posted
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I was just having this discussion with my dad, and I don't have a strong opinion yet.
The past year in Iraq has cost approximately a bazillion dollars (give or take 2%).
Do we have a right to "charge" them for it (presumably in the form of oil)? In other words, should we take enough oil that we break even for the operation?
If we should, which parts should we charge them for? The cost of the military strikes (bombs, fighters, etc)? The cost of the rebuilding (hospitals, roads, etc)? The cost of the rebuilding minus the value of the stuff that we destroyed in bombing? Everything plus a 10% financing charge? Nothing?
Posts: 134 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That is just about the most evil idea I have ever heard.
Kind of like the old KGB practice of executing someone and making the family pay for the bullet, only on a humongous scale.
Posts: 1996 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Then lets subtact a bit from us doing an unlawful invasion on their country.
Yet again, this assertion needs at least some backup. I'll mention once more that there is a facially credible case that this invasion was not unlawful. The merits of this position have not been adjudicated by any authorative body.
posted
Oh brother, it's not like that at *all*. It's more like those guys that help people who have a flat tire, and afterwards give the stranded motorist a bill. Not evil, but pretty underhanded.
So I'm against it. We stuck our necks out to help. Good deeds should be done because you want to do a good deed, not because you are hoping for a reward. If we forced payments, then we are mercenaries. That's not what I want to be.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sorry, this just makes me mad. Who cares if it was lawful or not? When you invade someone and blow up their country, you don't run them further into the ground by charging them for it. When the allies invaded Nazi Germany (and I don't think you can say by any stretch of the imagination that it was unlawful, or unjustified), they rebuilt the country afterwards. And were much better at it than the sorry job that is being done by Bush in Iraq right now.
Posts: 1996 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gradstudent, don't you keep up? We're making all that money back by getting all that Iraqi oil for free.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Storm, you can't be serious. And, no, we can't charge the Iraqis for rebuilding their country. It was OUR idea. We'd have more money to do it if all the European countries paid us back for rebuilding them after WWII. It's not going to happen.
Posts: 277 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
I'm certainly never happy when people increase the risk of me dying in a terrorist attack by committing serious crimes against other nations in my name, and then insist I pay for it too.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd presume that for the cost of this war, forgiving all student loans would be pretty easy. Too late for that now though.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I say we use as much oil as possible to help build for reconstruction (as we have already invested and will continue to invest money in their stability). I hope in the reconstruction we use as many Iraqi people and companies as feasible so we can help stimulate their economy. This would do more for Iraq stability then any money we throw their way.
It bothers me when I see so many foreign workers rebuilding Iraq. We/they should use their oil to pay for their people to rebuild their country. The only non-military people I think we should send to Iraq are aid workers and people who can train and oversee any reconstruction projects that the Iraqis can not do themselves.
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
While I am in favor for using Iraqi oil money to pay for current reconstruction, I think the scope should be limmited to any domestic projects after we start using their oil money. In other words, no paying back for what we've already done. There's nothing unreasonable about asking them to pay for their own roads, hospitals, etc. When we're done with Iraq, they are going to be the most powerful country in the Middle East and a dominant power in the world. Why not have them pay for it?
Oh yeah, because people will distort the truth and say things like it's blood for oil and whatnot. We'd still be losing a great deal of money and be making no profits off of their oil, but when has the truth mattered when it comes to Bush hating?
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Who cares if it was lawful or not? When you invade someone and blow up their country, you don't run them further into the ground by charging them for it.
I wasn't saying we should ask them to pay us back. I was just saying caliing it an "unlawful invasion" as Xavier did is, at best, an opinion being presented as fact.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
