Dems Want Iraqis To Pay Up: With Oil

[xd9fan]

that is the front headline on drudge. The dems will win the election on this alone. IMHO.
http://www.drudgereport.com/

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080409/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq

 

[Master Blaster]

Ah the democrats trying to out republican, the republicans.:barf:

 

[Forwardassist]

Sounds like a good idea to me. Since the Iraqis have failed to step up to the plate to take our place we might as well get something out of the deal. The way things are going we might be there for 100 years. Hope the Dems can get this passed in Congress.

 

[Musketeer]

ahh... I agree with them.

I haven't understood for a long time why we are spending so much money to rebuild a nation sitting on so much oil. What is even more a mystery is why Bush and Co. have failed to even mention this as an approach. It seems like they believe any indication to the Iraqis that the open US checkbook could end would be disastrous.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080409/D8VUB9AO3.html

WASHINGTON (AP) - Democrats plan to push legislation this spring that would force the Iraqi government to spend its own surplus in oil revenues to rebuild the country, sparing U.S. dollars.

The legislation follows a recommendation by Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, that the Bush administration halt troop withdrawals in July. Petraeus on Wednesday was wrapping up two days of congressional testimony in which he has said security gains in the war zone are too fragile to promise further drawdowns.

Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said pausing troop reductions would signal to the Iraqis that the United States was committed to the war indefinitely.

"Rather, we need to put continuous and increasing pressure on the Iraqis to settle their political differences, to pay for their own reconstruction with their oil windfalls, and to take the lead in conducting military operations," said Levin, D-Mich.

Iraq has about $30 billion in surplus funds stored in U.S. banks, according to Levin.

Iraq is looking at a potential boon in oil revenue this year, possibly as much as $100 billion in 2007 and 2008. Meanwhile, the U.S. military is having to buy its fuel on the open market, paying on average $3.23 a gallon and spending some $153 million a month in Iraq on fuel alone.

While Iraq pays for fuel for its own troops, it has relied heavily on U.S. dollars to provide people with basic services, including more than $45 billion for reconstruction.

Lacking the votes to order troops home by a certain date, Democrats see fencing off reconstruction money as an alternative to challenging the Bush administration's Iraq policies. And several Republicans have signaled their concerns about burgeoning Iraqi oil revenues at a time when the war is growing increasingly costly.

"Isn't it time for the Iraqis to start bearing more of those expenses, particularly in light of the windfall in revenues due to the high price of oil?" said Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine.

 

[RDak]

I have a hard time with that philosophy.

We invaded Iraq of our own volition.

Making Iraq reimburse us for that seems to be a little immoral IMHO.

In time, the people in Iraq should be able to pay their own way. But reimburse us(?).....hmmm....I have a problem with that.

 

[JuanCarlos]

I have a hard time with that philosophy.

We invaded Iraq of our own volition.

Making Iraq reimburse us for that seems to be a little immoral IMHO.

In time, the people in Iraq should be able to pay their own way. But reimburse us(?).....hmmm....I have a problem with that.

In how much time, though? We've spent five years, thousands of lives, and billions of dollars for what appears to be very little progress. At this point we're still there in part because the Iraqi government has asked us to stay. I think we're nearing the point where it might be pretty reasonable to ask for compensation for the services our forces are providing (and which they at this point are requesting)...it might actually provide them some incentive to provide these services for themselves, even.

 

[ericp]

"I have a hard time with that philosophy. We invaded Iraq of our own volition. Making Iraq reimburse us for that seems to be a little immoral IMHO."

+1

If another country invaded us and destroyed our WOL, what exactly should I do for them again?

 

[Technosavant]

I remember us being told that Iraq would cover its own costs with the oil. That hasn't happened.

I'm long past expecting them to reimburse our costs for our military, but I see no reason why we should use US dollars to rebuild their infrastructure when they have plenty of oil dollars for that.

 

[buzz_knox]

I haven't understood for a long time why we are spending so much money to rebuild a nation sitting on so much oil. What is even more a mystery is why Bush and Co. have failed to even mention this as an approach.

What has the main battle cry of the left been? "We're dying and killing for oil!" "Bush and Co." aren't exactly wanting to make that rally cry a reality by making it seem as if it's all been about oil.

 

[grymster2007]

I thought from the beginning that we should have removed Sadaam and pounded his military machine into a home defense only force, pumped enough oil to pay for our trouble and then left…. with the warning that if they didn’t come up with a friendlier world posture, we’d be back and wouldn’t be so nice next time.

If we really need to attack another country, then their offense is serious enough that they ought to pay the cost. In the case of Iraq, we relieved them of a sick, genocidal terrorist who also posed a threat to us and they should pay for that service. What they did with their country after that should have been left to them.

But now that we’ve arrived at this point, we certainly should not be spending our money to rebuild the place.

