I disagree, let's not forget the purpose of rebuilding. It isn't simply a minimal moral obligation to repair what we destroyed. It is to get Iraq back on stable footing, a place that (but for its totalitarian government) it has not been for some time. By all reports it is not the damage caused by bombing but looting and to an even greater extent, mismanagement by the Hussein regime that has Iraq in its present poor condition, our mission is to correct that, so that Iraq can be a stable democracy.

Not the wrap-it-up and run plan proposed by the French.

It's amazing that people who don't want to help American's with social programs now want to run to Iraq and build new cities for them all at our children's and grandchildren's expense. Maybe if we still had that surplus it would be easier to imagine where all this sudden generosity comes from but we don't. We can't afford to build a new Iraq while America is falling apart.

"I don't believe it's our job to reconstruct that country after 30 years of centralized, Stalinist-like economic controls in that country."

--- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld/ March 30, 2003

So why is Dubya asking for $20 billion to be spent on reconstruciting Iraq?

I'd like to add that while Bush begs for another $87 billion (on top of the $79 billion approved in April) to be flushed down the toliet in Iraq (and please don't touch my tax cuts), even Rush friggin' Limbaugh sees some inconsistencies with our priorities.

"The Green Machine (the U.S. military) is in combat in the Middle East while their families have to survive on food stamps and live in low-rent housing." Limbaugh wrote in his syndicated column.

Additionally, families of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq get only a $6000 death benefit, half of which is taxable, plus temporary spouse and child monthly checks.

As for the G.I.'s that make it home as veterans of combat, what's waiting for them? Not much of a reward.

Congress is soon expected to pass legislation giving the president an additional $87 billion for the occupation in Iraq. But as Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and members of Congress speak of "supporting the troops" and "finishing the job," Congress must not overlook America's veterans.

Dividing up the $87 billion by the current Iraqi population of 25 million people means we are going to spend about $3,500 per citizen.

Similarly, there are about 25 million veterans living in the United States. Veteran service organizations are calling for full funding of the Department of Veterans Affairs with an additional $1.8 billion, or about an additional $72 per U.S. veteran. This amount is a fraction of the cost of rebuilding Iraq.

The only thing about the Bush Adminstration that "shocks and awes" me is how they get away with this kind of crap without people calling for their heads.

If we didn't help rebuild Iraq, Danya, then they would hate us more than they do now. Think about that. Keeping Iraqis happy at this moment is more important than our social programs.

Maybe you haven't noticed that Iraqi's ARE NOT HAPPY. They want to build their own country and they want us out...we can still help without occupation and drawing in our terrorist enemies so they have to deal with them as well.

Still the unproven assertion that Iraqis want US troops to leave? When all of the polls say otherwise?

Why continue to believe this?

Turnea, the French plan was not a 'wrap-it-up' as you put it so eloquently. Our idea was to declare Iraq SOVEREIGN firsthand and then help the country, not the other way round as the Americans want it.

That's one of the differences between the American occupation plan and the French assistance plan.

The french assistance plan calls for the election of an Iraqi government in 3 weeks.
California can't even hold a recall election with triple the lead time. Have they lost touch with reality?

I don't care what the polls say...all evidence shows otherwise.

Without democratic institutions? Turn things completely over to the Governing Council (that has received so much international encouragement ) which everyone will complain is part of the US plan for domination? (oops... to late on that one)

That as (and I'm glad Colin Powell agrees) is a recipe for disaster. Of course we could rush in a democratic government, have elections with insufficient infrastructure, doom the country to another couple decades of bloody strife.

But at least they'll have their all important "sovereignty".

What the French government's plan fails to consider is that sovereignty is not the most important thing for Iraq now. Infrastructure (political, public, and economic) is more important, and that is better achieved under the occupation government than under some pseudo-democratic construct that could be propped up in a month.

Regardless of how much the word "occupation" reminds the world of Israel.


..and we all know polls are not evidence of public opinion

What do you know, Turnea? It might just be what they need after all! I mean, we're typing on our keyboards, away from war and hunger. We're sharing views about the conflict, and that is fine ; but do we experience the daily life of Iraqis? Of course we don't.

