Skip to comments.
Ron Paul - Your Money In Iraq
House Web Site ^
| 9-29-2003
| Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX)
Posted on 09/29/2003 10:40:39 AM PDT by jmc813
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-89 next last
1
posted on
09/29/2003 10:40:39 AM PDT
by
jmc813
To: jmc813
And none of these critics will hesitate to blame Bush first if their constant lambasting in any way contributes to a total American failure in the efforts to reinvent Iraq as a peaceful, democratic nation.
2
posted on
09/29/2003 10:42:15 AM PDT
by
.cnI redruM
(redruM's Advice -- NEVER steal the ID of a registered sex offender!)
To: jmc813
And none of these critics will hesitate to blame Bush first if their constant lambasting in any way contributes to a total American failure in the efforts to reinvent Iraq as a peaceful, democratic nation.
3
posted on
09/29/2003 10:42:18 AM PDT
by
.cnI redruM
(redruM's Advice -- NEVER steal the ID of a registered sex offender!)
To: jmc813
" The question of whether Iraq is worth this much to us is one lawmakers should answer now by refusing to approve another nickel for nation building."
If the "us" in this question refers to the taxpayers of the United States of America the answer is clearly NO!.
On the other hand, if the "us" in this question refers to big oil concerns and defense contractors (both foreign and domestic) the answer sadly is yes.
Nation building should only apply to OUR nation.
4
posted on
09/29/2003 10:48:13 AM PDT
by
WhiteGuy
(The next time I vote, I'm demanding a receipt! (you should too!))
To: jmc813
Ron Paul bump.
I only hope that the President remembers that nation-building adherents are on the other side of the aisle, before its too late.
5
posted on
09/29/2003 10:51:34 AM PDT
by
JohnGalt
(Attention Pseudocons: Wilsonianrepublic.com is still available)
To: .cnI redruM
Oh, we COULD spend that much money there. And perhaps that much money shall be spent, over a period of years, to make Iraq into a peaceful prosperous country. Most of the investment in the country, however, will be made by the Iraqis themselves. The internal development of the country shall come as a result of political and economic stability, without fear that some insurgent terrorists will sabotage and subvert the infrastructure. Islamic fascism is a djinn loose upon the land, and it shall have to be put back into its bottle. The Iraqis have need to develop their own internal controls of this continuing threat, and given assistance, they can and will do it. If they do not wish another Saddam Hussein to hold sway, they must.
To: .cnI redruM
And none of these critics will hesitate to blame Bush... True! If the critics think it was irresponsible to go into Iraq, then to go into Iraq and bail out at some crucial point is grossly irresponsible. I do not like the idea of footing a bil for nation building. Yet, having a permanent US friendly presence squarely in the middle east is an outpost against terrorism and a good idea. When these lawmakers weigh the cost of the immediate expenses, they would be wise to weigh the future costs of not supporting Iraq being rebuilt. Whichever way they go will not be pretty.
7
posted on
09/29/2003 10:55:20 AM PDT
by
VRW Conspirator
(This is my fourth trip to the planet earth - love the corn dogs.)
To: jmc813
Iraq is sitting on a ton of oil. Let them pay for their own reconstruction with the wealth of their nation. GWB is becoming more of a socialist than Clinton and if this keeps up he loss my vote for 2004.
8
posted on
09/29/2003 10:56:32 AM PDT
by
Isolationist
(Got oil??)
To: jmc813
...$400 million for two prisons, at a cost of nearly $50,000 per bed... Given what we know about Saddam Hussein you would think that the one thing that Iraq would have in abundance would be prisons.
To: jmc813
Iraq has oil. Oil is money. I am just wondering why Iraq cannot rebuild Iraq with Iraq's money? Why do we need to pay for it and not get it returned? Ok, approve the $87B to them as a loan and they repay it through oil sales. Seems fair enough. They do not need a handout. Now that the oil money will go into building schools, hospitals, communities instead of buying tanks and bombs and planes, they can become just like the Saudies.
10
posted on
09/29/2003 10:58:23 AM PDT
by
RetiredArmy
(We'll put a boot in your ass, it's the American Way! Toby Keith)
To: alloysteel
And the downside to that is what would happen if the Iraquis are unable or unwilling to pony up. We're on the hook in Iraq. If we pay the piper, at least we call the tune.
Over time, we obviously hand over the controls and try to gracefully disengage. That, however, comes with time and patience.
11
posted on
09/29/2003 10:59:59 AM PDT
by
.cnI redruM
(redruM's Advice -- NEVER steal the ID of a registered sex offender!)
To: jmc813
It's kind of sad when one of the only politicians making a case for the conservative cause is a former Libertarian. Restoring water and electric is one thing; the rest of these expeditures is just a bunch of liberal crap.
