Baghdad wants U.S. to pay $1 billion for damage to city

page: 3
13
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 11:42 AM
link   
Look, we bombed the snot out of Berlin and paid. We bombed the snot out of Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and paid. I'm not saying we shouldn't pay. But the whining from there?
We were at war, people. The U.S. Armys' job is to kill people and break things. We did a damned good job of it in my humble opinion. So sure, build it back up, put in a Starbucks for all I care.

Just make sure there is nobody else that wants to shoot at us.

Or we will break it, AGAIN!!!!




posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 04:35 PM
link   
There are two possible philosophies regarding our invasion of Iraq in 2003.

A) We conquered Iraq or,

B) We liberated Iraq.

If you go with A), then we conquered your sorry ass and you're just lucky that your country is such a ****hole we don't want to stay longer. YOU LOST!!!

If you prefer the kindler, gentler option B), Liberation, then how about you pay us the billions you owe for munitions expended, equipment and material destroyed, roads, schools, hospitals, etc built and last, but most importantly, the lives lost and people injured to liberate your country and then protect your citizens from other Iraqi terrorists?

You don't get it both ways. Either we conquered you, in which case you don't get to say anything but, "Yes Master", or we liberated you. Here's the bill for services rendered.

The majority of the damage was done after the main fighting was over and Iraqis decided it was time for a civil war. Guess they just didn't get enough. We generously stayed behind and rebuilt the country to the best of our ability, despite being shot at and blown up. Maybe they'd actually see what we rebuilt if suicide bombers didn't blow it up. Perhaps send the bill Mahdi Army. We also helped modernize theirr oil infrastructure as a way to bring in money into their economy. Oh, that was blown to bits by insurgents as well? Well, divy up the bill and send it to Morocco, Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia.



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 07:31 PM
link   
I say pay the money. For those of you who say that US taxpayers shouldn't have to pay, think of it this way. The Democrats and Republicans we elected into office started the war and I'll be danged if they aren't the same ones keeping this war going.



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler

Baghdad wants U.S. to pay $1 billion for damage to city


www.rawstory.com

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraq's capital wants the United States to apologize and pay $1 billion for the damage done to the city not by bombs but by blast walls and Humvees since the U.S.-led invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein.

The city's government issued its demands in a statement on Wednesday that said Baghdad's infrastructure and aesthetics have been seriously damaged by the American military.

"The U.S. forces changed this beautiful city to a camp in an ugly and destructive way, which refl
(visit the link for the full news article)



No Offense to the OP

Not even going to read this crap


Pull our Heroes OUT NOW



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 

Ummm—I don't disagree with your sentiment, but the reality is that we've already paid. In spades. This "request" is just ludicrous.

What about all the schools and hospitals we built? The roads and infrastructure we fixed already?

And don't even get me started about the missing billions from the Iraqi treasury and the pallets of billions we shipped there to pay Iraqis to work.

edit on 2/18/2011 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)


and have not the people of iraq payed heavily with death too....

kx



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 08:11 PM
link   
Are you kidding me. It cost more than that, just in bombs.



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by jerico65
There are two possible philosophies regarding our invasion of Iraq in 2003.

A) We conquered Iraq or,

B) We liberated Iraq.

If you go with A), then we conquered your sorry ass and you're just lucky that your country is such a ****hole we don't want to stay longer. YOU LOST!!!

If you prefer the kindler, gentler option B), Liberation, then how about you pay us the billions you owe for munitions expended, equipment and material destroyed, roads, schools, hospitals, etc built and last, but most importantly, the lives lost and people injured to liberate your country and then protect your citizens from other Iraqi terrorists?

no you are incorrect you have done neither. you have illegaly ocupied a country... america should be billed with the total cost of rebuild and compensation for those murdered. those responsible should be held to account.

You don't get it both ways. Either we conquered you, in which case you don't get to say anything but, "Yes Master", or we liberated you. Here's the bill for services rendered.

