Guess which country kicked out U.S. congressional delegation - The Firearms Forum

jack404 · 06-18-2011, 08:10 AM

Question about money to repay American contribution prompts reaction

WASHINGTON – A U.S. congressional delegation was kicked out of Iraq after the leader of the group, U.S. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., asked Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki if a portion of future oil revenues could be used to pay back the United States for money spent over the course of eight years following the 2003 U.S. invasion to oust Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

The ouster came amid efforts by U.S. officials to get al-Maliki to request an extension of U.S. troops in Iraq past the Dec. 31 deadline when all U.S. troops are supposed to be out of the country.

"We called the U.S. embassy…and we told them to ask the congressmen to leave Iraq," according to Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh. "We don't want them here. What they said was inappropriate."

Rohrabacher said that he posed the question in the form of request to the prime minister. Al-Dabbagh, however, disputes that the California congressman raised it with al-Maliki.

Rohrabacher, who is a senior member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, was adamant that he took up the issue with al-Maliki.

"Once Iraq becomes a very rich and prosperous country, we would hope that some consideration be given to repaying the U.S. some of the mega-dollars that we have spent here in the last eight years," Rohrabacker said.

Indeed, such a request is not unprecedented. During Desert Shield/Desert Storm in 1990-1991, also known as the First Gulf War, the U.S. received payment from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait for U.S. intervention in Kuwait to remove the invading Iraqi forces of Saddam Hussein.

Since the March 2003 U.S. invasion, the U.S. has spent an estimated $1 trillion during the occupation and reconstruction, with some 4,462 service members killed and an estimated 100,000 wounded, many seriously.

At present, some 45,000 U.S. troops remain in Iraq performing training and equipping of Iraqi soldiers.

The Rohrabacher-led, six-person bi-partisan delegation was in Iraq to investigate a camp that housed Iranian dissidents, 34 of whom were allegedly massacred by Iraqi security forces.

Al-Maliki also barred the U.S. congressional delegation from visiting the camp where the clash took place, citing Iraqi sovereignty as the basis for the denial.

Despite the denial of access, Rohrabacher said that he would seek a criminal probe of whether the Iraqis had mistreated the dissidents.

Sources say that there is some question whether the U.S. Congress has the authority to investigate potential criminal conduct in Iraq.

"We are investigating to see if criminal behavior caused the death of these non-combatants," Rohrabacher said. "The killing of unarmed people, a mass killing, is a criminal act and a crime against humanity."

The dissidents are from the MEK, or Mujahidin-e Khalq, and are opposed to the Shi'ite Iranian regime which has considerable influence over al-Maliki, who also is Shi'ite.

Saddam Hussein had used the MEK, which the U.S. at one point had declared to be a terrorist group. In backing Hussein, the MEK was used by the Hussein regime to perform internal security. At one point during the Hussein period, there were a considerable number of MEK camps spread throughout Iraq.

Following the U.S. invasion, the MEK began to work with U.S. Special Forces and ultimately the organization was removed from the U.S. terrorist list.

Because of Iran's influence, al-Maliki is under considerable pressure from the Islamic regime to decide against requesting an extension of U.S. troops in Iraq beyond the Dec. 31 deadline when they are due to leave.

In requesting that a portion of oil revenues be used to pay back money the U.S. has spent in Iraq over the past eight years, however, Rohrabacher was expressing a viewpoint made by policymakers during the Bush administration to make U.S. intervention more palatable.

In testimony given on March 27, 2003 – a week following the U.S. invasion of Iraq – then Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz told the House Appropriations Committee that oil revenue from Iraq alone would pay for Iraq's reconstruction after the Iraq war.

At the time, Wolfowitz said that oil revenues from Iraq could bring up to $100 billion over the course of the "next two or three years."

Back then, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the cost of the occupation was up to some $48 billion a year. At the time, it was estimated that the U.S. occupation could last 18 months or more.

"Now, there are a lot of claims on that money, but we are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon," Wolfowitz told the committee at the time.

At the Pentagon back then, Andrew Marshall, the influential director of the Net Assessment Office, also had recommended that oil revenues be used to defray the cost of the military occupation in Iraq.

