Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35669

from the bbc

quote:

---

War may cost US $95bn

US taxpayers will face a bill of up to $95bn for an Iraqi war - and that is assuming the conflict is brief.
In its latest number-crunching on the US budget, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) calculated war costs at $24bn a month - although more than half of that has already been spent.

The overall direct cost should not exceed $100bn, the government reckons, but analysts have warned that a prolonged conflict or occuption of Iraq could easily end up costing far more.

Combined with the effect of tax cuts, the CBO warned that war spending could turn an $891bn cumulative budget surplus for 2004-2013 into a deficit of $1.82 trillion.

Only two years ago in 2001, the CBO was suggesting a 10-year surplus of as much as $5.6 trillion.

Different ideas

The CBO's estimates, needless to say, diverge wildly from those of the White House itself.

The Office of Management and Budget - the President's own number-crunchers - sees a first-year deficit of $307bn, $31bn or 9% less than that predicted by the CBO.

That still exceeds the $290bn record deficit run up in 1990 when the current incumbent's father was President.

And the OMB's own ten-year projection is only $80bn less than the CBO's forecast.

Republicans insist that the $1.5 trillion tax cut they are planning, on top of the one passed on a bipartisan basis earlier in the current administration, will kickstart the economy and reinvigorate the tax take.

Spend what it takes

And despite the CBO's estimates of the cost of war - which mention $9bn to get the troops home again and $1bn-4bn a month for the US's occupation plans - they say that fiscal worries have to take a back seat to security concerns.

The economy, however, continues to slide, with February's unemployment figures producing a nasty surprise in the shape of a massive drop in non-farm payrolls.

And many economists disagree with the administration on the likely effect of the planned tax cuts, saying they are targeted at the wrong groups and unlikely to feed through to USA Inc's bottom line.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: my mother's bloody womb
Posts: 7148

even those that support bush in this military action have a problem with the way he and his staff approach the economic slump the country has been in.

i believe that for the average american it's more important to eat than succeed in war. even if we have a stellar victory in iraq, if the voting public doesn't have a job they'll elect someone who they feel will give them one.

and i didn't hear about that last bit. pretty interesting- perhaps bush is killing two birds with one stone?

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35669

There is a story on it at the guardian website (and some others); it is quite recent news, I think.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story...,911943,00.html

I heard a British politician complaining about the fact that it showed that war was prejudged already. If the US tax payer will pay for it (ie, no money will be taken from sales of Iraqi oil) then the main question would probably relate to how those companies were selected (although the idea of not tendering generally for best quality and most cost effective service is a little odd, it is hardly earth shattering news that the US government will give US tax money to US companies, although it can lead to pinko socialism or corruption). The idea that the money is on the table and the companies are to bid for it, rather than there being specific objectives to be achieved, is not such a good idea, I don't think.

Last edited by Smug Git on 03-11-2003 at 01:55 PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2001
Location: Rio de los Brazos de Dios
Posts: 3876

The value of Iraqi oil is about $60 billion per annum and could be increased to five times that amount with proper reservoir management. I see no reason ethically, socially, morally or politically why that money should not be used to pay for restoration of Iraqi infrastructure, US and UK war costs and Iraq's just debts. This is also the first time in my lifetime that I have ever heard the media question what a war was goinjg to cost.
War's are not fought for cost effective reasons IMO.

As to who gets the job of rebuilding Iraq (with Iraqi money) I certainly wouldn't rule out Halliburton or Bechtol ar several other US companies from participation. I would be very unhappy to see French participation or Russian or German.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

oxsan


Don't kick until yer spurred.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2001
Location: Boston
Posts: 6985

Bush truly has done a horrible job with the economy and his State of the Union proposals were nothing short of moronic in this day and age. There is a reason for him not to reduce the amount of money the government is taking in right now and he should know it since about all he can talk about is war. I don't understand the man's logic behind his decisions. I really don't want to graduate college and face a shitty economy like a few of my friends have done.

Goddamn pea-brained morons.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35669

quote:

---

Originally posted by oxsan
The value of Iraqi oil is about $60 billion per annum and could be increased to five times that amount with proper reservoir management. I see no reason ethically, socially, morally or politically why that money should not be used to pay for restoration of Iraqi infrastructure, US and UK war costs and Iraq's just debts. This is also the first time in my lifetime that I have ever heard the media question what a war was goinjg to cost.
War's are not fought for cost effective reasons IMO.

As to who gets the job of rebuilding Iraq (with Iraqi money) I certainly wouldn't rule out Halliburton or Bechtol ar several other US companies from participation. I would be very unhappy to see French participation or Russian or German.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 13002

You know smug, I think your right (for once). It is hardly surprising (and very reasonable) that the USA would give the it's contracts to only US companies. I think this is true even if the whole thing does have the words "conflict of interest" painted all over it in sixteen foot high lettering.