12
posted on
09/29/2003 11:01:49 AM PDT
by
zacyak
To: alloysteel
Islamic fascism is a djinn loose upon the land, and it shall have to be put back into its bottle. There, that's more accurate
13
posted on
09/29/2003 11:04:59 AM PDT
by
John O
(God Save America (Please))
To: VRW Conspirator
So, assuming we have agreement on your point about the critics, there just isn't much of an upside to Ron Paul's stand on this issue. At best, Paul is a nuissance who's quotes will frequently pepper Howard Dean and Wesley Clarke's political diatriabes in support of the Democratic Party's anti-Bush Jihad. At worst, Ron Paul convinces more and more of his cohorts to pull the scaffold from under the fledgling Iraqui government and acts as a sarcoma, attacking a new born infant.
14
posted on
09/29/2003 11:08:03 AM PDT
by
.cnI redruM
(redruM's Advice -- NEVER steal the ID of a registered sex offender!)
To: VRW Conspirator
"a permanent US friendly presence squarely in the middle east"
Like Afghanistan? No, wait, it was Iran. Oops, it was Saudi Arabia. No, sorry, I meant Egypt...
15
posted on
09/29/2003 11:08:14 AM PDT
by
bc2
(http://www.thinkforyourself.us)
To: Isolationist
Iraq is sitting on a ton of oil. Let them pay for their own reconstruction with the wealth of their nation. GWB is becoming more of a socialist than Clinton and if this keeps up he loss my vote for 2004.It's sad to say, but I find very little about this administration that suggests they respect a conservative philosophy. Except for tax cuts, which are meaningless for me unless they are accompanied by cuts in spending, they haven't bothered throwing us conservatives any bones. If this is the new Republican Party then screw 'em, I'm looking elsewhere.
16
posted on
09/29/2003 11:11:50 AM PDT
by
zacyak
To: zacyak
"It's kind of sad when one of the only politicians making a case for the conservative cause is a former Libertarian."
BUMP
Want true conservatives? Vote Libertarian.
17
posted on
09/29/2003 11:15:43 AM PDT
by
bc2
(http://www.thinkforyourself.us)
To: .cnI redruM
IMHO, total failure (assuming the objective is keeping Iraq in one piece and making it a western country) in Iraq is a near certainty no matter how many lives or how much money we spend. Iraq will, IMHO, eventually split into something like the three parts it was organized into in the Ottoman Empire. This will mean an oil rich south - heavily influenced by Iran, an oil rich north either heavily influenced by Turkey or a source of constant Turkish - Kurdish friction and the Sunni center. Whether, when the dust settles, we'll have been better off leaving Saddam in power is going to be an open question if any of these separate regions become a source of major terrorism and regional instability.
We should turn the whole place over to the UN, assuming they'll take this tarbaby off our hands, and get out now. Even beyond the current cost in lives and funds we've got entirely too much of our army tied down there and unable to defend the US in the event we need them. Finally, everybody in the world recognizes we're tied down in Iraq and has become emboldened. Iran and Syria are more than happy to see us tying up resources and dampening political enthusiasm for a continued presence in the Middle East. From their standpoint, we're in Iraq temporarily. It's easy to see we won't stay there as long as it takes since they know it'll be incredibly costly, take almost forever and real progress (if any) can't be demonstrated in anything less than decades.
In the end, the neocons will find they've bitten off more than we can chew and their attempt at fait accompli diplomacy (any half truth will do as long as we start the war the country will have to finish it) will backfire and result in our removing our ground forces and largely leaving the region.
18
posted on
09/29/2003 11:16:08 AM PDT
by
caltrop
To: jmc813
"We will pay for housing, health care, social services, utilities, roads, schools, jails, and food in Iraq, leaving American taxpayers with less money to provide these things for themselves at home. We will saddle future generations with billions in government debt. The question of whether Iraq is worth this much to us is one lawmakers should answer now by refusing to approve another nickel for nation building...."
What this dolt refuses to recognize is that this is a grand experiment in reshaping the culture of the middle east, starting with Iraq.
You bet we can use this money at home, but it may be better served re-building Iraq rather than using it to bury our dead or rebuild lower Manhattan (or Chicago, or LA for that matter)in the future. How much will that cost?
That is a likely outcome if we withdraw and isolate ourselves from WWIII.
Granted this is an experiment, it may fail. Is it worth $87 Billion, it is to me.
19
posted on
09/29/2003 11:16:28 AM PDT
by
PigRigger
(Send donations to http://www.AdoptAPlatoon.org)
To: PigRigger
If you honestly believe national security is resting on the success of building a welfare state in a country 10,000 miles away, I wonder if there is any hope for this country.
Attention Pseudocons: Wilsonianrepublic.com is still available
20
posted on
09/29/2003 11:25:57 AM PDT
by
JohnGalt
(More Todd Beamers, Fewer Ivy Leaguers)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-89 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson