Reconstruction must be paid by the coalition ALONE

Post-9/11 Era Forum

Now that the war is coming to an end, it´s time to think about reconstruction of damaged infrastructure. My opinion is, that because the coalition started the war alone, without the permission of the UN, it must also pay the reconstruction alone.

I think it is absolutely shameful, that the prime minister of my country (Finland), promised Bush that Finland is may be willing to take part in reconstruction. Many times when I saw a bomb hittning a building in Bagdad, I thought that the american tax payer should pay that, not me.

The war was started against the rules of international law, so it was illegal. At least in my country, criminals pay the damage they have inflicted.

I'll buy that Arkarkka...yes, the "coalition" should take on the responsibility. But that responsibility cannot be undermined or debated within the UN.

If it is the wish of the UN for the coalition to take full responsibility and incurred costs, the coalition will decide who (as in what countries, companies, etc.) will help rebuild.

You can't say to a person....you caused all this damage, you did this alone w/o our approval, you will fix this....BUT you will use this company or that company...this nation or that nation.

The decision should be made by the coalition. They will send in who they feel can get the job done.

But please don't confuse rebuilding and immediate humanitarian needs.

Agreed, as long as the coalition pays.

I´m 100% for our country to participate in HUMANITARIAN help, I dont want to see any more hurt and sick children

I'll buy that also Vepsu...

And I believe the Coalition is doing all that they can, on the ground now, with providing as much humanitarian needs it can, simultaneously fighting the dangerous grounds they are sitting on now. But the added help that the UN can provide would be welcomed not only by the Coalition...but I think more importantly by the Iraqi citizens.

Do any Finns actually support the effort to oust Saddam and give the Iraqi people a chance at freedom and a prosperous future?

The Finns have a pretty strong educations system - I have been there MANY times. Why are you (Suomiland folks) so ready to swallow cheap propaganda?

There were lots of reasons to go after Saddam.

Here are a few that have been stated from the beginning:

1. 12 years of non-compliance with UNSC resolutions that focused on disarmament, but also condemned Saddam for Human Rights violations and support of terrorism;

2. The US has been pretty consistent in its portrayal of Saddam as a brutal dictator, and no one seemed to disagree

3. Stability in the Middle East - a breeding ground of terrorism and a very critical/strategic region in the world economy (oil),

etc., etc.

Although it is the Coalition forces went in without UN approval, I still do not believe that the Coalition should pay for the reconstruction alone. My Prime Minister has already promised $100 million for the reconstruction. Canada usually sends in peace keepers after such conflicts. I am glad my government is sending Aid. I don't think it matters who caused the damage. The Iraqi people have suffered enough, both prior to and during the war. The developed nations of the world should send aid. If you see someone in trouble, do you say to yourself that you didn't cause that, or do you help them out. I would help them out.

The reconstruction of Iraq will be paid for by the revenue generated by oil sales. Most reconstruction efforts by other countries is only token assistance.

Definately agree that the coalition should pay for the damage, but, as you would not want a burglar deciding who fixed your front door, the Iraqis should decide who gets the contracts.

Agreed on that also wonkyconcrete, once they have their own elected government officials. I don't really foresee that happening anytime "real" soon...maybe in 6 months or so.

It takes quite a bit to form some sanity in an aftermath that includes as much insanity as in Iraq now. But they will get there, soon enough.

who should repay the reconstruction, it should be the world, are we any better than saddam if we ignored the problim and the brutallity that was going on over there? Saddams has millions in bank accounts and all over exct exct exct so his accounts and assetts should be used ,as he was the one who slole this money from the iraqiis in the first place

Fine, count Finalnd out. I'm sure the Iraqi's won't miss the tenth of a percent of the total that Finalnd would contribute.

It's too bad though - I always liked the Finns...

Soaking the Rich? Better Believe It
The richest 1% of families will pay $13,000 for the war, vs. $33 for the poorest 20%.
FORTUNE
Monday, March 31, 2003
By Geoffrey Colvin


What the war costs in dollars is not the most important thing. What it costs in lives and what it achieves are the most important things. But right now you can't help thinking about the cost in dollars, because you read somewhere that every Tomahawk missile costs $600,000, and the President just asked Congress for $75 billion to cover the next six months, and you or your spouse or accountant is scrambling to get the tax returns done, which is hurting a little more than usual. So what is this all going to cost you--not somebody else, but you?

