The United States has spent an enormous amount of money fighting terrorism, liberating the people and rebuilding Iraq. Shouldn't the Iraqis repay the United States in the form of oil since the United States economy is slagging partly because of higher gas prices?
2007-11-26 07:50:19 · 18 answers · asked by what about government grants? 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I thought to myself before we invaded that lower prices per barrel would be our payback for the monies we have expended on their behalf. We can NEVER be paid enough for the loss of American lives but peace depends on the spread of freedom and democracy. In the end Americans are far safer with more free and democratic countries throughout the world with whom our economies are interdependent.
2007-11-26 07:57:56 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
It aleady has gotten each of the returns it wanted. the most elementary false impression we've is how our funds is spent, consisting of yet no longer restricted to overseas coverage. The simplified version of the conflict funding, like different contracts, are a marginally complicated type of money laundering for all huge applications. as an get jointly, lets say we provide one thousand million USD to Columbia for the 'conflict on drugs'. they're on condition that money in change for having to purchase US made defense force equipment with it. So we provide them a billon to purchase US helicopters for instance. that signifies that your tax funds surely get laundered to the Helicopter organization through the Columbian authorities. it truly is frighteningly unhappy and sensible. The conflict in Iraq changed into 1000000000000 going into the palms of the defense force commercial complicated. Of that trillion purely 20 billion of it went in route of reconstructing Iraq, with almost 10% of that lost and something extremely mismananged and unaccounted for. the prices for the surge in Afghanistan is a million million in line with US Soldier for the three hundred and sixty 5 days for a finished of 33 billion USD. yet each soldier purely get extra or less 40k lol. something of the money is going in route of equipement, well-being, feeding, housing, structure, and buildng a Blockbuster or different stuff on the bases. Bush had Iraq, Obama has Afghanistan. both are puppets to the corporate and banking sectors that earnings off of the wars. Bush changed into top even as he stated challenge achieved because as far because the final analysis of his company lobbyists...it changed into.
2016-10-25 02:35:25 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What??? You mean the libs have been lying about it being a war over oil? How dare you say such a thing!
It would be a good idea really, but the Dems would hate to see something good happening and pass legislation requiring the oil to go to their good buddies in Cuba!
2007-11-26 08:09:09 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Wasn't that the original plan? But like everything else in that debacle it hasn't happened the way we think it should. Maybe Haliburton and other companies associated with oil are already making profits off Iraqi oil but not the US in general.
Additional thought. So you are saying that it is okay to attack a soverign nation who is no threat to us, beat them down and then make them pay for it? What kind of a bully are you?
2007-11-26 08:02:08 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
Yes I do but fat chance that will ever happen. The US is doomed to GIVE money away without getting paid back. Just look at Japan and Germany.
2007-11-26 08:19:30 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
yes. in fact that was the plan from the beginning. i recall hearing the VP speak of it in the early going and i imagine that their new government recognizes the fairness of this, but if we elect a democrat for president it will not happen. they will want to support the argument the the war was unjust in spite of what the Iraqis think. for whatever reason it is very important for them to try to convince the world and us that america is evil.
2007-11-26 07:58:35 · answer #6 · answered by karl k 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋
sort of like asking a homeless man to buy dinner, isn't it? maybe some things should be done without ties, for the greater good that is. but it does have some validity.
2007-11-26 07:58:44 · answer #7 · answered by BRYAN H 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It wouldn't really surprise me if at some time in the future, they offered to do so.
Self pride, self respect and so forth.
2007-11-26 08:05:52 · answer #8 · answered by mark623112 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
The United States chose to do what they did. The Iraqi people didn't ask for it. It reminds me of those guys who wash your windshield without asking and then expect you to pay them.
2007-11-26 07:54:38 · answer #9 · answered by mommanuke 7 · 3⤊ 4⤋
I agree with jpenergy. It's comman sense.
2007-11-26 08:27:06 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