Still ducking questions.
I find it interesting that prior to any conflict happening that all sorts of allegations are erupting, especially where there is no basis for fact in the first Gulf War. Please give me examples of where the US has profited. Bosnia? Kosovo? Serbia? Afghanistan? Please deal in fact, not your left wing paranoia.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Ohioguy:
Still ducking questions.
[/QUOTE]
Yes you are. Can you deny that the Saudi's, Kuwaiti's, UAE and other Gulf states bankrolled America's first Gulf War by tens of billions dollars? Yes or No?
Quick war will boost US economy is the title of this thread. As a citizen of the US, I have no idea how people will think this is of any NET benefit to the US economy.
You may try to weasle out of an answer, but the whole premise that this is some grand effort to boost the economy has yet to be proven. If you are unable to prove this, then by all means try to change the subject.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Ohioguy:
You may try to weasle out of an answer...
[/QUOTE]
Yes you may, but the facts have been there for many years for people to digest. The Saudi's paid the United States no less than a hefty $16 billion alone for the first Gulf war, and with all the other Gulf states that also paid huge amounts, the US only had to pay a mere 10% of the final costs. Not soon after the end of the war the US signed defence contracts with all the major states of the Gulf worth tens and tens of billions of dollars, hence making a net profit from the war in the long term.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Malik73: *
Yes you may, but the facts have been there for many years for people to digest. The Saudi's paid the United States no less than a hefty $16 billion alone for the first Gulf war, and with all the other Gulf states that also paid huge amounts, the US only had to pay a mere 10% of the final costs. Not soon after the end of the war the US signed defence contracts with all the major states of the Gulf worth tens and tens of billions of dollars, hence making a net profit from the war in the long term.
[/QUOTE]
Very skewed logic. I don't suppose you'd care to identify the defense contracts and list the ** profit margins ** in them would you?
By your own admission, the US taxpayer fronted at least 10% of the costs of Gulf War I. That's a pretty big expense to make up.
Malik, your command of finance is weak.
First, the US was in the hole about 7Billion. Second, the Gulf States may well have bought US equipment anyway. Saddam pretty well guaranteed big defense expenditures when he invaded Kuwait. Not all money spent on defense purchases constitutes profit. Third, the US had to maintain a presence in the Gulf for 12 years, including expensive no fly zones. The "depreciation" on US military equipment has been enormous, and Billions are spent every year to "contain" Saddam. Fourth, every time Saddam misbehaves, oil prices spike, such as the time he lined up troops once again on the Kuwaiti border. Fifth, Bush gave his speech to the UN six MONTHS ago. Since then the US and European economies have been stalled, costing Billions to companies, individuals, and governments. The non-resolution of Iraq for 12 years has had economic costs.
So on a net basis, there have been substantial costs, and once again (old) Europe contributes nothing, and let's the US do the work.
So tell me again how the US will profit from a war?
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Ohioguy:
First, the US was in the hole about 7Billion.
[/QUOTE]
So all the first Gulf cost the US was a measly $6 or 7 billion, while the other states contributed upto $54 billion - just as I have been saying all along. And you have admitted that the US did indeed win huge defense contracts after the war, and I'm sure they made sure the Gulf Arabs only buy from the American's. The rest is all supposition not backed up by any facts, but one fact is clear is that while the US was signing HUGE defense contracts with the Gulf states the Iraqi people suffered the greatest economic losses.
You are right OhioGuy, US went to Gulf to save kuwait from Iraq, US is a very helpful country, willing to help anyone in need, will spend its own money to save any other country. To "save" the world, US is very willing to spend its own money to remove Saddam Hussein because he posses the same weapon as US, Israel, European countries. Yes, US is a very helpful, sincere, down to earth country.
So tell me again how the US will profit from a war?
