dagblog - Comments for "Pentagon Won't Ask Iraq to Cough Up $1 Billion to Help Fund US Forces in Iraq, GAO Says Iraq Has $11.8 Billion 2010 Surplus"

Agree. It is anyone's guess

NCD — Tue, 28 Sep 2010 02:32:31 +0000

In reply to The only reason we're still

Agree. It is anyone's guess when the downward spiral in Iraq will hit bottom. It seems clear they need a 'nicer' strongman, the place seems unsuited for democracy at this point.

The only reason we're still

Beetlejuice — Mon, 27 Sep 2010 20:52:45 +0000

In reply to As long as we have 50K troops

The only reason we're still there are the Kurds. Without a US point of presence, they'll be reduced to chopped liver in a heart-beat. Iran, Syria, Turkey, Jordan and the Shi'te's running Iraq would like nothing more than to bring their Kurd problem to it's conclusion by their standards. Also, if we leave, Iran would have a open invitation to be a active participant in Iraqi affairs. Bu$h screwed the pooch when he took out Saddam...Iran thought he really did have a nuke or two and knew he wouldn't hesitate a split second over lobbing one in their direction. The whole Middle East problem went down the $hithole once Bu$h and the neocons thought they could control the area if they took out Saddam and put in a proxy of their choosing.

The truth may hurt, but all

Beetlejuice — Mon, 27 Sep 2010 20:34:15 +0000

In reply to Of course, in the halls of

The truth may hurt, but all the $$$ that has gone to Iraq and Afghanistan has found a home with the factions necessary to support the Bu$h/republican war effort against imaginary terrorists. There's ample evidence where US business interests made $$$ killings off government contracts supporting the war efforts. To do so required greasing palms to ease the effort. That exotic sand castle you enclosed in your blog is nothing more than chump change. None of the $$$ the US sent over there can be accounted for. In short, the US taxpayer got the least bang for every buck they paid in taxes...the bang ended up in the pockets of those who had set themselves up to collect all the free $$$ rolling off the presses without any accounting or auditing efforts to make sure we got exactly what we were paying for. Too bad Obama and the Democrats insisted on bipartisanship instead of raking republicans over the coals. It's gonna come back and haunt them in 2010 and 2012.

As long as we have 50K troops

NCD — Mon, 27 Sep 2010 20:11:37 +0000

In reply to "Morality of our wars aside,

As long as we have 50K troops there (in combat at least twice since combat 'ended') protecting the asses of the 19 minute wonders in the government, I wouldn't say its arrogant to ask for reimbursement for training and equipment that Iraq has requested.

What was arrogant was invading their country, firing the whole government and the Army, and putting these guys 'in charge' of what seems to have become a very dysfunctional and corrupt country.

I like the idea of an Iraqi

NCD — Mon, 27 Sep 2010 20:04:29 +0000

In reply to Except that it's not going to

I like the idea of an Iraqi 'liberation tax'. Since the Iraqi Council of Representatives only meets 19 minutes in seven months, it might be hard to get it on the agenda, what with all the issues that they must cover, and being the The Newest Democracy and all, and having less than 20 minutes!

Of course, in the halls of

NCD — Mon, 27 Sep 2010 19:57:02 +0000

In reply to The last statement you posted

Of course, in the halls of Congress, the GOP 'just before the mid-term election political jujitsu' October, 2002 Use of Force Resolution, did fail on the Democratic side of the aisle in the House, by a fairly good margin.

Ultimately, as Commander in Chief, it is the President who bears the responsibility for the decision to invade Iraq. The blame falls first and foremost on the Republican President, George W. Bush. Also, almost all of the looted money occurred while Bush was in office, the US/CIA were flying planes with pallet loads of cash over there.

Don't feel too bad. Few

acanuck — Mon, 27 Sep 2010 19:06:37 +0000

In reply to Except that it's not going to

Don't feel too bad. Few countries get the imperial part right for very long.

And it's not a total loss if ordinary citizens eventually learn something. I'm not sure they actually will. No evidence of that yet.

Except that it's not going to

Michael Maiello — Mon, 27 Sep 2010 19:01:29 +0000

In reply to "Morality of our wars aside,

Except that it's not going to teach the people who made the decisions anything. The lesson will be learned by people trying to fill up their cars to drive to work. Don't think I disagree with you, I don't. But I'm amazed that we spent a decade acting like imperialists and didn't even get the imperial part right.

"Morality of our wars aside,

acanuck — Mon, 27 Sep 2010 18:33:55 +0000

In reply to So Wolfowitz was right that

"Morality of our wars aside, it'll be really bad if 10 years from now we're not only still paying for them but face a China with resource access that we don't have."

No, it won't, destor. It will be poetic justice, delicious irony, and -- one would hope -- an object lesson. I have major problems with the notion that any country should be entitled to wage an illegal war on a country, then loot it to pay for its own conquest and occupation. I don't recall Wolfowitz's assertion being met with vigorous White House denials.

The corruption of Iraq's current leaders is a serious issue, but it's an Iraqi one (they've reclaimed their sovereignty, remember?). U.S. whining about Iraq keeping the profits from its own resources, or doling them out in its own interests, is a bit arrogant.

So Wolfowitz was right that

Michael Maiello — Mon, 27 Sep 2010 17:48:02 +0000

In reply to Wolfowitz was absolutely

So Wolfowitz was right that Iraq has the wealth in resources to have paid for its own reconstruction and even for our costs of war. What he didn't get, or didn't intend, was that a free Iraq would spend its money however its government wanted.

That said... why have we allowed state run Chinese companies to get contracts in both Iraq and Afghanistan? On some level can't we say "no, we're competing with you, so you can't have contracts in countries that we're presently occupying." Morality of our wars aside, it'll be really bad if 10 years from now we're not only still paying for them but face a China with resource access that we don't have.