 

[JuanCarlos]

What has the main battle cry of the left been? "We're dying and killing for oil!" "Bush and Co." aren't exactly wanting to make that rally cry a reality by making it seem as if it's all been about oil.

Then let them sell the oil to somebody else and give us money. I think the overarching point is that at some point the burden of providing security needs to fall back on them...whether that means manning up and doing it themselves or paying us for the services our forces are rendering is up to them.

I can understand that we might have some responsibility to help them rebuild, considering most of the damage was done by us (either the first time or the second time). But I'm not so sure we have the responsibility to keep picking up the tab for it when we're having to drag them along kicking and screaming rather than having them co-operate, which is pretty much what I saw back in '05. I think having to foot the bill might, as I said, give them some incentive to play along a bit more.


I guess I fall somewhere between grymster and ericp...I think we did have some responsibility to help clean up the mess, since they didn't particularly ask us to invade. At the same time, we're half a decade later now and they are asking us to stay at this point...we're powerful enough to occupy them against their will if we felt like it, but I think our country wouldn't have the political will to keep our troops there if they explicitly asked us to leave. We're there by their choice now, and it's time they started taking on some of the responsibility.

 

[ericp]

"In the case of Iraq, we relieved them of a sick, genocidal terrorist who also posed a threat to us and they should pay for that service. What they did with their country after that should have been left to them."

I normally don't disagree with your posts, but remember, we put him there, and gave him his WMDs. This is not their fault.

We invaded their country, took out our own puppet, destroyed their WOL, propped up yet another pro-US govt, and now expect them to pay us? Not even mentioning the fact that we are forcing new oil laws on them.

And Juan... we are led to believe they want us there. If you read into other MSM from around the world, ours is the only one blind enough to sell that theory.

 

[JuanCarlos]

And Juan... we are led to believe they want us there. If you read into other MSM from around the world, ours is the only one blind enough to sell that theory.

I'm not talking about the Iraqi people. I'm talking about the official position of the Iraqi government. We are currently in Iraq at the behest of their government. So I figure at this point it's probably about time we start asking that government for some compensation. Or, you know, leave. I don't really care which.

I'm well aware of just how much the average Iraqi wants us there. Though, and this may have changed since I left, the Kurds always seemed quite happy to have us around. As for the majority who would be happy to see us go, I don't think a lot of them have put a whole lot of thought into what will likely happen if we did. Much the same way we didn't put a whole lot of thought into what would actually happen after we invaded. Humans are shortsighted, sometimes.

 

[grymster2007]

we put him there

How/when did we do that? I am not aware that this was the case. We did support him through his war with Iran, but I don't think we installed him in power to begin with.

 

[ericp]

Grym, 63. After Saddam's failed assassination attempt of Qasim in 59.

EDIT: and even then it was about oil.

 

[gb_in_ga]

So, let's see -- those very same ones who were screaming "It's all about the oooiiilllll" are now going to try and cash in on their petroleum fixation? Why am I not surprised? Weren't they the ones who were/are accusing the 'Pubs of invading Iraq in order to rob the poor Iraqis of their oil? Aren't they now trying to extort the very same oil from those very same poor Iraqis?

The hypocrisy of the 'Rats remains as breathtaking as it always has. Nothing they do surprises me any more.

 

[ericp]

GB, while oil plays a part, the argument that we are there to steal the oil from the poor iraqi's is pretty flimsy (I'm assuming you are knocking it, I would too).

Look up keywords such as Henry Kissinger, Richard Helms, Ba'ath Party coup... Qassim was very anti-American, and wanted to nationalize the IPC, among other things not in our best interests. Heck, he even wanted to return to becoming friends with the soviets.

 

[grymster2007]

Grym, 63. After Saddam's failed assassination attempt of Qasim in 59.

I know you can find references to the CIA helping him in the 60's but it seems that was after the Baath Party assassinated Qassim, so where is the US installing Sadaam in power documented as the gospel?

 

[Musketeer]

"I have a hard time with that philosophy. We invaded Iraq of our own volition. Making Iraq reimburse us for that seems to be a little immoral IMHO."

+1

If another country invaded us and destroyed our WOL, what exactly should I do for them again?

We invaded Iraq because of Iraq failing to obey the cease fire agreement after they invaded Kuwait and were beaten back across their border.

In Iraq we are the only ones that seem to be keeping their gov't standing and attempting to rebuild the infrastructure that many of the people in that nation continue to tear apart. I see no problem having them foot the bill.

I love this logic...

We can't set a benchmark for the Iraqi gov't with penalties should it not be met.

We can't set a timetable for drawing down troops with the expectation that the Iraqis assume responsibility for their own nation.

We can't be reimbursed our expenses for committing troops indefinitely with no Iraqi accountability, benchmarks or timetable.

This gets better and better.

 

[ericp]

I find your logic entertaining as well Musketeer.