OG, are you suggesting that the US would participate in a war where it would incur heavy economic losses? That just does not make sense.
i have no references with me at the moment, but i am certain that during the last 'Gulf War', there was plenty of exporting of arms to dictatorial governments such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Kuwait - a year ago or so, i had posted an article regarding a $3bn arms deal between the US and Saudi Arabia. This was only one of the several arms purchases that the two countries engage in (at least in public), on an ongoing, regular basis. Even if one only considers how much the US reaps from all these arms purchases to these Arab countries particularly Iraq's neighbours, what fantastic profits they must derive from the regional instability the US itself does so much to foster - then i think it is pretty clear how the next Iraq war is going to financially benefit the US far more than we can imagine. The greater the regional instability revolving around this Iraq issue, the higher the demands from Arab countries for arms and military purchases.
It all works out so well for Dubya.
Malik,
Your command of economics really must improve. Typical operating profit margin at Boeing for example (before fixed costs and taxes) is 7.2%. Thus the gulf states would have had to order over 100Billion in defense related equipment to even offset the direct cost of the war, never mind the economic damage, and military costs of the next 12 years.
In THIS war the US and UK will have no reimbursement. So how in the world do you expect the US to turn a profit? Infact, to turn your whole arguement inside out, with Saddam in place we would sell a LOT more defense related equipment to the Gulf States!
Now, quit avoiding my questions. If the US was in this war for it's own profit, why did we not simply administer Kuwait when we had the chance? Why did we not seize Iraqi oilfields? Why did the US not demand exclusive rights to Kuwaiti oil contracts?
I'll answer for you. The First Gulf War, as well as the upcoming one is about genocidal tyrants with megalomaniacal aspirations. The fact that Saddam is sitting on a sea of oil simply gives him the means to pursue his dreams. No one, including you has been able to show a shred of historical evidence to show that the US has profited from a war. Indeed, I find it remarkable that you are not disturbed by France and Russia and China profiting from sales to a tyrant who has killed hundreds of thousands of Muslims. Your logic is absurd.
OhioGuy:
It seems you have at least pinned down the complaints to the belief of some that the US did not suffer as much economic loss as they thinks it should have in Gulf War I rather than arguing that the US profited. That is not an uncommon complaint among those who think the US bears most of the burdens in the world and ought not participate in the benefits.
"OG, are you suggesting that the US would participate in a war where it would incur heavy economic losses? That just does not make sense. "
At this point in time, there is NO ONE stepping up to the plate to pay for the US expenses. The world would scream bloody murder if we stole Iraq's oil to pay for this. (and as I have pointed out, the US did not seize Kuwaiti oil).
More than you will ever understand, the Average American has a visceral dislike for tyrants. Aggressive tyrants with WMD really bug us. And when you get down to it, Americans are very well aware that this may be an expensive fight. Every single American KNOWS that our friends, relatives, fathers, sons and daughters may be killed. The airwaves are filled with story after story of US soldiers practicing procedure to protect them from Biological and Chemical weapons. There are 200thousand US citizens in the desert who are willing to fight based on a community dislike for tyrants. This is not just about Bush. The US hates Saddam. They want him gone. The inspections were simply to give Saddam a chance to screw up, to give a reason for a fight. Our worst nightmare was that he gave up all the WMD, and then chose to rebuild them after the sanctions were lifted. It was not Bush who declared the "regime change" doctrine, it was Clinton! This is a moral fight for us, not a profitable one. How will it turn out? Who knows?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
......
In THIS war the US and UK will have no reimbursement. So how in the world do you expect the US to turn a profit? ....
[/QUOTE]
You are saying something opposite of what I have heard from other "officials". So who is right? You or the govt. official who, for once, happens to contradict you? I have heard that "oil" will pay the price of the war.
OG,
Please don't change the subject. Just answer my initial point regarding whether or not regional instability, such as this Iraq war-dance nurtures, will help the US export arms to Arab countries particularly those on Iraq's borders and most US-friendly (Saudi, Kuwait, Jordan, UAE).
All this current hysterics and paranoia over Iraq plays quite well for American firms that export military arms to Arab governments, as the Saudi Arabia-US example i posted above, proves.
i guess it was time anyways that Dubya started to show concrete examples of gratitude to the numerous lobbies that funded his election campaign. The more the regional instability, the greater the demand for more US arms exports - the more the US benefits.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Ohioguy:
Your logic is absurd.