Instead of criticizing each other, I think we should consider what the two plans TOGETHER could bring to the debate.

Goodness gracious, what kind of assertion is this?! Why not just stick your tongue out while you're at it? 'All eveidence' shows otherwise? Hardly the case.

Is there anecdotal evidence of unhappy Iraqis? Certainly. Is there just as much evidence of Iraqis who are more than satisfied with things as they are today? Surely. Do the majority of Iraqis hope for the day when they will rule their own country? Evidence abounds of that.

While polls are not to be the sole source of judgement for any matter of importance, they do help to shed light on the views of others. Ignoring them completely because you don't agree with them is either arrogant or dumb.

It's interesting you mention "war and hunger", I would say that is what Iraqis need ended not the horror of "occupation". Saying sovereignty might be what they need just because we aren't in Iraq means nothing. We are here to argue what we do know even it we are not doing it "on location". To leave the argument at "we don't know" without so much as an explanation as to why the French plan might work (and a resulting debate) is a False Compromise and I would not want to leave it at that. So I think I'll start a new thread (I was planning to earlier anyway...)

You remind me of Rumsfeld the way you ask and answer your own questions like that. In any case I don't find the polls credible in the least at this point.

Poisoning The Wells, Danya? On what grounds you you totally invalidate all polls in Iraq?

Polls are not a very good source of opinion, they make the polls that way, i know, i have been polled.

We have polls that say stay, but what do the polls say about Iraqis in the street with banners telling us to leave, did they not get polled, and how does that polling work, anyone know?

We just gave a corrupt regime 82 billion dollars to its we don’t have any plan or a clue what we are doing but nabbing oil strategy, which will really just cost more money, who was it that came out and stated a real cost of the war? I think he/she was fired in seconds


I gave it an F, and I still have not changed my mind. Of course if i had conservative leanings, it would not matter how bad it is over their, i would give it a b or an a huh?

Turn that on it's head for a sec. What do those banners tell us? Consider for a moment their likely proportion of the population of Iraq. Why assume people with that opinion didn't get polled? The polls weren't 100% in favor of the occupation. Why not take the more likely scenario, they simply do not represent the majority of Iraqis.

Nice blanket statement Nileriver.


Another nice blatant blanket statement is how people keep saying that we don't have any plan for post war Iraq. My, my, I didn't realize so many people had been attending meetings with the CENTCOM commander, or cabinet meetings, I really feel left out.

Why do so many feel that so soon after liberation, a functioning Iraqi government should somehow spring up from the desert sands and run the country.
It certainly took us longer than five months to form a cohesive government after the American Revolution, and we didn't have guerrilla/terrorists interdicting the peace.

It is also nice that such statements are not made by our leadership, the same people that say the war is over, the same people that say we know what we are doing, but do they.

Blanket statements, yes i have made a few, but not as many or as bad as the people running this war.

How does anyone know anything, from what centcom is doing to what the majority or Iraqis think. the pentagon is trying to get out from under this administration to to fight this war, but for some reason various politicians need to be in power over it? why is so much information being kept from the American people? Could bush be selling us out for a re election, sounds like the bush i know!

Two problems:
Assuming Two Wrongs Make A Right (Tu Quoque, You Too)

and trying to invalidate the debate through claiming ignorance for everyone involved.

We can't know anything for sure, we can debate the evidence we do have...

Must we resurrect this myth again?

I agree, Bush and admin are most certainly making some blanket, unsubstantiated statements.
Please don't think all conservatives bow down before an altar of Bush, I have plenty of beef with his policies, some of which concerning Iraq.
The fact of the matter is, we would, could and should never know every detail of national security or military operations. We should indeed know how much money is being spent, and what direction we are heading. But no country or company in the world reveals every bit of intelligence for the world to see, why would we be any different?
\BTW, I would change my vote from a B to a C based on the plan of attack on how our troops are hunting down Ba'athist terrorists.

And a niftier saying, trying to invalidate someone’s argument because they do not agree with you. I think that happens here also.

Say we take the more "likely" position that Iraqis hate us and want us to leave? Do you think we will. Various keywords and spin is nice, i get a lot of it.

