PHOTOS: The $592 Million U.S. Embassy In Iraq
Construction of the U.S. embassy in Iraq, set to open in September, is projected to cost $592 million, with a staff of 1,000 people and operating costs totaling $1.2 billion a year. It will be a 104-acre complex, which is the size of approximately 80 football fields. On May 10, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) criticized the ballooning size and cost of the embassy in a hearing with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice:
Now, having said over and over again that we don’t want to be seen as an occupying force in Iraq, we’re building the largest embassy that we have — probably the largest in the world — in Baghdad. And it just seems to grow and grow and grow. … We agree that we should focus our aid locally not in Baghdad, but we have 1,000 Americans at the embassy in Baghdad. You add the contractors and the local staff it comes to 4,000.
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/29/photos-embassy-iraq/
2007-12-16 13:19:12 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
We may not "want" to occupy Iraq, but it's our baby now for the next 50 years probably. The minute we leave they will fall to pieces and starting killing each other.
So in effect, occupation is a given and a foregone conclusion.
2007-12-16 13:30:32 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
The size of an embassy has nothing to do what so ever with occupying. Iraq is a known hotbed and chances are, wherever there is a war, that embassy will have a lot more duties, thus increasing the need for people, increasing the need for space. See how it all works out?
2007-12-16 13:29:25 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
We built a huge embassy in Moscow. I can't recall our occupying the Soviet Union. And I'm certain if enough sub-contractors had been selected from Senator Leahy's home state he wouldn't have had one word to say about it. All the State Department has to do is to open an Arab Language Institute in some town like Burlington or Rutland and Leahy will be rendered as mute as a dog with his vocal chords cut.
2007-12-16 14:14:40 · answer #3 · answered by desertviking_00 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Iraq had been destroyed by America.. The embassy is just our way of saying "sorry dudes here's a little something from the bottom of our pockets!" LOL, I mean the Iraqi people need help to get back on their feet. The embassy will (most likely) contract Iraqi people, so there goes employment. The people managing the embassy will probably be Iraqi along with American folks, there goes more employment. The embassy would rebuild Iraq and restore diplomacy, there goes some democracy. All things added together would equal greenbacks!
2007-12-16 14:52:52 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 4⤋
The two topics are completely unrelated. Diplomacy does not equal occupation. We have embassies in many, many countries throughout the world, such as Germany, the UK, Canada, Australia, Mexico, South Africa. We aren't occupying any of those nations.
2007-12-16 13:24:54 · answer #5 · answered by DOOM 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Actually, that is much smaller than both the embassy in England and the one in Russia. I do not see how having a large embassy is in any way a sign of occupation.
2007-12-16 15:01:23 · answer #6 · answered by Kilroy 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Hmmmmmm, So are we occupying the county that has the largest US embassy right now ???
If not, then what does the size of the embassy have to do with anything ?
2007-12-16 13:54:51 · answer #7 · answered by jeeper_peeper321 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There are many US Embassy's in many countries in the world are the occupying those countries too??
2007-12-16 17:36:27 · answer #8 · answered by conranger1 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It is a common practise for each nation to have an embassy in another nation for this facilitates diplomatic discourse between them .
Happy & safe holidays ! :0)
2007-12-16 15:04:55 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Man, are you ever confused!
2007-12-16 13:24:04 · answer #10 · answered by Fast Eddie B 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