[/QUOTE]
Now now getting a little testy aren't we? :) You have conceded my point that 90% of all the costs ($54 billion) of the first Gulf war were footed by the other (Gulf) states, and that the US only contributed a measly $6 or $ 7 billion, which is more than made up for by the HUGE defense contracts that came from the Gulf states after the war. And you have also admitted that there were HUGE defense contracts - it's fact anyway, the rest being all your claims for which you have not backed up with facts.
As for this coming war not having dividends, well that was proved false by one of my earlier posts. Remember the article that said - This initial "umbrella" contract, put out by the US Agency for International Deve- lopment (USAID), would cover repairs to roads and bridges, as well as mosques, schools and hospitals.
So the US will bomb a great deal and end up destroying a lot, after all they will rebuild it and make a tidy profit while they are at it.
Nadia,
If the US goes ahead with this war, I expect that regional defense expenditures will drop like a rock. With Saddam gone the region is a lot less dangerous. That hurts US profitability.
Saddam without sanctions would scare the entire region out of their skin! They would go crazy buying US weapons. The Gulf States are helping the US because they are scared to death of Saddam. They want him gone. Until he is gone they will not be able to breathe.
You are completely backwards in your assertion that we are fostering regional instability to profit from it. If that were the case, we would walk away, and let the Gulf States get into an arms race with Saddam, not try to disarm him.
Malik,
USAID is a US government funded agency. The funds for that come from the US taxpayer.
:~/
US firms get $1.5bn deal to rebuild Iraq, Oliver Burkeman, The Guardian, 18 March 2003
The United States plans to transform the infrastructure of Iraq within a year of a war ending, but has sidelined aid agencies by allocating almost all the funds available to private American firms.
Non-governmental organisations and the UN would get just $50m, a tiny fraction of the $1.5bn being offered to private companies, according to more than 100 pages of confidential contract documents leaked to the Wall Street Journal. In the Azores at the weekend, President George Bush emphasised the need for a significant UN role in a postwar Iraq, a stance the administration considers essential to maintaining some degree of multilateral backing for military action and its aftermath.
But Washington’s plan - backed by a request for cash that the White House is expected to submit to Congress soon - envisages a rapid reconstruction process led by US corporations, repairing Iraq’s infrastructure and reforming its educational, healthcare and financial systems, with many results evident before a year has passed.
US administration officials would act as “shadow ministers”, keeping a close eye on Iraq’s new government.
The UN Development Programme, which has traditionally coordinated many postwar rebuilding schemes, estimates that reconstruction could cost $10bn a year, over at least three years - whereas the request to Congress is expected to demand a total of $1.8bn for reconstruction in the first year, and $800m for humanitarian assistance, the Journal reported. Washington has restricted the initial bidding process - for contracts worth $900m - to American firms, invoking emergency regulations that allow companies to sidestep the usual open procedures.
A subsidiary of Halliburton, the firm formerly headed by the US vice-president, Dick Cheney, is a member of one of four consortia whose bids were invited in a secret process last month. Several of the firms are major Republican party donors.
The Bush administration intends to make sure the Iraqi people know that the US has taken the central role in rebuilding, in an effort to shore up public opinion there, the leaked documents suggest. Officials at USAID, the government department coordinating the plan, believe that a more multilateral approach could see projects getting bogged down. Ellen Yount, a USAID spokesperson, said non-American firms were not excluded from the process because they could serve in subcontract roles, and might be candidates for future bidding rounds.
The USAID plans have been roundly condemned by NGOs and representatives of the EU and UN. Mark Malloch Brown, head of the UN Development Programme, said the one-year deadline “flies in the face of human history,” while Chris Patten, the EU’s external affairs commissioner, has called the US approach “exceptionally maladroit”.
Money, stocks and bonds..etc are immoral reason for war. In fact..I think the stock exchanges should have been closed Wednesday.
$ is not greater than human life. Didn't someone say..Money is the root of all evil? So...mmmm....
That said... a measly 1.5 billion dollar contract does not add up to the estimated 80 billion dollars the war with Iraq is estimated to cost the American Taxpayer, and I don't believe this 80 billion dollars includes rebuilding...and don't cha know..they always seem to underestimate.
I myself cannot grasp the idea of sacrificing human life for monetary gain.