I offered more than spin, I offered the evidence of polls (which some dismiss out of hand, for no apparent reason). Do you have any counter-evidence to present.

I do not invalidate you argument simply because I don't agree, I'd just like to see some evidence...

Would you mind coming back and editing this paragraph so as it can be understood? I think I'd like to respond, but I'm not sure if I'm getting your point.

Yeah we know you don't care. It shows in your posts. You want troops out and etc. If you continue to believe what the spinning liberal media is telling you, you won't get anywhere in the arguments

goamerica - don't turn this into a personal spat. Keep it to the issues, please.

How were the questions of the poll worded, i mean the questions to get the results. Who, how many and where did these polls take place, when did the polls take place.

Do the polls signal the people on television to stop protesting u.s presence.

Is the poll always running, or is it a snapshot, how can we tell the poll is not bias without knowing such about the poll, do i put my trust into what, in what kind of a situation. How many Iraqis will be honest with the poll, anyone know?

I just want to know if i can credit the poll as an honest source for the debate is all.

Exactly my point Nileriver...I don't know who's making these polls or how accurate they are but I do know what I can see with my own eyes by looking at the pictures and by considering different account's of people who are there. Those things do not match the alleged polls everyone always tells me about.

(To Turnea) Alright my friend! Let's start a new thread, that's what we're here for.

By the way, I don't think my previous post was leading to a false compromise. Saying that we have to remember who we are and what we are doing when talking about Iraq was meant to raise a point : we have to remain humble. As witnesses of changes, we are only giving a testimony of our lives, no more.

However, if you're a "die hard point maker" then you'll want to give more than a testimony and I understand that.

Grading something is difficult when you don't get all the info needed. It can't be denied that virtually all the news from Iraq that makes it into the mainstream press is negative. You really have to search to find an outlet for anything positive. Once you do locate some, it becomes obvious that there is a concerted effort to keep it out of view. I will leave the motives for that to you to determine.

With that as a background, it is refreshing to see Rummy's piece in today's WSJ. To me, the most significant part refers to the call for more troops. The Iraqis don't want them, the US commanders on the ground don't want them. Who does? Why, the Democrats of course. Why? Pure, unadulterated scare tactics! Their continuing to politicize this effort is a national disgrace and they must be held accountable for it.

The Bush administration continues to make decisions with the safety and security of our nation at the fore. Many of those decisions make them politically vulnerable, mainly because they are subject to liberal spin. Thankfully, they have the fortitude and strength to stand by those decisions.

After posting I came across another piece worth reading. It's no wonder the liberals don't want any more access to the media by those who care to tell the truth.

Nice spin, passion51, but let's get to the actual facts, shall we?

Of course the iraqi's don't want additional troops. Some there already feel that this is more of an occupation than a liberation, so no big surprise there.

US commanders on the ground don't want more troops? According to who? Why, Donald Rumsfeld, of course. But, that is in direct contrast to two things:
1. US commanders just two days ago, ordered up substantial additional troops:



2. The US may not be willing to commit more US troops, but they are certainly asking for additional troops through the UN:



Finally, the call for more troops is hardly one-sided, and by Democrats only:



If you're going to talk about "spin" make sure you aren't doing any spinning yourself. Yes, there is plenty of spin on both sides, and to accuse the "liberals" of being the only ones doing it, is disingenuous, at best.

I do not understand why the media and liberal America has become so focused on the lack of instant WMD findings in a near third world, war torn nation. We know Sadam had them. He told us he did. He even used them in full view. Further, the WORLD felt so strongly about the presence of these weapons that they imposed an oil embargo on Iraq that ended up killing Iraqis on a daily basis. The UN passed numerous inspection resolutions believing that Sadam had or at least was trying to obtain WMD's.

How then, has the liberal side of American politics convinced the world that these weapons didn’t exist? Do Americans now think the footage of Kurds running from poison gas clouds only to fall over dead was faked?

The liars here are the anti-Bush politicians.

They have spun the facts to the point that Americans do not believe what history has shown them. The examples of Sadam’s possession of WMD is present throughout his reign, and yet Americans believe only what they see over the last few months.

