Why do we need to "rebuild Iraq".....serious answers only please

[cthrumatrix]

We can skip through the the normal responses...

* Infrastrure we bombed ( bridges...roads)
* Many key buildings leveled...sounds fair.
* etc....

However, if a country is at "level d" it seems we have taken it upon ourselves to insist that we get them to "level b or c". Why is that necessary?

Rebuild what we destroyed...make it better...here's a list and make progress against the list. Improve some of the others roads while your at it...fine.

However, I get this feeling that we are being fed this "reconstruction" line which means the following:

"" we will spend $1B week ...so that we can issue contracts for anything our coroporate crooks which to build on behalf of the US TAXPAYERS"

Where the hell is accountablity for what is being rebuilt...let's see it...who got the contracts for what..let's see it.

And when we are done...give them back their country and let them build the rest.

I'm soo pissed at the crap that we are fed and forced to pay for. I'll even bet that damn near everything that is actually delivered in country is built or made in another country.

Give the * admin a few weeks...lord knows there are plenty people invloved in this crap....and show us what is going on (with validation).

Until I see the information...."rebuilding" means WE PAY....AND FOR A LONG TIME!

[dbt]

1. The answer is:

Huge profits for a small number of bu$h benefactors. This is, after all, Poppy's second term--the one in which he was "supposed" to make his money, you know.

:freak:
dbt

[cthrumatrix]

2. $4B just for troops, equipment and "replaced munitions".....Wash Post

Defense Department officials have said U.S. operations are costing about $3.9 billion monthly. But that figure excludes indirect expenses like replacing damaged equipment and munitions expended in combat

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A47537-2003Aug12?language=printer

[DoYouEverWonder]

9. That's over $20,000 per month

for each soldier. But in the meantime, these kids don't even have enough water to drink?

[bowens43]

3. Why?

Because we owe it to them, that's why. We supported saddam for decades, we helped him to solidify power, we armed him, we gave him the technology and knowledge to allow him to manufacture chemical and biological weapons then we helped him use these weapons on the kurds, we backed both sides in the Iran/Iraq war, we orchestrated the first gulf war, we bombed them back to the stone age and then leveled devastating sanctions against them, orchestrated ANOTHER war, bombed them back to the stone age AGAIN.

It's pretty clear that the US is responsible for the devastation and poverty suffered by the people of Iraq. It's time to pay for what we have destroyed.

That being said, accountability is definitely a problem.

[cthrumatrix]

5. replace and repair what WE did ....agreed.....however

as the other WP stories point out...this rebuilding effort is BS. I find it hard to believe with very intelligent people working on this ...a "budget / assessment"...is unreasonable.

This is theft....until proven otherwise. You can't have Paul Bremer say elctricy and water is $29B.....but the estimates are for $600B....I'm sorry this doesn't add up.

WTF...is the media. (thank you WP)

[cthrumatrix]

4. ok...$29B for electricity and water .....so why the $600B price tag????

Rebuilding Iraq Likely to Top War's Cost

By ALAN FRAM
The Associated Press
Tuesday, August 12, 2003; 3:42 AM


WASHINGTON - The U.S. bill for rebuilding Iraq and maintaining security there is widely expected to far exceed the war's price tag, and some private analysts estimate it could reach as high as $600 billion.

The closest the administration has come to estimating America's postwar burden was when L. Paul Bremer, the U.S. administrator of occupied Iraq, said last month that "getting the country up and running again" could cost $100 billion and take three years.

He estimated that repairing Iraq's electrical grid alone will cost $13 billion and getting the water system in shape will require an additional $16 billion.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A47537-2003Aug12?language=printer

[cthrumatrix]

6. Three months to figure a budget ...and we get

President Bush and other administration officials have refused to provide projections, saying too much is unpredictable. That has angered lawmakers of both parties, who are writing the budget for the coming election year even as federal deficits approach $500 billion.

"I think they're fearful of having Congress say, 'Oh, my God, this thing is going to be very costly,'" said Rep. Jim Kolbe, R-Ariz., chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee that controls foreign aid.

More than three months after Bush declared an end to major combat operations in Iraq, even the cost of the ongoing U.S. military campaign remains clouded in confusing numbers.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A47537-2003Aug12?language=printer

[Kamika]

7. Moral responsibility

We went in there killed thousands and destroyed alot.

It is our moral responsibility to fix it

[cthrumatrix]

8. I think my discussion title is misleading here..... moral yes....BS no.

My issue is using the "moral requirement" as a reason to screw the American taxpayers....through deceipt.

I was against this war ...the deception...and now it's our responsibility becuase of the war profiteers greed to futher line the coporate coffers and wrap it in "moral respsonibility".

These are huge numbers....the US GDP is $10 trillion...and we say we need $600B for Iraq reconstruction.

Think about it.

[rman]

13. you'r correct on both accounts i'd say

Yes it is deceit; the whole point of (this) war and rebuilding is for big business to make even bigger profit.
And yes there's the moral obligation to rebuild what was destroyed.

If and when the con men in power are replaced, then a fair plan for rebuilding Iraq should be made; i'd say the cost must be shared between the nations that supported this war. (i'm saying this as a non-american)

[Junkdrawer]

10. Despite all the initial denials, we're going to build a permanent,

"generational" presence in Iraq. We're doing that for the following reasons:

1.) If we leave, the Shiite majority will convert Iraq into Western Iran (That's why we supported Saddam from 1979-1991)

2.) We want to control the oil in Iraq and thus control the growth of our potential rivals to world military and economic power.

3.) Iraq will become a military base to be used in the event that Iran turns nuclear and thus an invasion is deemed necessary.

4.) Our cover story will be that we want to prove a western-style democracy will provide a better living standard than a radicalized theocracy.

[Christian73]

11. Beyond the morality argument

it's simply a question of pragmatism.

When the US and our allies devastated Germany and Japan at the end of WWII, our financial aid and rebuilding efforts went a long way toward making Germany and Japan into strong allies to the U.S.

If you compare this to Third World countries where we fought wars (most notably Afghanistan) and then did not aid in rebuilding, each of those countries has become a breeding ground for terrorism and anti-American sentiment.

On edit: HOwever, this is not what BushCo. is doing. They are not rebuilding so much as "cashing in" on their investment. In the long run, most analysts are saying that this will only incite more anger toward America.

[rogerashton]

12. We don't need another Somalistan --

the kind of chaotic failed state where organizations like Al Qaeda and Al Ansar really do thrive. That is the situation Bush*, Inc.'s war have created. That said, the point has been made, corporate profiteering is not the way to rebuild the place, and corporate profiteering is the Reporklican program in Iraq as in the USA.