The majority of the damage was done after the main fighting was over and Iraqis decided it was time for a civil war. Guess they just didn't get enough. We generously stayed behind and rebuilt the country to the best of our ability, despite being shot at and blown up. Maybe they'd actually see what we rebuilt if suicide bombers didn't blow it up. Perhaps send the bill Mahdi Army. We also helped modernize theirr oil infrastructure as a way to bring in money into their economy. Oh, that was blown to bits by insurgents as well? Well, divy up the bill and send it to Morocco, Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia.




posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
We were at war, people. The U.S. Armys' job is to kill people and break things. We did a damned good job of it in my humble opinion. So sure, build it back up, put in a Starbucks for all I care.

Just make sure there is nobody else that wants to shoot at us.

Or we will break it, AGAIN!!!!


Mind you, you might want to find a real good reason why you broke it in the first place.



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler

Baghdad wants U.S. to pay $1 billion for damage to city


www.rawstory.com

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraq's capital wants the United States to apologize and pay $1 billion for the damage done to the city not by bombs but by blast walls and Humvees since the U.S.-led invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein.

The city's government issued its demands in a statement on Wednesday that said Baghdad's infrastructure and aesthetics have been seriously damaged by the American military.

"The U.S. forces changed this beautiful city to a camp in an ugly and destructive way, which refl
(visit the link for the full news article)







I agree but send the bill to Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Rove, Limbaugh, Hannity, Oreally and the rest of the lying neocons who tricked us into going there. And if they won't pay put the bastards in an Iraqi prison until they do. We taxpayers have had to foot the bill long enough.



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 09:58 PM
link   
What about all the schools and hospitals we built? The roads and infrastructure we fixed already?


Halliburton never finished even one hospital or school but they did buy Chevy Surbubans for each flunky on staff to tool around in at taxpayer expense.



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 10:41 PM
link   
Anyone in the construction business knows that when you have a crap site to start with, first you have to perform sufficient demolition of the site before you're free to construct improved structures.

I think Baghdad should pay us a billion or so for the deconstruction costs that only improved the city.

Sort of an urban renewal phase one fee.



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by trailertrash

What about all the schools and hospitals we built? The roads and infrastructure we fixed already?


Halliburton never finished even one hospital or school but they did buy Chevy Surbubans for each flunky on staff to tool around in at taxpayer expense.


We hear the schools, hospitals, roads and other infrastructure improvements a lot.

Yet the truth is that those things are built to benefit the occupiers, Yaks don't need six lane roads, our tanks and personnel carriers do though, and so do Coca-Cola trucks and the economic engine that infrastructure is always built to support.

Schools are simply made to start trying to program the next generation of youth to embrace the kind of values and history that will make them want a coca cola and not revenge for the violent process in which coke was brought to market.

Hospitals there are built for the same reason the Russell Trust started building them here, as an outlet for pharmacutical products.

We build these things because it's good for our businesses, our control, our profit, not because we are trying to improve the lives of people who still can't hardly afford economically any of the wonderful things we are trying to give them.

Want to know another group of people who can't really afford them economically either? The average American up to their eyeballs in debt they can't pay back from living a lifestyle they couldn't afford either.

A lifestyle that is geared around commerce and an educational and governance system built up through infrastructure, a lifestyle that people become so dependent upon, that if tomorrow if wal-mart shut down half of america would no longer have a way to get food, clothes, furnishings and durable goods.

We won our independence (supposedly) from the Crown only to give it away readily to corprorate outlet stores!



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by FarArcher
Anyone in the construction business knows that when you have a crap site to start with, first you have to perform sufficient demolition of the site before you're free to construct improved structures.

I think Baghdad should pay us a billion or so for the deconstruction costs that only improved the city.

Sort of an urban renewal phase one fee.


So by your standards the World Trade Centers must fit into this category too. Built in the 1970's, way to tall, with inadequate fire safety provisions and measures, and a poor evacuation plan, this must have been one of those crap sites that we should all be grateful was torn down through a violent act?

If the Taliban destorys some old religious statues because they offend Islam it's a shocking idictment of their intollerance and chauvenism, but if we destroy half of ancient Baghdad its a sign of our moral superiority and charity?