And a puppet government? Do you honestly believe that the administration is sitting around trying to figure out how to keep control of the Iraqi government? I'd bet that they are more concerned of getting out of Iraq so that Bush can win his next election. After all, if this persists his numbers will continue to slide. His best chance at winning in '04 is to have a gracious and successful exit in Iraq.

Speaking of nice spinning...

U.S. Sends fresh troops



The Defense rests your Honor!

NiteGuy, please get your facts straight before you call a foul on someone else. The troops being called up now are for relief purposes. So were those we hoped to get from other countries. More than one commander has been quoted as saying that 'additional' troops are not what's needed. More intelligence from the Iraqis is what's needed. And that intelligence is slowly but surely coming.

One other item worth talking about. Even the Dems are supporting the first 60 billion or so because its earmarked for the troops and for Afghanistan. The money in dispute is about 20 billion for rebuilding Iraq. Yes, this is a lot of money and yes, we could do a lot with it right here at home. BUT, the faster and more secure we reconstruct Iraq, the more we will save in both money and lives in the long run.

Again, a politically unpopular position taken by an administration that has decided to do what's right rather than what's expedient. This raises the ire of some, but they're just not used to elected officials showing true leadership. Hopefully, they will have the time to get used to it. After all, it is part of the American dream.

The reconstruction costs have been overblown ($50,000 per bed prisons for example) and there is no reason to believe the military costs have not also been inflated in order to line the pockets of the same contractors in charge of upgrading military barracks. The entire bill needs oversight...not political wrangling.

Please explain why you think that cost is overblown? Unless you think it's meant simply for the bed itself?

It's overblown compared to the cost of building US prisons for the same number of prisoners and with our more rigid standards. And let's be clear about what this is...an emergency spending allowance. This is being rushed through when a lot of it should be done with normal budgeting oversight. Sure some of the ideas are nice and may or may not be good ideas. But they surely aren't emergencies and are not necessarly something taxpayers want to pay for and they just may not have to if it's not thrown into some rushed through wish list. Understand that this $87b is more than twice what we spend on homeland security, that it's only a fraction of the total costs of this war, and that many of these requests are hardly what most people would consider an 'emergency'.

$1 million for a museum and information center to document past atrocities by Saddam's regime. (Cool. Let the Iraqi people do it themselves...they are the ones who suffered after all...it's tacky and transparent for the new leadership to come along and try to boost their own image by spending a million dollars to further demonize the old leadership.)

$30 million to provide half-day classes in English for 5,000 workers. (maybe they should be teaching American's to speak Arabic instead! We do plan on expanding our 'war on terror' and plan on being in the M.E. for a long time...we don't have enough interpreters...yet we're going to teach THEM how to speak english so they can work with our troops and contractors.)

$100 million to retain 500 experts to investigate crimes against humanity by Saddam's former government. (suddenly Bush is interested in crimes against humanity...as long as they aren't his own!)

$100 million to protect - and perhaps relocate overseas - 100 witnesses and their families who testify against former government officials, terrorist groups or organized crime figures. (let's talk about this once a justice system is in place and crimes can be properly tried in a court of law.)

$9 million to conduct surveys on how to modernize Iraq's postal system, including establishment of ZIP codes. (Bush is privatizing all the other government services, he talks of privitizing the postal service in the US, so what's going on here and where is the emergency?)

link

None of the stories I saw prior to the 28th were calling this a rotation of troops, but a callup of additional troops. However, I stand corrected on that point.

As to "calling foul" on your post, Passion51, what I was calling foul on was your assertion that only democrats and liberals were calling for additional troops:


I think I was able to show that this wasn't the case:


And, I do think that if we're going to do this right, we may indeed need more troops. There are reports that people trying to rebuild the power lines, and oil lines are being shot at, materials are being stolen, etc. If that is the case, let's get enough troops over to guard these installations and maintenance people, and get the power and water flowing. It would probably do more good to have the services up and running than any negatives by having more troops in-country.