Do you think they could they have made it more obvious? I mean, don't get me wrong or anything, I think its perfectly alright to try and make yourself and your friends some cash out of a war, especially if you're a high-ranking politician. I mean that's one of the biggest perks about the job of high-ranking politician in the first place, it goes without saying. But could they have been any less discrete?

Seems to me that this kind of thing is very telling about the strength of political capital the Bush Administration actually enjoys at home. Few Administrations around the Western World (save France because it's a culturally excepted thing) could get away with such an obvious display of bad smelling corporate iffyness. Personally I prefer it when I can't actually see it, it doesn't bother me then.

edit: I also agree with smug's last comment. That being that as a non-US citizen, how the US actually chooses to splash out the taxpayers cash is really none of my business. But if I were a US Citizen, I would be very pissed off if they did it in such an appallingly iffy way and so out in the open as well. What ever happened to standards in public life? Or am I just being British on this one?

Last edited by philjit on 03-11-2003 at 03:33 PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2001
Location: Rio de los Brazos de Dios
Posts: 3876

Quote Smug:
"If Iraqi oil is used by The US to give to US companies to rebuild an Iraq that we are administering this would make me very angry indeed. If that is the case I am very anti-war"
__________________________________________________
__I did not say "give" it to US companies. I said that I would not rule Halliburton or Bechtol out but that I would rule Russia, France and Germany out if they do not participate in the liberation of Iraq.
And if I find when we get in there that France has been selling
nuclear reactor components and Mirage aircraft replacement poarts and missile guidance, and missile propulsion systems
all in contravention of UN resolutions 687, 1281 and 1441 (I think those are the right numbers) for twelve years and including after 9-11 then I shall be very angry indeed. Those countries did not participate in either the cost or the bloodshed of liberation and as far as I am concern they have no standing in the determination of the future events in that country France and Russia have been making billions off Saddams cut rate oil for years in trade for tools of war--of that I am sure. I further believe that we might even uncover proof that rather large sums were paid to French , German and Russian INDIVIDUALS to obstruct the US intervention.
Would that make you very angry indeed?
__________________________________________________
__

Quote Smug:
My main reservation would be that the government is using your tax money to enrich their friends through the restricting the tender to those companies that help out say with campaign contributions..."
__________________________________________________
_

Smug you have absolutely no idea of how the American Government works or the American mind for that matter if that is how you think this is going down. Herbert Bechtol wouldn't give
George Bush the sweat off his balls. Bechtol is incidentally not a public corporation , it is a sole proprietorship of the Bechtol family. It does nearly all of its business overseas and has its own diplomatic corps that has better relations with Saudi Arabia , Iraq, Iran, Injdonesia, India and dozens of other countries than the US does or the UK either. Bechtol came to my mind because they are
\the worlds leading heavy constructure company and have a pot full of men and equipment and money and in-pocket kings and princes all over the Near East. Certainly the work should be put up for bid among those nations who participated in the liberation but if Bechtol wants the work I doubt the ability of any company in the world to beat their price or their ability to do a quality job.
As for Halliburton they are specialists used by both the UK and Russia to reclaim damaged oil fields and off-shore rigs and have loads of equipment over there right now. I don't think there is a French, German or Russian company with either the expertise or the desire to tackle a couple of thousand burning oil wells and broken pipelines. If so why don't they get calls from all oiver the world to repair oil fields.

George Bush is not on the take. He doesn't need the money. He doesn't need the power. His motives for going into Iraq are simple--to elliminate a threat to the US and the rest of western civilization which whether it thinks so or not is in the middle of a war. He does not need to pay back any campaign contributors.

I don't want France and Germany and Russia to profit from 12 years of secretly supplying arms and goods in violation of UN sanctions and I don't want them to profit from emasculation of the UN to a debating society and one not very good at that.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

oxsan


Don't kick until yer spurred.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 13002

quote:

---

And if I find when we get in there that France has been selling nuclear reactor components and Mirage aircraft replacement poarts and missile guidance, and missile propulsion systems all in contravention of UN resolutions 687, 1281 and 1441 (I think those are the right numbers) for twelve years and including after 9-11 then I shall be very angry indeed.

---

Last edited by philjit on 03-11-2003 at 04:56 PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35669

So it is your contention that Bush hasn't repaid contributions with government largesse? I can't judge it either way (and note that even if some of the companies invited to tender aren't big buddies with Bush, we would have to wait and see who actually gets the contracts and the dough). Are campaign contributions, then, only made out of great faith that the prospective president's policies will be good for the company and all other companies in the same business including those who didn't contribute? Similar accusations could, I am sure, be levelled at many other presidents, of course. In any case, that isn't my biggest concern because, as I say, I'm not American.

