Papa's got a brand new Baghdad...

E

Epyon

New member
So what's everyone's take on the idea that we're being screwed out of our tax dollars to rebuild a foreign country that had nothing to do with 9/11? Given the recent news on that huge chunk of change going to rebuild Iraq I'm definitely not happy. How will this affect our taxes in the long run? I see that taxes will probably climb back up, and with the next president whether it's the red idiot party or the blue idiot party candidate we're going to pay dearly for this. Especially if the next moron in office makes things worse after Georgie boy and his crew have gotten the ball rolling.


Epyon
 
We really should have done what you are supposed to do when you take over a place with military force and that is claim the territory and the resources as our own. That expansion is what paid for the armies throughout history. Think how silly it is that we paid for the troop and equipment to invade them. Paid for the victory in blood. Are now being asked to pay to rebuild what we had to destroy to remove the sick bastard they had let run their country. I say the oil is ours. We can give them a chunk of the proceeds but the bulk it should go to the US until every penny this war cost US taxpayers is repaid with interest. How much I hate that we have to even be concerned with what a bunch o barbarians living in the desert 1/2 way around the world do to each other. We need energy independence and we need it now. We also need financial independence. We cannot allow foreign governments to own US Federal Bonds. We should never allow any foreign government to have the economic power over us we have given the countries of the middle East and China.

We also need to eliminate the Federal Reserve, go back to the gold standard, repeal the 16th and 17th amendments, and eliminate fractional banking.
 
Yeah we should have never helped out those Braut eaters or the Raw Fish consumers either.

(for those of you who are Historically challenged I am refering to rebuilding of Japan and Germany at the end of WW2)

(for those of your even more challenged WW2, is short for World War Two)

Because helping rebuild those countries did not return any good whatsoever.
 
Rebuilding Japan and Germany probably was the key investment that won the Cold War for us 40 years later.

Similarly, rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan will result in key allies in that part of the world for the next 50 years at least.

Can you imagine a Pacific-Asia region where Japan is not our staunch ally? It's next to ludicrous to consider it. One of the best investments our country has ever made.

The core difference, though, between WWII rebuilding and current efforts: We stomped the ever-living snot out of Nazi Fascism and Japanese Imperial Shinto faith. We have to do the same to Islamo-fundamental fascism, or we are just wasting time and money.
 
Rebuilding Japan and Germany probably was the key investment that won the Cold War for us 40 years later.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. Developing trading partners from former enemies is always a good idea.

I have some doubt about Iraq and Afghanistan, though. In Japan and Germany, the rule of law, however unjust, was the norm before we helped rebuild.

In the Middle East, it seems that chaos is the norm. Developing good trading partners, if not actual allies, seems to be a greater task, though just as important.
 
So what's everyone's take on the idea that we're being screwed out of our tax dollars to rebuild a foreign country that had nothing to do with 9/11?
Click to expand...

I could almost see paying for the rebuild minus the fact that Iraq is currently sitting on a $50 billion + surplus from oil revenue..... :mad:

We'll get no long term gain out of this. A military base or presence in Iraq? Likely. Any other long term gains? That cheap oil is working out pretty well for us right now.
 
American governments have been engaging in this practice for at least the 20th century, likely longer. War contractors profit when we go to war (always for a good reason of course) and war contractors profit when we rebuild the country afterward (in the name of humanitarianism).

I think about the trillions of dollars wasted over the years in these backroom profiteering schemes and it makes me sick.


JP
 
So what's everyone's take on the idea that we're being screwed out of our tax dollars to rebuild a foreign country that had nothing to do with 9/11?
Click to expand...
You been on another planet the last 60 years? We're still occupying Japan and Germany. :rolleyes:
 
We went to Iraq for all the wrong reasons...

The principles behind attacking Iraq vs. entering WW2 is like trying to hold a candle to the sun. Add to the fact that in WW2 we fought enemies that had a nation, and did believe in rules even if they were our enemy. The fight with religious fanatics that have no set nation makes things harder add to the fact that they don't have rules other than to win at ALL costs or take everyone down with them. I just hope that these officials that people blindly vote into office understand that the more they pick these kinds of people the worse off America will be.


Epyon
 
So we went in for the wrong reasons. Who cares? We're in Iraq now so we have to do what we can to make it work, we can't undo what we have done up to now, the damn space-time continuum won't allow it.

After you have torn down a nation with two wars and decades of sanctions you can either ignore their needs or help them build a decent nation. The first option leads to more war, the second leads to strong allies. I'll take #2.

I worry that we are not doing enough. Iraq needs a Marshall Plan.
 
It all depends on how yo look at it, but then, doesn't everything?

I'm not going to bother arguing if the reasons we went into Iraq are valid (that is a whole 'nother thing). We did go to war, some time back, so arguing in present time if we should have or not is moot.

