That's the headline of an Associate Press article about the latest twist in the Iraq war debacle. The idea that is uniting Senate Democrats and Republicans, war supporters and war critics, is that since Iraq has money flowing in through their oil industry --with even more to come, thanks to record high oil prices-- they should be paying to fix their country. Sure, the US demolished it, but does that mean that we should pay to fix it?
Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska doesn't think so.
"I think the American people are growing weary not only of the war, but they are looking at why Baghdad can't pay more of these costs. And the answer is they can."
Neither does Senator Carl Levin, D-Mich., chairman of the Armed Services Committee.
he wants to add a provision to a defense policy bill that would force the Iraqi government to spend its own surplus in oil revenues to rebuild the country before U.S. dollars are spent.
Also supporting this are Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine and Democrat Evan Bayh of Indiana, along with Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. There may be others as well.
I get it. They know that Americans are getting tired of seeing the enormous piles of debt that the Iraq war is creating. They want to find a way to stem the red tide that future generations of Americans will have to deal with. Fine.
But this idea is ludicrous.
We destroyed their country. We shocked and awed them, we covered them with depleted uranium, we ruined their infrastructure, decimated their hospitals and schools, stood idly by with our thumbs up our asses while looters ran wild after the fall of Baghdad. We walled off sections of their cities and fenced in entire towns. We brought with us a plague of sectarian violence, civil war, and ethnic cleansing. 40% of the population still doesn't have access to clean water. 4 million Iraqis are still displaced from their homes.
And we don't want to pay to fix it?
This is a new level of selfishness, from a group that makes its living being selfish. Having tired of burdening Americans with debt while funneling money into the hands of contractors (aka Bush's base), the Senate is going to take Iraq's money and funnel it into the hands of contractors, who last I checked, were allowed by the US-drafted Iraqi constitution to send 100% of their revenues out of the country. It looks like the Senate Democrats have found a way to stop giving Bush blank checks for his war without having to actually stand up against it. Every time I think that the Senate Democrats can't get any more pathetic, spineless, worthless, or contemptuous, they manage to prove me wrong. Looks like they've done it again.
Hazaa! Let the true looting of Iraq begin!
.
10 comments:
YAYYY a post!! I have been lurking waiting for something to lick my chops about!!! I am not going to lie. You make a great point. And I don't know what I think about this. Perhaps if there was more of a finacial investment in the process there would be more willing Iraqis....be right back got to go to the bus stop hold that thought.
Back sorry. Anyway I am just saying that maybe the finacial investment will push them to independance faster. But I do agree that we came and tore the place a part and we should be responsible, Isn't that why we remain in Iraq is to not leave a war torn country? What is the difference if we just pack up and leave? Isn't that the same as not fulfilling our responsibility, finacially and militarally? :)N
Hey, Nikki. I think that if we financed the reconstruction, paid Iraqis to do it instead of private contractors, and got our troops out, there would be a lot less violence and chaos than people think (or want us to think.) I'm not saying that the different factions would all hold hands and sing "I'd like to buy the world a Coke," or anything. But if the government said to the militia members "hey, drop your guns and come work for us. We'll give you a real job with real pay, rebuilding your country and providing for your family" I'd bet that 8 out of 10 would do it.
But that's just my theory.
Mike don't be shocked but I think you may have something. ssssshhh don't tell anyone. Perhaps a "policing" roll for the military and then the rebuilding by Iraqis. I did read one time on the Brookings institute (a non-partisan think tank) that partitioning the country and dividing it into 3 different culturally based countries each with evenly shared oil revenue was also an option. Who knows maybe it could work with the violence dying down a bit. Al Qaeda is the big question. Interesting theory...:)N
I agree with you that Iraq should not be forced to pay, but not because "we broke it." We did not break it, they did. They are the on's who allowed a thug to rule them, not us. We went in their and gave them a chance at freedom.
After the Revolutionary war, most Americans figured the U.S. should just write off its war debt, but Sec. of Treasury Hammilton would have none of it. And, when the U.S. pain off its dept in record time, the U.S. was greatly respected for it around the world.
Iraq, If they truly want to be a respected nation, should make a similar effort to pay off their war debt, but they should not be forced to do so. IMO.
freadom, I'm not saying that Iraq should be barred from paying for their reconstruction. If they want to foot the bill, more power to them. I just don't think that we have the right to be insisting that they do so.
And yes, we did break it. Remember "shock and awe"? Remember Fallujah? Those are our missiles (for the most part) destroying houses and shops and office buildings (not to mention schools and hospitals.)
"They are the on's (sic) who allowed a thug to rule them, not us."
That might be this year's winner for "Most Callous Statement." Congratulations. You do recall that the Ba'ath party came to power through a military coup, right? (Surprisingly, not backed by the CIA.) How, exactly, did the Iraqis "allow" that? By not rising up against Saddam? Oh, wait, the Shiites tried that and Bush Sr. pulled his promised support and stood idly by while Saddam gunned down the resistance. Damn those Iraqis for allowing him to do that.
Damn, now you've got me going off on a rant. Thanks for the comments. :)
Unrelated: I get to vote against Carl Levin in a few months! Yahoo!!
Mike, please don't ruin my buzz by pointing out that it won't matter and he will win anyway.
Mike, we agree that Iraq shouldn't be forced to pay. On that other matter, I am honored to be the winner of the most callous statement. Thanks.
That means I get to vote for Levin too.
You guys don't like Carl Levin? He totally reminds me of D.A. Adam Schiff on "Law And Order" back in the 90s.
Post a Comment