Bush wants another $87b to reconstruct Iraq - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

DEI37 · 09-08-2003, 09:45 AM

I'll intro this whole thing by saying Bush was the better option over Gore, but the guy is still an idiot. Want proof? Click the link, or read the provided text.

Here's the news link: Can you say S-T-U-P-I-D?

Here's the story:

WASHINGTON, Sept. 8 — Only hours after President Bush said he would ask Congress for $87 billion to pay for U.S. engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan, a domestic battle was being fought Monday over those billions and the bigger policy picture. Democratic presidential hopefuls poured criticism on the president, while the president’s advisers defended his request, which would come on top of the $79 billion approved in April for the initial costs of the war and its aftermath and for worldwide efforts against terrorism.

THE DEMOCRATIC critics included former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, who accused Bush of going into Iraq “recklessly” and said “failure is not an option.”
Saying it’s critical that other nations get involved, Dean told NBC’s “Today” show that “we’re in trouble and we need the help of all of the people that the president insulted on the way into Iraq.”
Rep. Dick Gephardt, D-Mo., another White House hopeful, said the president, in his speech, “has recognized that he has been going down the wrong path.”
The administration, Gephardt added, “must begin the process of fully engaging our allies and sharing the burden of building a stable democracy in Iraq.”

The president, in a Sunday evening address to the nation that combined policy with patriotic fervor, argued that the United States must stay the course in postwar Iraq despite a mounting cost in lives and money.
Four days before the second anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush said the nation “will spend what is necessary to achieve this essential victory” in the war on terrorism.
“The Middle East will either become a place of progress and peace, or it will be an exporter of violence and terror that takes more lives in America and in other free nations,” Bush said.
“The terrorists have cited the examples of Beirut and Somalia, claiming that if you inflict harm on Americans, we will run from a challenge,” Bush added. “In this they are mistaken.”
Seeking support for his policy, he said that “the surest way to avoid attacks on our own people is to engage the enemy where he lives and plans.
“We are fighting that enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan today,” he added, “so that we do not meet him again on our own streets, in our own cities.”

FIRST MAJOR SPEECH SINCE MAY 1
Bush described Iraq as the central front in the war against terrorism and said that “enemies of freedom are making a desperate stand there, and there they must be defeated.
“This will take time and require sacrifice,” he said. “Yet we will do what is necessary, we will spend what is necessary, to achieve this essential victory in the war on terror, to promote freedom and to make our own nation more secure.”
Bush addressed the nation in his first major speech on Iraq since May 1 when he stood on the deck of the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln and declared an end to major combat operations. Since then, more Americans have died in Iraq than were killed during the war. The overall death count is 287 — 149 since May 1.
The violence — including four major bombing attacks in a month — have raised alarms about Bush’s handling of Iraq. Republicans and Democrats alike have urged Bush to change course and seek more troops and money from other countries.
Questions also have been fueled by the administration’s failure to find any of Saddam Hussein’s alleged illegal weapons or Saddam himself.
National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice told “Today” that removing Saddam is victory enough. “Removing Saddam Hussein removes the threat of weapons of mass destruction,” she said.

Bush said the current number of U.S. troops in Iraq — 130,000 — is sufficient but that more foreign troops are needed. He said two multinational divisions, led by Britain and Poland, are serving alongside the United States, and that American commanders have requested a third multinational division.
[On Monday, Britain announced it was sending 1,200 additional troops to Iraq to help stabilize the country.]
Other countries have asked for an explicit U.N. peacekeeping authorization, and Bush said Secretary of State Colin Powell would seek a Security Council resolution to authorize deployment of new forces.
Referring to France, Germany and Russia, Bush said that “not all of our friends agreed with our decision [to] ... remove Saddam Hussein from power. Yet we cannot let past differences interfere with present duties.”
Pressed by Democrats and Republicans alike for a pricetag for Iraq, Bush said he would ask Congress for $87 billion for the next fiscal year. Of that amount, he said, $66 billion would be earmarked for military and intelligence operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.
Public support for Bush’s policy has slipped since the war but has leveled off in the mid 50s, polls show.