There are similarities between the current war and WW2, as well as huge differences. The rebuilding of Iraq is due to the similarities, not the differences.

As in WW2, we went to war to effect what is today called "regime change". To do that we had to destroy their military capacity. In order to destroy their military capacity we destroyed both their military in direct combat, and the civilian infrastructure, to prevent them from being able to create and move military useful material.

We went to war with the political leadership of those nations, not the average ordinary citizen. The Iraqi goatherder, the German farmer, the Japanese fisherman, they were not the enemy we fought against. Although great numbers of them were caught in the middle, and suffered as a result, they were not the "enemy". They were "innocents". And being the people we are (or at least claim to be) we did (and are doing) what we can to repair the damage done to the nations of innocents after we remove the "guilty" from power.

And in so doing, we prove to the world, and especially to those innocent people caught in the struggle that they were not our enemies.

The devil is in the details, and you have a valid right to argue about how we go about rebuilding nations shattered by a war we were involved in, but not whether or not we should do it. It is our moral duty to help where we had to cause harm. That is one of the things that gives us the moral high ground. The principle is valid, and proven to work. How well we do it (how much, and where we spend), and how well it works for us is open to debate. How much, and what kind of return we eventually realize on our "investment" is also open to debate, only history will eventually total up the balance sheet, maybe not in our lifetime.

I think it entirely reasonable that a functioning Iraq pay us back for what we spend on their behalf, as they can, from their revenues in oil or whatever currency they have, but I'm not going to hold my breath. OF all the nations that recieved US aid during WW2, only Iceland, (and I believe Finland) ever actually repaid that debt in cash.

We may never get "our money's worth" from Iraq, but one thing is certain, if we don't spend the effort and money, we won't get anything from them except trouble in the future.
 
There is only one ...

... Damn reason we are in the Middle East and it's not Islamofacistism or Muslim terrorist or our benevolent nature to try and be buds.

It's petroleum ... plain and simple. Always has been and always will be. Our country was built on turning energy into products which begot everything since the beginning of the oil age. Our Industrial Military Complex has and will do what ever it takes to maintain the energy dominance even to making deals with the devils (middle east).
 
Given all the money wasted in aid to countries that vote against us in the UN and money congress wastes on pork projects and other vote-buying spending, a few dollars to create a democracy in the middle of the oil countries seems like a darn smart investment.

From what has been said here by some members, I guess the only reason we fought WWII in Europe and then rebuilt the continent was because it was always about the beer and Brie.
 
Every dollar issued is a debt certificate issued by a private, European held bank. Until that is changed by revoking the FED's franchise we will never, repeat never, gain control over spending. The FED combined with a federal income tax is a formula for perpetual servitude of the American people. God only wants 10%. The elite during the middle ages were happy with 25%. We are at 50% and climbing. Enough is enough.
 
Do you believe ...

... everything the mass media feeds you? Who is that actually controls Iraq? Who is it making the deals and setting up the franchises? There was zero interest by western countries in the middle east before 1900 and then oil was discovered and low and behold all of a sudden the west was fighting the Austrian Hapsburg's and Turks of the world to devi up the spoils.

Energy is power and power is control and control is the name of the game.

That's reality.
 
There was zero interest by western countries in the middle east before 1900 and then oil was discovered and low and behold all of a sudden the west was fighting the Austrian Hapsburg's and Turks of the world to devi up the spoils.
Click to expand...
Not at all true. Britain and France were heavily involved in the Middle East by the mid-1800s.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1908Cromer.html

All of those Arab Emrits were set up by the British to help protect their trade routes to and from the Far East.

Prior to that Europe had interests in the Middle East in that all of the caravan routes went through or terminated there.

No, interest, national interest, in the Middle East does not start with the discovery of oil.

Try reading instead of regurgitating what the media preaches.
 
I am glad we rebuilt Japan as now I drive Japanese cars that are considerably better than some of the American ones that I owned.

Also, last night I dined on very expensive fatty tuna (toro) - totally a mind blast of culinary excellence.

As far as Japan being our staunch ally, Japan is Japan's own best friend. They are not the UK to us.
 
Destructo6 wrote ...

...
"Not at all true. Britain and France were heavily involved in the Middle East by the mid-1800s. Try reading instead of regurgitating what the media preaches."
Click to expand...
Before you totally self destructo and have a cow you ought to read your own sources for application to the topic at hand. What you tried to apply to a general statement is ludicrous and trivial at best.

Your reference to regurgitating is your own self inflicted tripe.

I expected better.
 
Just another guy pointing out that there are several models proven to provide prosperity and security to nations and the regions they are part of; the "Conquered by the US and Rebuilt to Our Approval Model" being perhaps the best known and most proven.

And a prosperous and stable Iraq could change the world. Which is why it is the center of the both side's efforts in the GWOT.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top