A source involved in writing the Net Assessment Office report said that the conclusion reflected many senior Bush administration officials.

"They're not just going to take the Iraqi oil and use it for Iraq's purpose. They will charge the Iraqis for the U.S. cost of operating in Iraq," the source said at the time. "I don't think they're planning as far as I know to use Iraqi oil to pay for the invasion, but they are going to use it to pay for the occupation."

Indeed, there were proposals for the U.S. to seize revenues to pay for the occupation and tap Iraq's oil to help pay for the cost of the U.S. military occupation.

Other senior administration officials at the time similarly felt that oil revenues could help defray the cost of the U.S. Iraqi occupation.

"Iraq is a very wealthy country. Enormous oil reserves," said Richard Perle who then was chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, a key advisory group to the Secretary of Defense. "They can finance, largely finance the reconstruction of their own country. And I have no doubt that they will."

Kenneth Pollack, then director for Persian Gulf Affairs at the National Security Council, said in September 2002 that "it is unimaginable that the United States would have to contribute hundreds of billions of dollars and highly unlikely that we would have to contribute even tens of billions of dollars."

And there was Glenn Hubbard, then White House economic advisor, who said: "The costs of any intervention would be very small."

Read more: Guess which country kicked out U.S. congressional delegation http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=312317#ixzz1PdIOzb4U

carver · 06-18-2011, 08:39 AM

Does anyone think that China, or the U.S. will be denied the oil they need to operate their Countries? Let the Middle East deny either country the oil they have and watch what happens!

Willie · 06-18-2011, 08:39 AM

I really believe they will pay us back.......NOT. I do however believe that they will revert back to what they were in Iraq as soon as we leave. Probably join with Iran and become our enemy. In a few years Iraq will be just as it was before our war. Same for Afganistan. I fear we have wasted lives,money and time on a people who just want us gone and will continue to hate us no matter what. After all,look at our "friend and ally" Pakistan. We need to build more long range bombers.

carver · 06-18-2011, 08:43 AM

And long range missles!

Willie · 06-18-2011, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by carver

And long range missles!

Amen!

permafrost · 06-18-2011, 09:32 AM

That's what chaps my **s! As soon as we leave it will revert to business as usual, with a new set of actors. All our young men and women's death's and deprivations will be for naught. Not to mention the loss of money we can no longer afford. I believe we should pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan , and they can go back to what they always have been and will be when we leave. Karzai and the USA and the Taliban are in negotians now , for Christ's sake.

dons2346 · 06-18-2011, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by carver

And long range missles!

One Trident boat out of port in the morning, get 60 feet of water over the deck, open the hatch, then poof! They'll be back in port for early liberty

Willie · 06-18-2011, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dons2346

One Trident boat out of port in the morning, get 60 feet of water over the deck, open the hatch, then poof! They'll be back in port for early liberty

I vote we do it! That would be a negotiation they might understand. The ones left anyway. Negotiate this! BOOM ! Once again we fight a war and try NOT to win. I guess winning would not be civilized.

Gun Geezer · 06-18-2011, 03:37 PM

And where is the surprise? We haven't had a president or congress with cajones since Truman, and he(gasp) was a democrat. We should have quit trying to be the policeman of the world after Korea. If you're not willing to use every means at your disposal to bring a war to a quick and satisfactory conclusion (win), stay home and polish your medals.
The question should not have been, "Will Iraq use it's oil revenue to repay us"? It should have been,"How soon can we lease this vacant land after the radioactivity get's back to a survivable level? Give Israel a call.