While the United States has shouldered the burden of the effort in Iraq, Bush said other nations will be asked to help. He said Powell would meet with representatives of many countries later this month to seek contributions for rebuilding Afghanistan. Next month, Powell will hold a similar funding conference for Iraq.
“Europe, Japan and states in the Middle East all will benefit from the success of freedom in those two countries, and they should contribute to that success,” Bush said.

Last week, the Bush administration shifted gears by dropping its resistance to a broader U.N. role in Iraq.
The administration is hoping to secure a new U.N. resolution on Iraq that will clear the way for other countries to contribute troops and cash.
But the initial American proposals were rejected by France and Germany, which opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq and want the United States to go further in broadening the U.N.’s role.
When he started the war on Iraq in March, Bush warned that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction that could be sold to terrorists. He also said Iraq was a threat because of its support for Middle East terrorist groups. The United States so far has not found any weapons of mass destruction and it has yet to prove a link between deposed Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida, accused of masterminding the Sept. 11 attacks.

Jesus Pimp · 09-09-2003, 03:21 AM

You mean rebuild oil refineries? :P

The_Dude · 09-09-2003, 06:38 AM

that $87 billion could be put into much better use at home.

Ace_of_Lobster · 09-09-2003, 02:30 PM

I was against invading Iraq, but having done that we need to take some responsibility and leave it in a better state than we found it.

mml · 09-09-2003, 03:24 PM

We as a nation must bear the burden of rebuilding Iraq. Whether or not you agreed with the decision to invade Iraq, we have done so and must finish the job. One of the things that separates the United States from other nations is that we do take responsibility for our actions and strive to further democratic ideals throughout the world as we did with the Marshall Plan. While Iraq is not WWII we still should take the same responsiblity.

What must occur is that Congress needs to do their job and not cut the President another blank check. They must conduct inquiries and determine the true costs of the war, what our short and long term plans are and then approve the required amount of funding, whether it is greater or less than the $87billion. They should also seriously consider recinding some of the tax cuts.

89transam · 09-11-2003, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Dude
that $87 billion could be put into much better use at home.

Realize though that a good chunk of that money goes to our troops and to US compaines. It nots like the money is burned or just unloaded in iraq.

Leviathan[NCV] · 09-11-2003, 12:19 PM

I'd be all for spending a bit to getting those oil refineries back up, and then getting our damn cheap gas back.

They'll make plenty off the export...

JBX · 09-11-2003, 03:11 PM

Yes, finish the job.

sealsrule · 09-11-2003, 08:19 PM

Figure in inflation and it cost over $300 Billion to rebuild Europe after WWII. Some things are worth paying for. For instance: bringing democracy into a region filled with decrepid human rights.

smooth · 09-11-2003, 08:52 PM

Are you high?

Aside from the fact that the we didn't foot the bill single-handedly, we also raised taxes to pay for the portion we took responsibility for.

You can't have it both ways. If you want to draw an analogy between WW2 reconstruction and this escapade then you should also compare multi-national institutions that were created to address the issues as well as the fiscal policies we enacted.

samremy · 09-11-2003, 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by smooth
Are you high?

Um, Yes.

wmeyrink · 09-13-2003, 12:55 PM

http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/

An interesting paragraph taken from the obove blog, written by an Iraqi woman, explains why the rebuilding of Iraq is going to take big bucks.

Yesterday, I read how it was going to take up to $90 billion to rebuild Iraq. Bremer was shooting out numbers about how much it was going to cost to replace buildings and bridges and electricity, etc.

Listen to this little anecdote. One of my cousins works in a prominent engineering company in Baghdad- we’ll call the company H. This company is well-known for designing and building bridges all over Iraq. My cousin, a structural engineer, is a bridge freak. He spends hours talking about pillars and trusses and steel structures to anyone who’ll listen.

