluted more as well. Anyway that's just an odd sidenote, but it helps show that hard facts are needed to evaluate such things and that we can't simply make broad presumptions.

Another presumption that may be mistaken is that alternate energy sources would increase world peace or decrease conflict. In recent years most of the fighting in the world that has taken place has been between Muslims and others (even before 9/11). Arab states are typically Muslim. Major trading partners are generally less likely, not more likely, to go to war with each other because they both benefit from their trade. So it seem to me that if we are trading with Arab states, we are less likely to go to war with them. Of course if oil becomes super-scarce, say in a few decades, that could conceivably change. At that point, alternate enegy sources might avert war. On the other hand, if oil becomes that scarce, there won't be that much oil to go to war over anyway.

Without oil sales, the Arab countries would become impoverished, since their economies are not diversified and they produce very little else. So right now the fact that they raise so much money through oil sales probably serves to give them at least some degree of stability.

My guess is that the best thing is for oil to be kept relatively cheap since that is best for our economy and for most of the world. As oil supplies become more in demand--in part due to the growing Asian market--we will see a natural increase in R & D budgets for alternate enery source development. This will be due to changing fundamentals making R & D investment more justifiable. So my guess is that the alternate route will work itself out over time anyway. In the meantime, the worst thing economically would be for oil and gasoline to go up. In terms of standard of living and health and investment, a huge increase would be anywhere from painful to disastrous. So hopefully everything will just scale along, and as prices gradually move upwards due to fundamentals, so too will alternate tech development., and the changeover will gardually take place as both need and technology advance. But artificially raising the prices now would do far more harm than good, in my opinion.

[ACPlayer]

What a perfectly idiotic post.

Plenty of Iraqi's have paid, with their lives. I am sure there loved ones appreciate that as the strap on a bomb to blow up some thing with the words USA on them.

[ACPlayer]

You really are nuts.

There was hardly an extended family in Iraq that did not have a relative who had "disappeared

By the time we are done, there will not be an Iraqi nuclear family that has not lost some loved one in the occupation and eventual liberation of Iraq.

And of course the Shiites who are the majority population have long wanted Saddam gone--as have the Kurds--this is not even debatable.

Actually the Kurds are likely to get screwed in this process. Note the clause that almost derailed the constitution. The Kurds pretty much had the run of the land in the northern no-fly zone prior to the invasion by American troops. They are likely to end up under Shia rule in a theocratic Islamic state within a few years. That is exactly what they really want --- right!

[MMMMMM]

What's perfectly idiotic is not realizing that 10,000 Iraqi dead is far less than 500,000 or a million Iraqi dead at the hands of Saddam Hussein's regime (not to mention the tortured and raped). Do you doubt that if left in power, Saddam and his sons would not have killed moe than 10,000 or so Iraqis over the next decade or so--and quite possibly far more?

Tell me something, ACPlayer: when you tally your poker results for the day, or the year, or the decade--do you count only the losses? Why then does your arithmetic only consider the lives lost in the Iraq war--and not future lives saved?

What price do you put on the peace of mind of knowing that you won't be dragged off to be tortured to death some night, or that your daughter won't be dragged off to some rape room? Do you think the security we have was worth some of our forefathers dying? Do you think 10,000 or so lives was really too much of a price for the Iraqis to pay, to be rid of a tyranny far greater than the tyranny our forefathers fought and died to be rid of during the Revolutionary War?

[MMMMMM]

ACPlayer, Saddam killed well over 500,000--and probably closer to a million--of his own people, in a country of 25 million. Now you are decrying the fact that we have killed 10,000 Iraqis in the process of removing Saddam. And you have the temerity to claim that I am nuts.

[ACPlayer]

There is complete lunacy in offering a service to a potential customer that you think he needs, without asking him explicitly whether he needs it and is willing and able to pay for it, and then presenting a bill to that customer based on your values of how, when, where that service should be performed.

It is totally immaterial whether this benefits Iraq or not. The lunacy is in the process, but then you never did understand process -- that has been clear all along.

Where did you say you played poker? I may have to cut short my planned 3 month holiday so I can come and have you perform services for me. I can assure you I need a house built in Westchester County near the Clintons, please build it transfer the title and we can then discuss payment.

[MMMMMM]

ACPlayer, after I beat you at poker, I will offer you a service which you will not have requested either. I will advise you on how better to have played the few key hands of the evening. For this unsolicited magnanimity, I will send you a half-price bill which you may pay via instalments from future poker winnings derived from following the advice. Through some strange quirk of fate should you happen instead to lose, the loss will be your own, since the bill was for half-price in the first place.

These things aren't really that hard to figure if you just approach them logically, with an eye to the correct process.

You will then say to yourself, driving home, and again as you lay your head on the pillow that night, "Maybe it wasn't really lunacy after all--that M sure did have some good ideas. Ah well, there's always tomorrow." And with that you will close your eyes and drift off into a dreamless slumber, secure in the knowledge that the money you lost at poker that night, and the future instalments you will be paying for my advice, were all very much well worth it indeed. And you will awaken bright and early the next morning feeling fresher than you have in twenty years, and you will realize that something very important has just happened in your life, although you are not quite sure just what.

[ACPlayer]

Assuming for a moment that you do beat me at poker. A better story would be:

you beat me at poker, then advise me on how to fix my game, then send me a bill. My answer to you "The check is in the mail you moron, and oh by the way, I will be charging you more for your drive home as I control the oil supply" HA HA HA HA

[Cyrus]

Not only can't you figure out the economic logic behind the cost of the Iraqi war (yes, it should be borne by the American taxpayer) on account of your closedmindedness, now you want to expand on ..oil strategy!

Well, brother, since I don't have the time (nor the inclination) to educate you any further on oil, I will just say this and make of it what you will :

YATOOYA!..

[MMMMMM]

Very good, ACPlayer.

I'll be forwarding the bill you send me to Cyrus; since he thinks we should be paying more for oil anyway, he'll gladly cough up the extra dough. So I'll get paid, you'll get paid, and Cyrus will know he's doing a good thing for the future of America.