The $75 billion the President wants is not, in its context, a lot of money. It's just over 3% of the proposed federal budget and well under 1% of the economy's total output for the year. For a comparison, the Vietnam war cost 12% of a year's GDP, World War I cost 24%, and World War II, 130%. If you figure the war will probably be over within six months, then it will not have been an expensive conflict as conflicts go. The President's request works out to $260 per American, which is a little less than what we spend annually on cigarettes.

But that $260 is an average figure, and when it comes to income taxes, practically nobody is average. It's easy to forget, after President Bush's 2001 tax cut and Ronald Reagan's fundamental reworking of the tax structure, which is still with us, that we continue to have a steeply progressive federal tax system--by some measures even more steeply progressive than it used to be. You'll recall how this became a really nasty issue in the 2000 presidential election, with lots of angry exchanges about the richest 1% and how much of the nation's wealth they rake in. Three years later, as tax day approaches, let's look at the matter calmly.

It's true that the very richest Americans receive a disproportionate chunk of the country's income. For example, the top 5% of families--just 5.9 million out of a total of some 117 million--got 28% of total U.S. family income in 1999, the most recent year for which figures are available. Make your blood boil? Not so fast. Those families paid an even more disproportionate share of total individual income taxes: 50%. For the top 1%, it's the same, only more so: They received 14% of total family income and paid 29% of total individual income tax.

That does not quite tell us who's paying how much for the war. Washington collects plenty of taxes besides individual income tax (though that's the main one), and the D.C. statmeisters have compiled figures allocating the burden of those other taxes to families. Include all federal taxes, crunch the numbers, and here's how the picture looks:

The average family is being asked to pay $625 for the war. If we assume the cost will come from federal tax receipts one way or another, then average families in the poorest quintile by income would pay not $625, but just $33 each. By contrast, families in the richest 5% would pay, on average, $4,700 each. Families in the richest 1% would pay $13,000 each.

Is this fair? Unfair? Decide for yourself, but keep the big picture in mind. Conventional wisdom holds, correctly, that income inequality has been increasing in recent years, though it still isn't as great now as in some past periods. But while incomes are distributed unequally, the federal tax burden is distributed far more unequally. Without anyone's taking much notice, we're soaking the rich more vigorously than Huey Long could have imagined. Though the rich have occasionally received more of the economic pie than they do now, never in the past century have they paid more of total federal taxes. And the poor have never paid a smaller part: With the demise of the terribly regressive excise taxes of the '20s and '30s, the poorest quintile's share of federal taxes has been declining for years and stands now at 1%.

No, we won't be paying equal shares for the war or anything else the government funds. In fact, the shares we pay have never been less equal. As you sign your 1040, it's worth considering that there has been no significant public debate over this remarkable fact. The idea of the flat tax fell flat. Whatever share you're paying, whether you think it's a blessing or an outrage, it seems to be what we, as a nation, think you ought to pay.

most of you got off the main subject here who pays for the reconstruction of iraq, again i say let saddams millions in money and resources should be used also the countries that didnt have the guts to help should help pay, these countries that didnt back the us enjoy alot of fruits from all the allies and from iraq itself so all should help

Your war, you pay!

are you really that single minded Grimminick? Ive been reading your threads and some made since but not this lol

I don't believe it. YOU are calling ME single minded. I'm speechless.

Your war, you pay.

as long as you dont get your hands dirty right, not your problim, the iraqiis are over there right? Its all the worlds problim when this stuff happens and granted it has taken years to start, but now technology is better and our intelligance is alot better. Hopefully this is the start of a better world and if not it is the biggest hamburger ive ever seen.......lol.........But it should be saddams assets and accounts that should be used for a start. of rebuilding iraq. He stoled them from the iraqiis with there blood so they should get it back. And any country that can should help because we all know dureing wars, world catastrophes,starvation and murderous regimes. we all, meaning different countries have been there for them . so its time to return the favours, now isnt the time to be selfish but is the time to be giveing. Price of freedom is war, price of war is death, which is better freedom or being tortured,beaten,raped and killed. In the end freedom is alot better. Im not for war and killing but im alot more against genicideal murders, starvation and world wide threat. Saddam has done all of these and it is time to stop him and other murderous dictaters that have no care for life at all. for all of the people that cant help themselfs there are countries like the usa/uk and other countries to stop these threats to humanity and earth herself. Im sorry for all the losses but in the end life will be alot better for not just iraq but the world god willing.