As May was drawing to a close, his manager told him that someone from the CPA wanted the company to estimate the building costs of replacing the New Diyala Bridge on the South East end of Baghdad. He got his team together, they went out and assessed the damage, decided it wasn’t too extensive, but it would be costly. They did the necessary tests and analyses (mumblings about soil composition and water depth, expansion joints and girders) and came up with a number they tentatively put forward- $300,000. This included new plans and designs, raw materials (quite cheap in Iraq), labor, contractors, travel expenses, etc.

Let’s pretend my cousin is a dolt. Let’s pretend he hasn’t been working with bridges for over 17 years. Let’s pretend he didn’t work on replacing at least 20 of the 133 bridges damaged during the first Gulf War. Let’s pretend he’s wrong and the cost of rebuilding this bridge is four times the number they estimated- let’s pretend it will actually cost $1,200,000. Let’s just use our imagination.

A week later, the New Diyala Bridge contract was given to an American company. This particular company estimated the cost of rebuilding the bridge would be around- brace yourselves- $50,000,000 !!

Something you should know about Iraq: we have over 130,000 engineers. More than half of these engineers are structural engineers and architects. Thousands of them were trained outside of Iraq in Germany, Japan, America, Britain and other countries. Thousands of others worked with some of the foreign companies that built various bridges, buildings and highways in Iraq. The majority of them are more than proficient- some of them are brilliant.

Iraqi engineers had to rebuild Iraq after the first Gulf War in 1991 when the ‘Coalition of the Willing’ was composed of over 30 countries actively participating in bombing Baghdad beyond recognition. They had to cope with rebuilding bridges and buildings that were originally built by foreign companies, they had to get around a lack of raw materials that we used to import from abroad, they had to work around a vicious blockade designed to damage whatever infrastructure was left after the war… they truly had to rebuild Iraq. And everything had to be made sturdy, because, well, we were always under the threat of war.

Over a hundred of the 133 bridges were rebuilt, hundreds of buildings and factories were replaced, communications towers were rebuilt, new bridges were added, electrical power grids were replaced… things were functioning. Everything wasn’t perfect- but we were working on it.

And Iraqis aren’t easy to please. Buildings cannot just be made functionary. They have to have artistic touches- a carved pillar, an intricately designed dome, something unique… not necessarily classy or subtle, but different. You can see it all over Baghdad- fashionable homes with plate glass windows, next to classic old ‘Baghdadi’ buildings, gaudy restaurants standing next to classy little cafes… mosques with domes so colorful and detailed they look like glamorous Faberge eggs… all done by Iraqis.

My favorite reconstruction project was the Mu’alaq Bridge over the Tigris. It is a suspended bridge that was designed and built by a British company. In 1991 it was bombed and everyone just about gave up on ever being able to cross it again. By 1994, it was up again, exactly as it was- without British companies, with Iraqi expertise. One of the art schools decided that although it wasn’t the most sophisticated bridge in the world, it was going to be the most glamorous. On the day it was opened to the public, it was covered with hundreds of painted flowers in the most outrageous colors- all over the pillars, the bridge itself, the walkways along the sides of the bridge. People came from all over Baghdad just to stand upon it and look down into the Tigris.

So instead of bringing in thousands of foreign companies that are going to want billions of dollars, why aren’t the Iraqi engineers, electricians and laborers being taken advantage of? Thousands of people who have no work would love to be able to rebuild Iraq… no one is being given a chance.

wmeyrink · 09-13-2003, 01:10 PM

rudy200 · 09-13-2003, 02:07 PM

jindiv · 09-14-2003, 01:54 AM

wmeyrink
"... why aren’t the Iraqi engineers, electricians and laborers being taken advantage of?"

Simple, they didn't contribute one cent to Bush's election campaign.