But as far as my main point was concerned, keeping the rebuilding work to companies incorporated in countries that supported the war, that would be for me enough reason for us as a nation to pull out of supporting this war and in fact to condemn the US for its part in it. If Iraqi money is being used, we shouldn't be funneling it to ourselves. If we can't afford to do this without helping ourselves to Iraqi money, then we shouldn't do it at all. We certainly shouldn't lie about it and say that it isn't about money (and given that the only money from Iraq is in the form of oil, our claims that it isn't about oil are a load of shit too).

Of course, if the French were selling goods to Iraq in violation of UN order (by which I mean that the French government was implicit in it, not just that it was from French companies; UK companies, after all, sold Saddam the parts to make a supergun), then they should be censured for that. I already don't feel enthusiastic about diplomatic relations with France (from before this Iraq business; their conduct over this in the UN hasn't lessened them in my eyes one bit, in fact, although their attempts at spoiling in NATO did) in any case, but certainly they should get chillier if the French government appears to have been breaking UN sanctions (that they themselves approved in the UN, I think). I hardly think that it is proved that they have been doing so, however, so it won't enter into consideration now. We can always wait for proof, can't we?

I can't think of anyone who rises to high office in a modern democracy who doesn't 'need' the power in some almost visceral way, so that wouldn't be something that I held against Bush more than against any other leader. I don't believe in his motives as you do, but I am not as bothered what his motives are as long as, in the end, we play fair. I don't have more than a thimbleful of respect for him (he hasn't done anything to earn much respect, as far as I can see, although he similarly hasn't fucked things up horribly yet either) in any case, but that isn't terribly relevant; our feelings on Iraq are running broadly parallel unless he is planning to use Iraq's resources to pay for this. Of course, this US$900million that we are discussing here is from your own tax money, which I trust you are happy with? If the US taxpayer wants to generously donate the best part of a billion dollars to Iraqis then that is all well and good and in fact we should all be humbled in the face of such altruism. The main part of this conversation is about something that as far as I am aware only Rumsfeld has proposed and was told to shut up, ie, that Iraqi oil should be used to enrich America, directly or through its companies. I am hoping that it doesn't happen.

I was prepared to believe Bush and other Americans when he said that it wasn't about money, but if it is lies then I hope that he chokes on them; preferably at the next election. Not to mention that no one is going to be stupid enough to trust the US's good intentions again.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2001
Location: Rio de los Brazos de Dios
Posts: 3876

The right honourable gentleman speaks as ever with the tongue of moderation and insight and pours the balm of myrrh and wisdom on our assembly.

I actually think that we have already found all of those things out as well as the fact that Germany has supplied gobs of precursor chemicals to Saddam and I think that we (we being the George Bush that Europe reviles) will not make such data public for just the reasons that you mention. In the language of parliament which you have adopted "you don't talk about my shit and I won't talk about your shit." So I imagine that it will turn out just as you said.

I travelled a lot and I also was engaged in businesses that had access to a lot of information around the world and I still talk to
a lot of those people. What the French and Russians have done this time is somewhat beyond the pale-- I am talking about what they did during all those sanction years not about their attempts to stop us from going into Iraq now.

While the government won't talk about it now or probably ever the people of the US are not so restricted. Anti-French and anti-Russian sentiment is building very fast and very deep in the US.
I don't think we will get over this very quickly. And the repudiation of our President by Europe in general will also not be forgotten by the public over here. It may be forgotten by the
government but not by the public. Yesterday on local TV there was a picture of the some restaurant pouring all of their French wine down the storm sewer and promising to never buy another bottle. That was not a government action--that was a populist action. There will be more.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

oxsan


Don't kick until yer spurred.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2001
Location: Rio de los Brazos de Dios
Posts: 3876

I forgot about International Law jab.

International Law does not exist in my book. I just accused the French of being double-dealing liars I din't accuse them of breaking any International Law. They did after all agree to the
imposition of sanctions on Iraq--and while that does not make it
illegal for them to do whatever they did it damn sure makes it dishonourable, cheap, tawdry and unforgiveably crass for them to have done whatever they did. Not illegal but dishonourable.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

oxsan


Don't kick until yer spurred.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35669

It is very important, I think, that a distinction is made between activities conducted by a foreign company and activities conducted by a foreign company that their government knew about or should have found out about. Sometimes companies can go to great lengths to deceive regulators. Otherwise, for example, we should blame the US government for the ENRON and Worldcom scandals, when clearly the primary blame lies elsewhere. In the case of Russia, one would imagine that it would more likely have been the Russian government given that there isn't all that much by way of large Russian companies.

