I think it is an interesting idea, but the complex consequences would need to be discussed first. I think that Iraq needs to step up and start building their own society, and for them to have this surplus when many of their citizens don't have running water or electricity, that says a lot.

However, "the costs of the war" are costs that are being charged by many American companies like Haliburton and Blackwater. If Iraqis start "paying for the war" they are essentially paying the Americans who destroyed their country. I could see where this type of thinking might encourage rebellion and extremism, working against our interests.

... while republicans just want the Iraqis to pay them back.

totally agree with you Jillness. It sounds good in theory but when you start to go into the details, it gets very messy.

5 years ago the administration actually said that Iraqi oil would be used to pay for the war. kinda funny how now the Dems are using it now. i really hope this doesn't come to fruition because...well it's not our oil! this whole situation is such total BULLS**T.

soooo...let me invade and destroy your country, then rebuild it by extracting oil for myself and then making YOU pay for rebuilding the country that I destroyed???? seriously, what kind of sense does that make?

I dunno why people think Iraq was all rainbows and gumdrops before we showed up.

It's always been pretty crappy in terms of quality of life... I know Jill you said a while back that before we got there Iraqis had more water services and I think you said electric too, but not sure. And yea, it sucks that they don't have as much of that right now... but it's not like they aren't rebuilding AT ALL and if someone gave me the choice of having running water and living under a brutal dictator in fear for my life everyday vs. no dictator but no water, yet... I think I would choose option 2.

You guys are missing the real irony of the situation as it stands. We go to Iraq partly so we can secure oil, which we then send over the US for refining, before being shipped back across the Atlantic to the troops so they can help secure the oil in Iraq, which we then...

iraq waan't gumdrops but seriously cabaker it was marginally better than now. Freedom from Saddam or not. Let's not go OTT and say Americans brought all these luxuries to them cos whatever little change they did get it's coming at a steep price or that life was grand under Saddam. Let's be honest and say it wasn't that great but what is there now isn't that great, car bombs are not fun, neither are barricades separating neighbourhoods. This is like you take one step forward and two steps back in Iraq. I just hope that things will get better.

I hope things will get better too, but I think its always been crappy there and I think with us there now they have more of a chance at it actually improving... granted, not overnight.

It depends what part of Iraq you are talking about. If you are talking about a Sunni area then yes they are worse off now because Sadaam Hussein was a Sunni and supported them. If you are talking about a Shiite area then they are better off now because they were the ones being persecuted along with the kurds. So some of their resources (water, electric, etc.) are actually better now. It completely depends who you are talking to. I wish that the news would be more comprehensive in their coverage of Iraq. Sigh.

and that's the part that sucks harmony when you prop up one tribe over another it sows seeds on grounds fertile for ethnic cleansing. I hate it when governments do that cos they don't realise how much damage they are doing until it is too late.

i think the iraqis should pay for at lease part of their reconstruction. it doesn't make sense for them not to.

And its not just "re-construction", parts of Iraq are experiencing NEW contruction, new infrastructure. In some areas of Iraq raw sewage would run down the street and the people had no clean drinking water. Some of these areas are benefitting from this war because they are actually getting water and sewer systems. So in that regard, I don't think we went in there and destroyed their country. I believe that some Iraqis are benefitting from us being over there. Do you really think Sadam would have ever helped these people get running water and do you think he cared that the kids were stepping in raw sewage everyday? We haven't destroyed Iraq. They now have the opportunity to live better lives. Its getting them to step up and take over that's the problem.

Do Democrats want?! Well hell isn't this what George wanted too? I think we all want it.

Because the infrastructure was so damaged during the war the capacity to do so now is not practical but I am sure that sooner or later this will be the case.

"and if someone gave me the choice of having running water and living under a brutal dictator in fear for my life everyday vs. no dictator but no water, yet... I think I would choose option 2."

No one gave the Iraqis the choice, Bush decided for them.

That's a very good pount piper. Wouldn't it be nice if the news would put at least ONE broadcast about the good things that have happened in Iraq as a result of dethronement of Saddam.

Stephley, Should we have waited for someone in Iraq to stand up and say "help me!" Oh wait, the ones who did that were executed.

Apparently, we're waiting for the people of Burma, Tibet, North Korea, and Sudan to ask for our help. Why couldn't we wait for Iraq too?

So we should be isolationists?

Sounds good to me!

Isonlationism is a great idea, until they come to our shores and attack us there. Have we learned nothing from Pear Harbor, and New York?

No, no one said be isolationist.
I did note that this democracy did not ask those people before we attacked their country. And I questioned whether we did it to save them from a vicious dictator because there are a number of other countries struggling under vicious dictatorships that we don't feel any need to rescue.
Iraq didn't attack us. Iraq was not on its way to our shores.

We didn't ask Germany before we went after them either. Most countries where dictators are in charge don't have the opportunity to ask for help. That was the point I made several spots back. I agree that we need to help any country that is under a brutal dictatorship. We go in diplomatically, and if that fails, we go in militarily.

Um, a careful reading of history will remind you that before we got into it with Germany, borders had been violated, nations overrun and our allies had asked for our help.
And I guess you're suggesting that we go help the Saudis next?

We were helping England and vis a vis France long before we entered the war, by sending supplies and men who'd volunteered to help. The Iraq government we toppled also violated the borders of other countries.

And yes, if the Saudi people are being killed for no reason other than not liking what the government is doing to their people. We begin diplomatic pressure, and if/when that fails, we begin military excursions.

You're kind of flexible with details when it comes to attacking other countries - not very becoming for a democracy.
Anyway, start packing for Saudi Arabia because by your criteria, they should be on our 'to invade' list.

How am I flexible? I abhor human rights violators, and want the oppression of others to stop. I don't see how that is at odds with how you feel. I differ with you on how we go about that, and what kind of responsibility we have as the world's only super power (at this point).

No, didn't mean morally flexible. Flexible in comparing Saddam Hussein's border crossings with Hitler's.

How were they different? The only difference is that America didn't wait 8 years and an attack on soverign soil before getting involved.... Oh wait, we did that too

Personally, I don't think you should break something you'll have to fix later. Iraq has a surplus and I think they should start contributing, but they're not stupid and they'll get everything they can and I can't blame them. Still my stance is, you don't go BOOM! then OOPS! we'll fix you.

I agree that Iraq should use some of their oil surplus to help, but also be able to keep some of the surplus to help their government be able to make long term planning or their country.

As to the rest of your comment, it is just plain naive and silly. We didn't go in to Iraq with the idea that the people would instantly be able to fend for themselves. We went in so that the people would eventually be able to rule themselves. The vast majority of the destrucion going on in Iraq is by people who don't want us there, but it isn't the Iraqi people. Remember, it took us 20 years to finally get this right, and it took Germany 12 years, and both of those were without other countries sending suicide bombers....