View Poll Results: Do you support this decision?
Yes	11	30.56%
No	24	66.67%
I'll discuss it	1	2.78%
Voters: 36. You may not vote on this poll

09-08-2003, 09:45 AM	#1 (permalink)
DEI37 Go faster! Location: Wisconsin	Bush wants another $87b to reconstruct Iraq I'll intro this whole thing by saying Bush was the better option over Gore, but the guy is still an idiot. Want proof? Click the link, or read the provided text. Here's the news link: Can you say S-T-U-P-I-D? Here's the story: WASHINGTON, Sept. 8 — Only hours after President Bush said he would ask Congress for $87 billion to pay for U.S. engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan, a domestic battle was being fought Monday over those billions and the bigger policy picture. Democratic presidential hopefuls poured criticism on the president, while the president’s advisers defended his request, which would come on top of the $79 billion approved in April for the initial costs of the war and its aftermath and for worldwide efforts against terrorism. THE DEMOCRATIC critics included former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, who accused Bush of going into Iraq “recklessly” and said “failure is not an option.” Saying it’s critical that other nations get involved, Dean told NBC’s “Today” show that “we’re in trouble and we need the help of all of the people that the president insulted on the way into Iraq.” Rep. Dick Gephardt, D-Mo., another White House hopeful, said the president, in his speech, “has recognized that he has been going down the wrong path.” The administration, Gephardt added, “must begin the process of fully engaging our allies and sharing the burden of building a stable democracy in Iraq.” The president, in a Sunday evening address to the nation that combined policy with patriotic fervor, argued that the United States must stay the course in postwar Iraq despite a mounting cost in lives and money. Four days before the second anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush said the nation “will spend what is necessary to achieve this essential victory” in the war on terrorism. “The Middle East will either become a place of progress and peace, or it will be an exporter of violence and terror that takes more lives in America and in other free nations,” Bush said. “The terrorists have cited the examples of Beirut and Somalia, claiming that if you inflict harm on Americans, we will run from a challenge,” Bush added. “In this they are mistaken.” Seeking support for his policy, he said that “the surest way to avoid attacks on our own people is to engage the enemy where he lives and plans. “We are fighting that enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan today,” he added, “so that we do not meet him again on our own streets, in our own cities.” FIRST MAJOR SPEECH SINCE MAY 1 Bush described Iraq as the central front in the war against terrorism and said that “enemies of freedom are making a desperate stand there, and there they must be defeated. “This will take time and require sacrifice,” he said. “Yet we will do what is necessary, we will spend what is necessary, to achieve this essential victory in the war on terror, to promote freedom and to make our own nation more secure.” Bush addressed the nation in his first major speech on Iraq since May 1 when he stood on the deck of the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln and declared an end to major combat operations. Since then, more Americans have died in Iraq than were killed during the war. The overall death count is 287 — 149 since May 1. The violence — including four major bombing attacks in a month — have raised alarms about Bush’s handling of Iraq. Republicans and Democrats alike have urged Bush to change course and seek more troops and money from other countries. Questions also have been fueled by the administration’s failure to find any of Saddam Hussein’s alleged illegal weapons or Saddam himself. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice told “Today” that removing Saddam is victory enough. “Removing Saddam Hussein removes the threat of weapons of mass destruction,” she said. Bush said the current number of U.S. troops in Iraq — 130,000 — is sufficient but that more foreign troops are needed. He said two multinational divisions, led by Britain and Poland, are serving alongside the United States, and that American commanders have requested a third multinational division. [On Monday, Britain announced it was sending 1,200 additional troops to Iraq to help stabilize the country.] Other countries have asked for an explicit U.N. peacekeeping authorization, and Bush said Secretary of State Colin Powell would seek a Security Council resolution to authorize deployment of new forces. Referring to France, Germany and Russia, Bush said that “not all of our friends agreed with our decision [to] ... remove Saddam Hussein from power. Yet we cannot let past differences interfere with present duties.” Pressed by Democrats and Republicans alike for a pricetag for Iraq, Bush said he would ask Congress for $87 billion for the next fiscal year. Of that amount, he said, $66 billion would be earmarked for military and intelligence operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. Public support for Bush’s policy has slipped since the war but has leveled off in the mid 50s, polls show. While the United States has shouldered the burden of the effort in Iraq, Bush said other nations will be asked to help. He said Powell would meet with representatives of many countries later this month to seek contributions for rebuilding Afghanistan. Next month, Powell will hold a similar funding conference for Iraq. “Europe, Japan and states in the Middle East all will benefit from the success of freedom in those two countries, and they should contribute to that success,” Bush said. Last week, the Bush administration shifted gears by dropping its resistance to a broader U.N. role in Iraq. The administration is hoping to secure a new U.N. resolution on Iraq that will clear the way for other countries to contribute troops and cash. But the initial American proposals were rejected by France and Germany, which opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq and want the United States to go further in broadening the U.N.’s role. When he started the war on Iraq in March, Bush warned that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction that could be sold to terrorists. He also said Iraq was a threat because of its support for Middle East terrorist groups. The United States so far has not found any weapons of mass destruction and it has yet to prove a link between deposed Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida, accused of masterminding the Sept. 11 attacks. __________________ Generally speaking, if you were to get what you really deserve, you might be unpleasantly surprised.