Of course, the whole optimism about Russia that perhaps some US citizens had (I don't think that the government shared it) was perhaps somewhat naive anyway; the place is a violent cesspool and at least as corrupt as it always was and yet at the same time has a formidable arsenal and no intention of downgrading its perception of its own importance. I honestly think that the US is better off playing footsie with China if it feels the need for some communist superstate loving, although the choice is somewhat like judging a beauty contest in a leper colony (like the last US presidential election, I would say).

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35669

quote:

---

Originally posted by oxsan
Not illegal but dishonourable.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 13002

quote:

---

Originally posted by oxsan
The right honourable gentleman speaks as ever with the tongue of moderation and insight and pours the balm of myrrh and wisdom on our assembly........ In the language of parliament which you have adopted "you don't talk about my shit and I won't talk about your shit."

---

Last edited by philjit on 03-11-2003 at 05:55 PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 13002

quote:

---

Originally posted by oxsan
I forgot about International Law jab.

---

If I may speak candidly, I have to say I thought it was a bloody good jab. Defintely a worthwhile one for Despatch Box

quote:

---

I just accused the French of being double-dealing liars...... and while that does not make it illegal for them to do whatever they did it damn sure makes it dishonourable, cheap, tawdry and unforgiveably crass for them to have done whatever they did. Not illegal but dishonourable.

---

I can only refer the honourable gentleman to the reply I made some moments ago. To raise the issue of honour and integrity in this argument I would say is a dangerous game to play, for we place ourselves in a position that exposes us to charges of hypocrisy and double standards. Whilst one appreciates and acknowledges fully the honourable gentleman's personal feelings on this matter. I feel I can only remind him that he is walking along a dangerously precarious tightrope of credibility in arguing this point.

Last edited by philjit on 03-11-2003 at 05:56 PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2001
Location: Rio de los Brazos de Dios
Posts: 3876

IT IS MY CONTENTION THAT BUSH HAS NOT REPAID CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS WITH GOVERNMENT LARGESSE

In fact Smug I think that instances of a President paying back a contributor are quite rare in the US. Both Clinton and LBJ did it wholesale but I do not believe that either had any concept of honour and I think that both were massively meglomaniacal. But it really doesn't make much sense for someone at the Presidential level to do that. It invariably surfaces and hurts your reputation and ability to ben re-elected. But also it just is not necessary unless like Clinton your funds are depleted by outside legal expenses. Bush won't even have to give any fund raisers for his 2004 war chest. Money was not even a consideration in the 2000 race. Bush if you remember turned down matching Federal funds of $45 million in 2000 because he didn't want to have to subject how he spent that money to audit. Since embarking on a political life Bush has never needed money and never will in American politics so he does not need to curry favor with any contributors.

I do agree that Bush sees government in a bit too much of a corporate protecting mode than I do or many other staunch conservatives but I do not believe that he had a damn thing to do with the ENRON scandalor the WorldCom scandal. Nor do I believe he acted in any way ibn special favor toward any of those companies or any other. I think that business has a soft spot in hius heart as much from his Harvard Law School as anything else.

Now as to rebuilding Iraq. You damn right I think that The US should participate in determining who gets the infrastructure contracts. And I think that if they don't the French, Russians and Germans will. And I don't disagree at all with Rumsfeld although I didn't know that he said that. I would not find it difficult to accept the idea that Iraq should pay for their liberation. Smug, do you believe in the War Reparations imposed on Germany and Finland in WWI and WWII? UK was happy to impose them and happy to take them. The US refused to take any WWII reparations from anybody and instead sunk billions into the Marshall plan until we built Germany and Japan up to a position where their economy was stronger than ours. I imagine that we will do the same again. Americans are fools that way.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

oxsan


Don't kick until yer spurred.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35669

Why do companies give money as campaign contributions (I asked this earlier)?

The war reparations on germany were fucking stupid, and both Lloyd George and Woodrow Wilson felt so too, I believe (after the Great War) but they were pushed by Clemenceau (whose country had suffered more than ours, admittedly, but they were still stupid). In the end they served little purpose and were contributory to the second world war. If the chance to do something similar ever comes up again, I hope that people have the sense to stop it. As for Second World War, I was under the impression that Germany and Japan ended up rather better off thanks to US largesse, but I don't know how any reparations that were scheduled compared to the freebies that they got. In any case, even though the second world war finished the job of fucking our economy that was begun by the first, we shouldn't have taken the reparations, no.

And I have no confidence that this current US administration is going to be as farsighted and generous as those following the war were,