06-18-2011, 08:10 AM	#1
jack404 Former Guest Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Australia Contributor Posts: 17,622	Guess which country kicked out U.S. congressional delegation Question about money to repay American contribution prompts reaction WASHINGTON – A U.S. congressional delegation was kicked out of Iraq after the leader of the group, U.S. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., asked Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki if a portion of future oil revenues could be used to pay back the United States for money spent over the course of eight years following the 2003 U.S. invasion to oust Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. The ouster came amid efforts by U.S. officials to get al-Maliki to request an extension of U.S. troops in Iraq past the Dec. 31 deadline when all U.S. troops are supposed to be out of the country. "We called the U.S. embassy…and we told them to ask the congressmen to leave Iraq," according to Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh. "We don't want them here. What they said was inappropriate." Rohrabacher said that he posed the question in the form of request to the prime minister. Al-Dabbagh, however, disputes that the California congressman raised it with al-Maliki. Rohrabacher, who is a senior member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, was adamant that he took up the issue with al-Maliki. "Once Iraq becomes a very rich and prosperous country, we would hope that some consideration be given to repaying the U.S. some of the mega-dollars that we have spent here in the last eight years," Rohrabacker said. Indeed, such a request is not unprecedented. During Desert Shield/Desert Storm in 1990-1991, also known as the First Gulf War, the U.S. received payment from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait for U.S. intervention in Kuwait to remove the invading Iraqi forces of Saddam Hussein. Since the March 2003 U.S. invasion, the U.S. has spent an estimated $1 trillion during the occupation and reconstruction, with some 4,462 service members killed and an estimated 100,000 wounded, many seriously. At present, some 45,000 U.S. troops remain in Iraq performing training and equipping of Iraqi soldiers. The Rohrabacher-led, six-person bi-partisan delegation was in Iraq to investigate a camp that housed Iranian dissidents, 34 of whom were allegedly massacred by Iraqi security forces. Al-Maliki also barred the U.S. congressional delegation from visiting the camp where the clash took place, citing Iraqi sovereignty as the basis for the denial. Despite the denial of access, Rohrabacher said that he would seek a criminal probe of whether the Iraqis had mistreated the dissidents. Sources say that there is some question whether the U.S. Congress has the authority to investigate potential criminal conduct in Iraq. "We are investigating to see if criminal behavior caused the death of these non-combatants," Rohrabacher said. "The killing of unarmed people, a mass killing, is a criminal act and a crime against humanity." The dissidents are from the MEK, or Mujahidin-e Khalq, and are opposed to the Shi'ite Iranian regime which has considerable influence over al-Maliki, who also is Shi'ite. Saddam Hussein had used the MEK, which the U.S. at one point had declared to be a terrorist group. In backing Hussein, the MEK was used by the Hussein regime to perform internal security. At one point during the Hussein period, there were a considerable number of MEK camps spread throughout Iraq. Following the U.S. invasion, the MEK began to work with U.S. Special Forces and ultimately the organization was removed from the U.S. terrorist list. Because of Iran's influence, al-Maliki is under considerable pressure from the Islamic regime to decide against requesting an extension of U.S. troops in Iraq beyond the Dec. 31 deadline when they are due to leave. In requesting that a portion of oil revenues be used to pay back money the U.S. has spent in Iraq over the past eight years, however, Rohrabacher was expressing a viewpoint made by policymakers during the Bush administration to make U.S. intervention more palatable. In testimony given on March 27, 2003 – a week following the U.S. invasion of Iraq – then Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz told the House Appropriations Committee that oil revenue from Iraq alone would pay for Iraq's reconstruction after the Iraq war. At the time, Wolfowitz said that oil revenues from Iraq could bring up to $100 billion over the course of the "next two or three years." Back then, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the cost of the occupation was up to some $48 billion a year. At the time, it was estimated that the U.S. occupation could last 18 months or more. "Now, there are a lot of claims on that money, but we are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon," Wolfowitz told the committee at the time. At the Pentagon back then, Andrew Marshall, the influential director of the Net Assessment Office, also had recommended that oil revenues be used to defray the cost of the military occupation in Iraq. A source involved in writing the Net Assessment Office report said that the conclusion reflected many senior Bush administration officials. "They're not just going to take the Iraqi oil and use it for Iraq's purpose. They will charge the Iraqis for the U.S. cost of operating in Iraq," the source said at the time. "I don't think they're planning as far as I know to use Iraqi oil to pay for the invasion, but they are going to use it to pay for the occupation." Indeed, there were proposals for the U.S. to seize revenues to pay for the occupation and tap Iraq's oil to help pay for the cost of the U.S. military occupation. Other senior administration officials at the time similarly felt that oil revenues could help defray the cost of the U.S. Iraqi occupation. "Iraq is a very wealthy country. Enormous oil reserves," said Richard Perle who then was chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, a key advisory group to the Secretary of Defense. "They can finance, largely finance the reconstruction of their own country. And I have no doubt that they will." Kenneth Pollack, then director for Persian Gulf Affairs at the National Security Council, said in September 2002 that "it is unimaginable that the United States would have to contribute hundreds of billions of dollars and highly unlikely that we would have to contribute even tens of billions of dollars." And there was Glenn Hubbard, then White House economic advisor, who said: "The costs of any intervention would be very small." Read more: Guess which country kicked out U.S. congressional delegation http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=312317#ixzz1PdIOzb4U -->

