[$tinkle]

So, if $87 billion is granted for the latest spending effort, and $67 billion is for our military, this leaves the remaining $20 billion for the Iraqi rebuild effort.

Here's what i don't get: last week, congress dealt Pres Bush a "setback" by making 1/2 the amount a loan to the people (versus the whole lot a grant). How is this significant, other than we get to collect $10 billion over time - which i wouldn't be surprised will be forgiven eventually.

Will this be used politically on the int'l stage to paint us as a buncha oil-thirsty imperialists? There's something subtle here i'm not picking up.

 

[Tenchiro]

I just wonder why we are giving so much money to a country sitting on like a trillion dollars worth of oil. It all needs to be a loan in my opinion.

 

[FlipSide]

Originally posted by Tenchiro
I just wonder why we are giving so much money to a country sitting on like a trillion dollars worth of oil. It all needs to be a loan in my opinion.

Well...you bombed the sh!t out of that country and most of the reasons why you did it turned out to be manipulated information and/or total lies.

 

[Tenchiro]

Originally posted by FlipSide
Well...you bombed the sh!t out of that country and most of the reasons why you did it turned out to be manipulated information and/or total lies.

I had nothing to do with it.

 

[FlipSide]

hahaha...I know...I should have said "The United States".

Sorry about that!

 

[SuzyCreamcheese]

Originally posted by Tenchiro
I just wonder why we are giving so much money to a country sitting on like a trillion dollars worth of oil. It all needs to be a loan in my opinion.

Wasn't that the deal they tried to sell us in the build up to the invasion? Wasn't it the picture that the U$ would roll into Iraq, drive unimpeded into Baghdad, oust Saddam, the Iraqi people would be cheering and that the reconstruction would begin to be paid for when we just opend the oil spigot? Hmmmmmmmmm?

The Cheese

 

[partsbara]

Originally posted by $tinkle
So, if $87 billion is granted for the latest spending effort, and $67 billion is for our military, this leaves the remaining $20 billion for the Iraqi rebuild effort.

Here's what i don't get: last week, congress dealt Pres Bush a "setback" by making 1/2 the amount a loan to the people (versus the whole lot a grant). How is this significant, other than we get to collect $10 billion over time - which i wouldn't be surprised will be forgiven eventually.

Will this be used politically on the int'l stage to paint us as a buncha oil-thirsty imperialists? There's something subtle here i'm not picking up.

lemme guess, you are in the springs with the military ?

when americans pay prices for gas equivalent to the rest of the world... (first world, not some third world country) then your argument might stand up...

parts

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by partsbara
lemme guess, you are in the springs with the military ?

in the springs, but not in the military

Originally posted by partsbara
when americans pay prices for gas equivalent to the rest of the world... (first world, not some third world country) then your argument might stand up...

parts

what argument?
it's a fact that the senate is voting on many items this session - most of which related to Iraqi reconstruction. To wit, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan Security and Reconstruction Act (specifically, vote #389) was mostly along party lines, and went against our president's wishes to make the $20B a loan.

which segues nicely into....

didja ever notice the demoncrats assail the republicans for their lack of charity, but want so badly to get $10B back from Iraq? Imagine if you will that someone gets you a gift, then sends you a bill for 1/2 of it.

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by partsbara

when americans pay prices for gas equivalent to the rest of the world... (first world, not some third world country)

AmericA does pay equivalent prices to the rest of the world. AmericANS do not because it's not as heavily taxed in our country.


Not that I don't agree that we invaded for oil, among other things. (how's that for a fence-straddling double-negative?)

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by $tinkle
Will this be used politically on the int'l stage to paint us as a buncha oil-thirsty imperialists? There's something subtle here i'm not picking up.

is this an international or domestic issue. Sorry, didn't read everything, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was a partisan issue/response.

I love this country, but the one thing I hate is when a party votes the opposite way just cuz... It's like my ex-wife is running the show