Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

well there is good and bad to that obviously. Its good if they plan on turning some spending back on US infastructure(cough ok no I came back to reality.)

Bad this is Iraq really had shit for infastructure before the US went in there so anything we help to build is really an improvement however the last 2 pieces are so vague that I couldn't make an educated comment on them.

Shouldn't we fix New Orleans first....Though I can see why not...It's just gonna happen again...

Ooopps...detailer on board.

Originally posted by soleran30
Bad this is Iraq really had shit for infastructure before the US went in there so anything we help to build is really an improvement however the last 2 pieces are so vague that I couldn't make an educated comment on them.

1) actually before the Gulf War, Iraq was probably the most advanced of all the Middle Eastern countries. Baghdad was pretty much the top city in the area for education, etc. In other words, it's not Afghanistan.

2) Vagueness and demagoguing is a hallmark of the Bush administration.

Originally posted by ElectricBugaloo
1) actually before the Gulf War, Iraq was probably the most advanced of all the Middle Eastern countries. Baghdad was pretty much the top city in the area for education, etc. In other words, it's not Afghanistan.

2) Vagueness and demagoguing is a hallmark of the Bush administration.


lol seriously vagueness and demagoguing is a hallmark of POLITICS Your word probably saves you there..................Iraq may have had SOME schools but as a benchmark to say even the UK it had shit. So comparing to afghanistan is practically comparing it to a parking lot.

before desert storm, iraq was one of the most modern countries in the world. in the WORLD. That means there are still people there who know what they are doing; 15 years isn't that long a time.

The bush administration has used vagueness and demagogy (apparently that's the correct word) more than any president since perhaps Reagan.

what does most advanced mean in the terms you are using please.

Originally posted by soleran30
what does most advanced mean in the terms you are using please. technologically advanced, they had the top universities in the region, etc.

Well, as far as us investing anymore menoey in Iraq: We will. Any time we have personnel on the ground there, we're investing money. But, spending any more than we have budgeted at this point is not needed. If we want to build a democratic nation in Iraq, we need to get them to spend their own money.

But, why build a democracy in Iraq, while we topple one in Haiti?

Nothing makes my toes curl like giving some vaguely defined plan with little practical application a name like "National Strategy for Victory" or things close to that. It's just one of the many quibbles I have with the Bush administration - it's use of words and catchphrases in place of actual information, I mean once upon a time guys with big beards simply uttered the word freedom and had people raising barricades - but in Bush's term it's been over used to the point of apathy. Talk about the tissue of quotation.

Still, articles that followed the speech pointed out that funds earmarked for reconstruction have for a while been being diverted towards anti-insurgency, (in the Sydney Morning Herald.) Granted, a problem, but I would have thought if any thing is going to aid the insurgency, it would be the slow pace of reconstruction while people sit around without water and electricity (while advances have been made in area's like reliable electricity and sanitation, they are still apparently a bit below what they were before this current war, let alone the first Gulf War.)

But eh, I'll ignore practicality and go completely moral and say the US should pour as much money into Iraq is needed. As Yoda said - do, or do not. There is no try. Or something to that effect. The fact is the US committed itself to Iraq the moment it chose to declare war on it without provocation, while it would have been nice if things concluded in a clean way with Bush's little "Mission Accomplished" jaunt on the aircraft carrier, that's not the case. Iraq certainly needs to contribute to the reconstruction though, the last thing they want to do is become dependant on the US for aid and protection and the like, which is why the US needs to quickly and efficiently get the job done of putting Iraq back on it's feet, and making it stable and self autonomous, even if it means spending more money. Leaving a lame nation in the tumultuous middle east, lame in part due to US actions, would be disastrous, as would be creating a Iraq that is nothing but a US dependant nation.