I wasn't for this war to begin with, but now that we are there, we need to get things back up and running in an expiditious manner, and not be there forever. If that takes more troops to protect and/or train the Iraqis, so be it. The sooner we can get them stabilized, and working on their own, the better.


Actually, we can build prisons in this country for between about $28,000 and $32,000 per bed. Also, here's a link to the disparity in some of the costs between what the administration wants in that $20 billion and what it actually costs: Comparison of the Bush Administration's Iraq Reconstruction Package
The $60 billion for the military portion may well be fine, but I think, based on the listed link, we may really need to look at the other $20 billion rather closely.

I've seen both republican's and democrat's calling for more troops. I've seen an equal number argue that more troops aren't needed, they would simply be target practice. I don't think the argument is divided by party lines except for the folks that will agree with whatever Bush says and don't bother thinking for themselves.

I don't happen to agree with the argument for more troops. Simply because I've seen enough stories of our soldiers standing around and doing nothing in Kuwait without a mission. I don't know the right answer. I don't think there IS a right or wrong answer when it comes to troop numbers because I don't feel that's the root of the problem. I do think that the occupation has to be internationalized to get away from not only the perception of this being an American occupation but the reality of it being one. I do think that the Iraqi people need to feel like they have more control over their own futures...and I do think the reconstruction contracts, handled the way they are now, are getting in the way of real progress being made in the places where it's most important. There is a lack of trust that has grown to large on both sides. Our troops can't provide security for others when they are having to spend all of their time trying to stay alive. That's just my view of it...it may be wrong but I doubt anyone has all the right answers at this point. To me the only answer I can disagree with completely is the one that says we need to keep things exactly as they are now, except with more money, and hope it eventually get's better. I don't buy the fantasy that this is all occupation as usual, just like it was in Germany or Japan. I also don't believe American's should be in the business of carrying out hostile occupations and we should make this one as short and painless as we can while finding a way to bring some sense of stability to Iraq before we go.

Danya, you can't have it both ways. Either we take the time, effort and money to repair and rebuild...or we don't. You've argued against both, all depending on which way the admin has moved. Your positions flip=flop more than those of Wesley Clark.

Can you point out exactly where I've flip flopped? Throwing obscene amounts of money at something and then sticking your fingers in your ears, singing la la la, is surely not working. To make it clear...Someone other than the Bush Administration needs to take over the reconstruction efforts because they've been blinded by their profiteering. The entire occupation is now based on how much money they can get for contracts and who they want to hand them out to...this is why nothing is getting done and the costs are overblown and the Iraqi people are stuck waiting for their liberation until the money dries up.

The first thing to do is internationalize the occupation with a major shift towards self rule instead of waffling over when people like Powell or Bush think they might be 'ready' as if it's for them to decide simply because they unleashed their illegal war and toppled the government. They haven't done anything else...they have little or no support from the people in Iraq. The world still views the war as illegitimate and now the American people are finally starting to realize they've been had. I don't care how many troops you put on the ground...nothing will change unless the dynamics behind it do. When American's can trust that their money is being used to actually reconstruct Iraq rather than make Haliburton profitable again everyone will be better off. (except the death merchant's of course) Once that happens and things are moving forward in good faith you will find very generous liberals willing to spend their time and money on a worthy cause....but the cause has to become worthy first. I expect that's about the time you'll see the return of the true conservatives in Washington, the ones who don't want to spend a dime helping anyone who needs it.

Well I found a good article talking about Iraq governing council wanting sovereignty quicker then what Bush wants and how it might help reduce the animosity towards us http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/966675.asp









Yes we dont know how this would work out but it would be better than what is happening now. Here's another link on why we dont hand over control now. http://www.unwire.org/UNWire/20030714/449_6537.asp



And that is why they are considered a puppet government unlike Campbejm believes



Do you honestly believe we are going to be out of Iraq before '04?

On a better note now Rumsfeld http://www.msnbc.com/news/977885.asp?0dm=C14SN



Not that is any better with Condoleezza Rice running but it seems the power struggle begins.

Also for the people saying that Halliburtons contract is appropriate, how can you say its appropriate when they got the contract without even having to bid on it or have anyone else compete for the contract?