 |
| |
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:30
|
|
As has been said, if 1441 was the definitive Resolution, then the hunt for a second one was useless,a nd all the anger at France for blocking a second one absurd (thought interestingly the same type of people who point to 1441 blame France for there eign no second one...how hypocrytical?). BUt the fact is that 1441, even if calling for seriius consequences, does not spell them out, and NO, a phrase saying "serious consequence" does not equal war. There are many possible serious consequences, of which invasion and regime change is only the MOST serious. Given the state of what was found in Iraq vis a vi WMD, it is difficult to see how that would justify the MOST serious consequence possible. Oh, and the "cease-fire" excuse is just that, an excuse.
On this issue: essentially the US needs not only troops, but money, lots and lots of money. The same states that will give troops are not necessarily the same that will give money, but the S will most certainly go to Japan and the EU with an outstreched hand, and German and French oposition in Europe could be very expensive. For the life of me I can;t see why denying a French company some few billion dollars in Iraq in contracts would be worth more to us that say, getting a few billion dollars of French taxmoney, instead of US tax money, to pay for something in Iraq.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:30
|
|
The fact that iraq sit on all the oil means diddly. let's see how it would work:
The US treasury, that is, you or me, pays several hundread billion dollars overall to reconstruct Iraq. (note that this has already cost the US 120 billion, and the CBO is saying the yearly cost to the US could come to between 90 and 120 billion with the current troop levels..sowing how much UN aid might be worth)
Now, in theory Iraqis will approve so much of the US that oil contracts will go to private US oil companies.
NOw, assuming that these companies pay all the taxes they are meant to pay, the US treasury will see a few billion come in each year. It is also assumed that the provate oil companies will use some of their handsome profits to invest in the US, hence increasing tax revenue for the Treasury in other areas.
But the fact is, it will take decades at least, assuming the rosy picture, to see the US treasury get backedit the money it will shell out. Note also that since many of these oil corps are multinationals, many states will see txes ceom from them. Also, the Iraqis, if trully independent, will be free to sign oil contarcts with others anyway. And the bulk of all the profits will go to Iraq anyway..unless the war was for oil?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Defiant
|
 |
WISCONSIN
Aug 1999
time: 05:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
The fact that iraq sit on all the oil means diddly. let's see how it would work:
The US treasury, that is, you or me, pays several hundread billion dollars overall to reconstruct Iraq. (note that this has already cost the US 120 billion, and the CBO is saying the yearly cost to the US could come to between 90 and 120 billion with the current troop levels..sowing how much UN aid might be worth)
Now, in theory Iraqis will approve so much of the US that oil contracts will go to private US oil companies.
NOw, assuming that these companies pay all the taxes they are meant to pay, the US treasury will see a few billion come in each year. It is also assumed that the provate oil companies will use some of their handsome profits to invest in the US, hence increasing tax revenue for the Treasury in other areas.
But the fact is, it will take decades at least, assuming the rosy picture, to see the US treasury get backedit the money it will shell out. Note also that since many of these oil corps are multinationals, many states will see txes ceom from them. Also, the Iraqis, if trully independent, will be free to sign oil contarcts with others anyway. And the bulk of all the profits will go to Iraq anyway..unless the war was for oil? |
Gepap, I still don't believe 90-120 billion as an incremental cost increase(those aircraft carriers would still be swimming), if we didn't go to war, what would have the true savings been and don't forget that the economy got a 3% boost from the war activity from defense spending.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:30.
Apolyton Time is 00:30. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
05-09-2003 01:27
Attachment: 
|