09-09-2003, 03:21 AM	#2 (permalink)
Jesus Pimp The Original JizzSmacka	You mean rebuild oil refineries? :P __________________ Never date anyone who doesn't make your dick hard.

09-09-2003, 06:38 AM	#3 (permalink)
The_Dude The GrandDaddy of them all! Location: Austin, TX	that $87 billion could be put into much better use at home. __________________ "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

09-09-2003, 02:30 PM	#4 (permalink)
Ace_of_Lobster Crazy	I was against invading Iraq, but having done that we need to take some responsibility and leave it in a better state than we found it. __________________ "Hundreds of men must have told you how beautiful you are. Would you displease the gods to hear it once more? I wouldn't. Im young and I hope to see a god before I die." -Patera Silk

09-09-2003, 03:24 PM	#5 (permalink)
mml Adrift Location: Wandering in the Desert of Life	We as a nation must bear the burden of rebuilding Iraq. Whether or not you agreed with the decision to invade Iraq, we have done so and must finish the job. One of the things that separates the United States from other nations is that we do take responsibility for our actions and strive to further democratic ideals throughout the world as we did with the Marshall Plan. While Iraq is not WWII we still should take the same responsiblity. What must occur is that Congress needs to do their job and not cut the President another blank check. They must conduct inquiries and determine the true costs of the war, what our short and long term plans are and then approve the required amount of funding, whether it is greater or less than the $87billion. They should also seriously consider recinding some of the tax cuts. __________________ Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so." -Douglas Adams

09-11-2003, 12:19 PM	#7 (permalink)
Leviathan[NCV] Well... Location: afk	I'd be all for spending a bit to getting those oil refineries back up, and then getting our damn cheap gas back. They'll make plenty off the export...

09-11-2003, 03:11 PM	#8 (permalink)
JBX Unfair and Imbalanced Location: Upstate, NY	Yes, finish the job. __________________ "Youth and Strength is no match for Age and Treachery"

09-11-2003, 08:19 PM	#9 (permalink)
sealsrule Banned	Figure in inflation and it cost over $300 Billion to rebuild Europe after WWII. Some things are worth paying for. For instance: bringing democracy into a region filled with decrepid human rights.

09-11-2003, 08:52 PM	#10 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	Are you high? Aside from the fact that the we didn't foot the bill single-handedly, we also raised taxes to pay for the portion we took responsibility for. You can't have it both ways. If you want to draw an analogy between WW2 reconstruction and this escapade then you should also compare multi-national institutions that were created to address the issues as well as the fiscal policies we enacted. __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

