I meant pre war as in the CNN situation

oh got ya. yeah not too smart today.

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

...to this, but it simply staggers me.

"UN administrative and operational costs for the program (2.2 per cent) and costs for the weapons inspection programme (0.8 per cent) (Now that was a great investment)."

2.2% of 64B is $1,408,000,000. That's the UN's cut? They also got another 0.8%, or $512,000,000 for Hans Blix and his shenanigans. Added together, that's $2,000,000,000.00 (lots of zeros, huh?) that has been funnelled into the UN from this program alone, and for what?

I say if the UN wants a "central" role in postwar Iraq, I want my money back for their "central" role in the events that led up to a postwar Iraq in the first place.

You know, maybe that's the ticket. Figure out what we spent on the war, excluding the incalculable value of human lives, and use that for a starting place. Anyone who wants in after the fact can reimburse the US and the UK.

Oh well, the end of this is a mindless rant, but go look at those numbers in the first part again...

I have mixed feelings on the role of the UN in the reconstruction of Iraq.
My first opinion was that indeed considering F-G-R and the UN didn't go to war with the US (although France has sent more soldiers -biological and chemical weapon specialists - than Spain) they have not right to go there and claim to be involved in the reconstruction. Why? Well, they didn't spent anything (or anywhere near what the US-led coalition did) so why would they reap the benefits?
When I came to this conclusion, this is where I started to think: well, wait a second...if the war was truly to find WMD, replace Saddam and free the Iraqi people, why should there be any benefits?
Building contracts? well, it seems that Bush has been repeating over and over again that the US would free them and then, would leave to let them build up a new and strong country (however, I can't find one country where the US intervene to such a large scale and then left within 10 years...)

Why wouldn't they want the help of the UN, F-G and R? The US soldiers have been repeating over and over again that their job was not to ensure the security of civilians, prevent rioting, looting etc...in Iraq. So why not having some help from the UN soldiers?
No? well, ok, but then this will be on your taxes not the european ones.

as for being reimbursed for the war, my guess is that you will...well not you, the Bush adm. will. There are going to be juicy contracts to rebuild Iraq, I am sure the same already rich guys will benefit from these contracts and will get richer. And the taxpayers, you, ultraposer, Andrew and me (yep, we all pay taxes here) will not see a damn cent back.

As for the UN: they have indeed clearly shown BIG limitations/inefficiencies. That said, there is a need for an efficient, powerfull, organization to make sure international laws (that need to be revised as well)
are applied everywhere. And this should not be the role of the US.

The square in downtown Baghdad will be renamed the Galleria at Haliburton Square with a new statue of DC......

Bill Maher joke :)

As for rebuilding, I dont see why it would be in the US or UK tax payers (the electorate) interest to limit the contracts to their countries, if only because Iraq is not going to be paying for this.

The way it will work is the Government pays companies out of tax payers money to rebuild Iraq, the same companies that are sheltered from actually paying tax to start with....

The only people getting screwed on the tail end of this will be the tax payers, the companies not only make money off of the deal for rebuilding but they dont pay the taxes they should (moral observation) to start with....

Ya gotta love it

Well, now. Let's take it in a completely different direction.

First, I agree - Bill Maher is a joke.

Second, it is definitely in the interest of US taxpayers to have US companies rebuilding Iraq. You see, companies don't really exist. They are simply the pooling of many people's financial interests. They neither make money nor pay taxes. Their shareholders do both.

An Iraqi oil company will pay US & UK companies to rebuild the oil producing infrastructure. This company will probably be state owned (you can't change everything at once) and the state will make enough profits to pay US & UK companies to rebuild the palaces and replace the looted furniture. These companies will charge exhorbitant prices, because they can, which will result in profits. A certain amount of taxes (too much IMO) will be paid at the corporate level and the remaining profits will be distributed to taxpayers who will pay taxes again on the same profits. Overall, these company profits could eventually be taxed at 70% or more, even in a "low tax" country like the US. The US and UK treasuries will make out like bandits, and the shareholders of these companies will also do quite well. They will in turn spend their money on things like Hummers, houses, and braces for the kids' teeth so GM employees, construction workers and orthodontists make more money. They in turn spend their money on... Well, you get the idea.

What remains to be seen is how the process works for the Iraqis. The problem with most state-run oil companies is that they don't let anything trickle down. (had to get that phrase in there somewhere) They don't have shareholders who profit from the company's success.

Firstly by the time this supreme court is through Hummers will be outlawed and you would certainly be arrested for paying for one.

No one is going to make as much money as the people connected with this administration. NO I AM NOT SAYING THIS WHY THEY WENT, I dont believe this was their reasoning for going, it just happens to be a perk and potentially an extremely lucrative one.

I bet the tax payers here and in the UK dont see a cent as a result of this expedition because these companies that will charge out the a** for this rebuilding will be paid by the US Government. Who will in turn be reimbursed sometime in the future with money made from the sale of oil, none of which is going to start flowing in to the US or UK treasury for years. On top of which the people that will benefit will be the same people benefiting from the current admin's tax cuts i.e. corporations and rich people......

Mind you if you fall in to what? the wealthies 1 or 2% of the population I can completely understand your support for this.

cool...something we all agree upon.
rich get richer and we pay more taxes :-)
if course, for iraqi people ANYONE on this forum is considered rich.

that said, Swedish are taxed at 70% of their income...so, we are not all that bad ...

No one will make as much money from rebuilding Iraq as Cheney WOULD HAVE made had he stayed with Haliburton instead of going back into government. I understand most politicians are motivated by self-interest, but for the ones I know that interest is rarely financial. Most of the people at the higher levels of government could make more money in the private sector.

A close-to-home example. A friend of mine who was a young, new partner track in a large firm (IOW, about to make large $$$$$$) quit to work for the Dept. of Education. A huge pay cut. Now he is running for Chancery Clerk of our county. If he wins it will be another pay cut. Why would he do this? He wants to make a difference.

Second, I'll repeat - corporations don't make money, their shareholders do. I'm not in that top 1%, but I would like to be some day. Still, I'm trying to save for kids' college and retirement. I could really use a few corporate profits to jack up my 401(k). I work with these plans for a living, and I can promise you ordinary people win and lose when publicly traded companies do well or poorly.

Finally, what the heck are you talking about with the Supreme Court and Hummers? Oh wait, I think I get it. I would get arrested if I ran over the enviro-protester trying to block the entrance to the dealership with his Yugo, right? :)

the u.n. will need to stay out because there is a ton of money to be made rebuiding iraq. i'm stunned that some of you have not seen that this whole thing woth FG AND R is about money. oil contracts, military contracts, building contracts. the un in silmply wanted us to do the dirty work. oh wait it was haliburten. sorry forgot. the free mason in haliburtin are in kahoots with the oil zionist in isarel.

as far as the already rich getting a contract. yes that is common sense. a mom and pop construction firm in your home town would go bankrupt with just the logistics of a job that far away. and yes the richest are 2% of the tax paying public, but don't they pay like 28% of the taxes?

i now work day labor 3 times a week to stay in a house (my spanish is rawkin' and my edgeing out da roof. let hear ya scream!) so the idea of big company share holder bringing in big loot makes my heart sing. see that will boost our economy and will make jobs and will get me above water.

so just stick with the uk and the us and let the players make the money.

as far as the french sending chemical specailist to help if there is a chemical attack. thanks france. kinda like my saying if any of you guys need to direct an air strike i'm in there with ya.


hugs and kisses and listen to billt.

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.