Thu 2 Oct, 2003 12:43 am
Some US Senators,. feeling the Bush Economic Recovery economic pinch, want to charge Iraq for the US's war of regime change underwritten by that country's oil. The Bush Admin. is increasingly keen on the idea.
Some would argue that making Iraq pay for its own invasion was already planned for by the Bush Admin. before the war when they thought that freely flowing Iraqi oil would pay for the invasion, and would line oil corp. investors' pockets with skimmed profits.
The war, it was thought then, would pay for itself and make Bush's oil corp. cronies richer. All would have been well, that had it had ended well.
A proud American and Bush supporter on another forum site asked, "What's wrong with Iraqis paying for their liberation?"
Hmm, perhaps because they did not ask to be a colony of the US.
I have a constitutional aversion to paying for that which i have not ordered. I suspect the Iraqis would feel the same.
Especially when you have had no say in the manner in which it were spent.
But there is mud in the water: if the "civil administration" (read whatever reconstruction that they can keep under this nomer) of Iraq be funded by it's newly open access to the global petrolium market I think the administration can get away with it.
They have been saying this all along. The plans for reconstruction of Iraq were counting on the petrolium exports.
its a lose-lose proposition, if we take back funding for reconstrution via loans, we add to the already huge debt of Iraq as well as substantiate charges that we were after the oil in the first place. If we grant the funding for reconstruction, we assume huge debt to an already burdened US economy. Perhaps if we had not acted sans UN scantion, this problem would be less severe for all involved. We made our decision and now its our debt.
Having read this
Iraq will be poor 'for years'
I even have some more doubts than the above mentioned reasons.