06-18-2011, 08:39 AM	#2
carver TFF Moderator/Host Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: DAV, Deep in the Pineywoods of East Texas, just west of Shreveport, LA Contributor Posts: 11,255	Re: Guess which country kicked out U.S. congressional delegation Does anyone think that China, or the U.S. will be denied the oil they need to operate their Countries? Let the Middle East deny either country the oil they have and watch what happens! __________________ Y'all be safe now, ya hear! Lamentations Chapter 5: 1. Remember, O LORD, what is come upon us: consider, and behold our reproach. 2. Our inheritance is turned to strangers, our houses to aliens. 3. We are orphans and fatherless, our mothers [are] as widows. 5. Our necks [are] under persecution: we labour, [and] have no rest. 16. The crown is fallen [from] our head: woe unto us, that we have sinned! 21. Turn thou us unto thee, O LORD, and we shall be turned; renew our days as of old.

06-18-2011, 08:39 AM	#3
Willie Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Galveston,TX Contributor Posts: 1,002	Re: Guess which country kicked out U.S. congressional delegation I really believe they will pay us back.......NOT. I do however believe that they will revert back to what they were in Iraq as soon as we leave. Probably join with Iran and become our enemy. In a few years Iraq will be just as it was before our war. Same for Afganistan. I fear we have wasted lives,money and time on a people who just want us gone and will continue to hate us no matter what. After all,look at our "friend and ally" Pakistan. We need to build more long range bombers. __________________ Willie West End Electric Galveston Electricians

06-18-2011, 08:43 AM	#4
carver TFF Moderator/Host Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: DAV, Deep in the Pineywoods of East Texas, just west of Shreveport, LA Contributor Posts: 11,255	Re: Guess which country kicked out U.S. congressional delegation And long range missles! __________________ Y'all be safe now, ya hear! Lamentations Chapter 5: 1. Remember, O LORD, what is come upon us: consider, and behold our reproach. 2. Our inheritance is turned to strangers, our houses to aliens. 3. We are orphans and fatherless, our mothers [are] as widows. 5. Our necks [are] under persecution: we labour, [and] have no rest. 16. The crown is fallen [from] our head: woe unto us, that we have sinned! 21. Turn thou us unto thee, O LORD, and we shall be turned; renew our days as of old.

06-18-2011, 09:32 AM	#6
permafrost Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Oklahoma, USA Contributor Posts: 1,771	Re: Guess which country kicked out U.S. congressional delegation That's what chaps my **s! As soon as we leave it will revert to business as usual, with a new set of actors. All our young men and women's death's and deprivations will be for naught. Not to mention the loss of money we can no longer afford. I believe we should pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan , and they can go back to what they always have been and will be when we leave. Karzai and the USA and the Taliban are in negotians now , for Christ's sake. __________________ Stand and Fight

06-18-2011, 03:37 PM	#9
Gun Geezer Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Central Florida Posts: 1,710	Re: Guess which country kicked out U.S. congressional delegation And where is the surprise? We haven't had a president or congress with cajones since Truman, and he(gasp) was a democrat. We should have quit trying to be the policeman of the world after Korea. If you're not willing to use every means at your disposal to bring a war to a quick and satisfactory conclusion (win), stay home and polish your medals. The question should not have been, "Will Iraq use it's oil revenue to repay us"? It should have been,"How soon can we lease this vacant land after the radioactivity get's back to a survivable level? Give Israel a call.