Your tax dollars in Iraq

Status
Not open for further replies.
Umm, yeah.....I am not sure that Iraq was a worthwhile part of the War on Terror, but anything coming from "antiwar.com" would seem to have a certain leftist slant, dontcha think.

These guys (and I read a lotta blogs) were even against action against Afghanistan and were big "Blame America" buffoons. For me, their credibility = 0 on anything.
 
If the info is true, then this is wrong.

Rebuilding the infrastructure wouldn't include garbage trucks, business classes for Iraqis, or prisons to the tune of 400 million.

Bush and his cronies are screwing us royally.

waterdog
 
Garbage removal is infrastructure.

I'd prefer business classes to on the job training in torture and mayhem.

The idea, of course, is to build a trading partner, like Japan, France, or Germany. Astute businessmen are paramount to that end.
 
>Considering Iraq is third or fourth in the world in terms of proven oil reserves, I fail to see how it could possibly need a shiny Truman dime's worth of American money.

Yeah... but then they won't be getting the money, will they? The "need" here is all political, and all for Halliburton et. al. Nations don't get rich off foriegn aid (though American politicians and contractors do).

>There were people who were against rebuilding Germany and Japan as well.

And those people determined policy. Most of the Marshall Plan money went to Britain and France (and mostly to their governments, thus impeding their economic recovery). Germany in fact paid more in reparations than it received in Marshall Plan money. It isn't hard to look up figures on the Marshall Plan; don't just repeat stuff from Time magazine. (Sorry, but I know you guys are smarter than this, mostly smarter than me. You're just not bothering to do your own research... or even a Google.)
 
Germany in fact paid more in reparations than it received in Marshall Plan money. It isn't hard to look up figures on the Marshall Plan
No, it's not.
Some consequences of the treaty

Economically

Germany $56 billion in reparations

Receiving loans from US and Britain which allowed payment

US got back only 1/5 of its loans no chance of repayment
http://academics.triton.edu/faculty/rconnor/WWII.htm
"To talk about the recovery of Europe and to oppose the recovery of Germany is nonsense. People can have both or they can have neither." George F. Kennan

As we have indicated, that Germany was a Marshall Plan recipient in the first place did not make the other participating countries very happy, but taking economic revenge was simply not a viable alternative. In fact, Germany had already received a large amount of U.S. aid before the Marshall Plan was even conceived: starting almost immediately after the end of the war, the Allied-occupied part of the country received U.S. goods through the GARIOA program (Government and Relief in Occupied Areas), and the value of these goods amounted to around $1.7 billion. So the Marshall Plan aid to Germany, which amounted to about $1.4 billion in the first four years, was not that dramatic in itself. Britain, France and Italy all received a larger slice of the cake (see listing below for the distribution of help to the ERP countries). And yet Germany put the aid to better use than any other country, and today, 50 years later, still continues to benefit directly from the ERP counterpart fund, known after 1953 as the ERP Special Fund.
http://www.germany-info.org/relaunch/culture/history/marshall.html

and the Marshall plan doesn't tell the whole story.
 
I'd much rather have my tax dollars going to Iraq than some other places they get sent. Clinton gave North Korea billions by building them 2 nuclear plants in addition to providing them annually, free of charge, twice the amount of oil the civilian population uses per year.

Wonder why the Democrats weren't whining over that. Jimmy Carter was almost orgasmic over it.
 
Actually, I don't think "antiwar.com" is just against Bush. I've read their junk since 9/11 and they are against any use of our armed forces as well as promoting that we "brought 9/11 on ourselves". They were also big on the "we're slaughtering millions of Afghanis". Admittedly, I haven't read their garbage lately so I can't say for sure how they treated Iraq but I doubt its much different.

I've also seen ANSWER/socialist stuff on there and to me that makes it more leftist than libertarian.
 
Would you rather we spend the money on welfare and socialist programs instead?

I'd rather it be refunded to the taxpayers with an official apology for taking so much in the first place. :(
 
but I don't think Ron Paul qualifies as an American hating leftist.

This article also appears on Rep. Paul's website. He's arguably the only one in "official" DC who truly works for limited government and a freer society.

He's well worth listening to IMO.
 
well, I'm sitting in Iraq right now. What you don't get from the media is that the people overwhelmingly support us being here and ridding them of Saddam. The infrastructure is shot based upon saddam's looting the country to build his palaces. Those of you so quick to believe anything the media says so long as it is against this administration need to take a chill pill. Don't believe me?? Come over and take a look for yourself. A little restraint in your emotional intelligence may serve you well.

Don't you think a capitalist democracy in the middle of Iran; Saudi Arabia; Syria, etc would e a good thing?? Do you really think that the middle east will continue to be a breeding ground of hatred against the US once they see what capitalism can do??

Where was all this carping when billions were going to North Korea; China; Macedonia; Kosova; Bosnia; etc?? Why the bitching now??
 
>Germany $56 billion in reparations

>Receiving loans from US and Britain which allowed payment

>US got back only 1/5 of its loans no chance of repayment

Right, exactly. The US taxpayer was never repaid, and this money didn't go to the German economy, either. The German economy recovered because Germans (well, West Germans) worked hard (and allowed foreign private investment). Foreign aid doesn't make countries rich, the free market does.

It's a good thing foreign aid isn't necessary for economic development, or no country would ever get rich in the first place. How nations become wealthy is never discussed in the same breath as "development aid"...
 
JimP
well, I'm sitting in Iraq right now. What you don't get from the media is that the people overwhelmingly support us being here and ridding them of Saddam. The infrastructure is shot based upon saddam's looting the country to build his palaces. Those of you so quick to believe anything the media says so long as it is against this administration need to take a chill pill. Don't believe me?? Come over and take a look for yourself. A little restraint in your emotional intelligence may serve you well.
Don't worry Jim, there are plenty of us who are paying attention, and you have our full support and gratitude. Everyone over here is constantly bombarded with the negative crap put out by the Liberal media and seditious lying politicians who's only aim is to bring down George Bush regardless of the cost. It's hard for some to see through the s??tstorm and see the good things that are happening. They need to get there heads out of the sand (not to include Jack, who looks dashing in a tux!) and see the "Big Picture" (I didn't say that did I?).

I, for one, fully support what you're doing over there and salute you. Take care of yourself, come back safe and sound to your lovely bride (and more lobster on the beach)!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top