Not sure what's worse the mentality that promotes an argument like that, or the dysfunctional personalities that agree with it.


edit on 19/2/11 by ProtoplasmicTraveler because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 



Baghdad wants U.S. to pay $1 billion for damage to city


I'll tell ya what there champ. What say we make a little deal here. The American public will gladly repay any damages but is that what you Iraqi's really want? No it isn't. What you Iraqi's really want is a couple of beautiful missile silos strategically placed around your territory. Your future security is worth more than a few billion dollars isn't it? Anyhow, the missile silo's will run in excess of one billion dollars so you are actually making out on the deal. We'll even have regularly deployed personnel of our own running them so you guys don't have to worry about a thing.




posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by jackflap
 


Well hey the missile siloh of course because well lets face it the only people who wouldn't benefit from a missle siloh are the terrorists?



Someone starts complaining in a crowded bar you are eyeing their girl the wrong way? "To bad mister I got's a missile siloh and I am not afraid to use it!"

How can you even begin to put a price on something of such incalcuable value?

Honey I told you I don't want Tuna Caserole I want Steak tonight, or do I need to go activate the Missile Siloh!

Able to solve all agruments except who is the best Nascar Driver the Missile Siloh is something we all would be better off having one of.

edit on 19/2/11 by ProtoplasmicTraveler because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
Yet the truth is that those things are built to benefit the occupiers, Yaks don't need six lane roads, our tanks and personnel carriers do though, and so do Coca-Cola trucks and the economic engine that infrastructure is always built to support.


So, you believe that the Iraqis in Baghdad were riding around on yaks prior to the invasion, huh?



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by jerico65

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
Yet the truth is that those things are built to benefit the occupiers, Yaks don't need six lane roads, our tanks and personnel carriers do though, and so do Coca-Cola trucks and the economic engine that infrastructure is always built to support.


So, you believe that the Iraqis in Baghdad were riding around on yaks prior to the invasion, huh?


Do you believe we built new roads in Iraq or primarily in Afghanistan? Yaks are very popular in Afghanistan, where much more hard infrastructure improvements have had to be made to accomodate U.S. Military Vehicles.

But hey you keep looking for those little details to try to refute a great big argument over.

The truth is infrastructure improvements are made for the convenience and profit of the occupiers, not for the every day citizens that live there.

If this were not the case, we would be going around making infrastructure improvements in places like Cuba and North Korea where the U.S. Military and U.S. Corporations are not welcome.

We would beg and say "For the love of God alright but at least let us improve your infrastructure we only do it for the benefit of Tiny Tim".

Taking a sentence out of context from an argument to invent a new argument is just that, a sign of weakness and an admission of defeat that you have nothing to refute the argument it's contained within.



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 06:23 PM
link   
Its just like being in a shop, You break it You buy it. As for the collateral damage argument, F@ck that, I would love to see how anyone would accept that off our gov, if they killed our loved ones chasing after a criminal. Wake up, Sh#t excuse. Pay up and shut UP



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


Unfortunately it seems that if they are asking for $1 billion then this is most likely to largely go straight into the pockets of the corrupt US propped government officials. If they really wanted reparations for the damage done to Baghdad and around the country, they would be asking for a lot more money. I mean, jeez they did blast it into failed state status after all!

However, maybe its possible that this is a means of funnelling money into US/CIA operations in the region without raising too much suspicion? They don't really need to bribe this government, they have all the leverage. Chances are if they do pay the money, they're still going to profit in the long term - similar to those economic hit man tactics.

Edit: If countries could be sued for psychological or emotional damages, the US would go bankrupt in a second!
edit on 19-2-2011 by arollingstone because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by jackflap
I'll tell ya what there champ. What say we make a little deal here. The American public will gladly repay any damages but is that what you Iraqi's really want? No it isn't. What you Iraqi's really want is a couple of beautiful missile silos strategically placed around your territory. Your future security is worth more than a few billion dollars isn't it? Anyhow, the missile silo's will run in excess of one billion dollars so you are actually making out on the deal. We'll even have regularly deployed personnel of our own running them so you guys don't have to worry about a thing.


A missile silo with armed missiles to use at their discretion or ours? No way in hell would I approve of giving them an armed missile silo to use at their discretion. In fact, I wouldn't put one there period, as it could would be seen as an act of aggression (like we need anymore of that). Honestly, I say pay them, get a legally binding release signed (so they can't come back asking for more) and let's call it "job done".





new topics
top topics
 
13
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join