09-13-2003, 12:55 PM	#12 (permalink)
wmeyrink Upright	http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/ An interesting paragraph taken from the obove blog, written by an Iraqi woman, explains why the rebuilding of Iraq is going to take big bucks. Yesterday, I read how it was going to take up to $90 billion to rebuild Iraq. Bremer was shooting out numbers about how much it was going to cost to replace buildings and bridges and electricity, etc. Listen to this little anecdote. One of my cousins works in a prominent engineering company in Baghdad- we’ll call the company H. This company is well-known for designing and building bridges all over Iraq. My cousin, a structural engineer, is a bridge freak. He spends hours talking about pillars and trusses and steel structures to anyone who’ll listen. As May was drawing to a close, his manager told him that someone from the CPA wanted the company to estimate the building costs of replacing the New Diyala Bridge on the South East end of Baghdad. He got his team together, they went out and assessed the damage, decided it wasn’t too extensive, but it would be costly. They did the necessary tests and analyses (mumblings about soil composition and water depth, expansion joints and girders) and came up with a number they tentatively put forward- $300,000. This included new plans and designs, raw materials (quite cheap in Iraq), labor, contractors, travel expenses, etc. Let’s pretend my cousin is a dolt. Let’s pretend he hasn’t been working with bridges for over 17 years. Let’s pretend he didn’t work on replacing at least 20 of the 133 bridges damaged during the first Gulf War. Let’s pretend he’s wrong and the cost of rebuilding this bridge is four times the number they estimated- let’s pretend it will actually cost $1,200,000. Let’s just use our imagination. A week later, the New Diyala Bridge contract was given to an American company. This particular company estimated the cost of rebuilding the bridge would be around- brace yourselves- $50,000,000 !! Something you should know about Iraq: we have over 130,000 engineers. More than half of these engineers are structural engineers and architects. Thousands of them were trained outside of Iraq in Germany, Japan, America, Britain and other countries. Thousands of others worked with some of the foreign companies that built various bridges, buildings and highways in Iraq. The majority of them are more than proficient- some of them are brilliant. Iraqi engineers had to rebuild Iraq after the first Gulf War in 1991 when the ‘Coalition of the Willing’ was composed of over 30 countries actively participating in bombing Baghdad beyond recognition. They had to cope with rebuilding bridges and buildings that were originally built by foreign companies, they had to get around a lack of raw materials that we used to import from abroad, they had to work around a vicious blockade designed to damage whatever infrastructure was left after the war… they truly had to rebuild Iraq. And everything had to be made sturdy, because, well, we were always under the threat of war. Over a hundred of the 133 bridges were rebuilt, hundreds of buildings and factories were replaced, communications towers were rebuilt, new bridges were added, electrical power grids were replaced… things were functioning. Everything wasn’t perfect- but we were working on it. And Iraqis aren’t easy to please. Buildings cannot just be made functionary. They have to have artistic touches- a carved pillar, an intricately designed dome, something unique… not necessarily classy or subtle, but different. You can see it all over Baghdad- fashionable homes with plate glass windows, next to classic old ‘Baghdadi’ buildings, gaudy restaurants standing next to classy little cafes… mosques with domes so colorful and detailed they look like glamorous Faberge eggs… all done by Iraqis. My favorite reconstruction project was the Mu’alaq Bridge over the Tigris. It is a suspended bridge that was designed and built by a British company. In 1991 it was bombed and everyone just about gave up on ever being able to cross it again. By 1994, it was up again, exactly as it was- without British companies, with Iraqi expertise. One of the art schools decided that although it wasn’t the most sophisticated bridge in the world, it was going to be the most glamorous. On the day it was opened to the public, it was covered with hundreds of painted flowers in the most outrageous colors- all over the pillars, the bridge itself, the walkways along the sides of the bridge. People came from all over Baghdad just to stand upon it and look down into the Tigris. So instead of bringing in thousands of foreign companies that are going to want billions of dollars, why aren’t the Iraqi engineers, electricians and laborers being taken advantage of? Thousands of people who have no work would love to be able to rebuild Iraq… no one is being given a chance.

09-14-2003, 01:54 AM	#15 (permalink)
jindiv Upright Location: Sydney	wmeyrink "... why aren’t the Iraqi engineers, electricians and laborers being taken advantage of?" Simple, they didn't contribute one cent to Bush's election campaign.

09-13-2003, 02:07 PM	#14 (permalink)
rudy200 Upright	a