Why doesn't this surprise me? Yet another measure from the US to increase their "power" in Iraq. And also a nice example how the US spends their money. They "liberate" the Iraq people, but giving them life support ("health clinics, water-treatment facilities and electrical plants") isn't that much needed, an embassy is much more important. But at least they can die a free man/woman now I'd make it the home of the next dictator
Let me see if I understand this correctly. Saddam Hussein was (supposedly) such a bad guy because he sat around in his sprawling palaces shooting guns all day and didn't didn't spend his fortunes to help build and maintain his country's infrastructure. So the US government decided that it needed to liberate the country from this (supposedly) super bad guy. Now the US goverment is going to sit in its sprawling, $592 million "palace" (from the Iraqi point of view), shooting guns all day and is doing less and less to actually build and maintain an infrastructure. Am I missing something here? The main complaint is that we can't build anything because our workers are being shot at. I'd imagine the Iraqi citizens are thinking the same thing right about now. You risk your life going to work because some overstressed American soldier might mistake your briefcase for a bomb and shoot you dead in the street. Perhaps if we did a little more to actually help build the country from the inside, we wouldn't need to worry so much about the contractors being shot at. Edit: I was just thinking. If we can't build some of the basic infrastructure because the area is too dangerous, why not set aside some of that massive are of safe acreage for those utuilities? Surely the embassy doesn't need that entire area? -monkey
Well, if its a public area all of a sudden, anyone could just walk in - and spontaneously blow themselves up - amidst the public who need healthcare. Unfortunately, its a bit difficult to focus on what should be the priorities when a more basic priority, such as not getting shot isnt being met
well, frankly, if the inhabitants of the country in question (and this could apply to any country) are too stupid to let people rebuild before leaving, then they deserve all they get.
And how is building a big-ass Embassy going to solve that basic priority? Insightful comment, Wireframe, except that there has never been that much "rebuilding" going on. Priorities always lay with oil production, not infrastructure. The rebuilding of Iraq has been an organisational joke, or nightmare, depending on your point of view, well before you start considering sabotage by terrorists. Do some research on it, you'll see what I mean. Consider this: when utilities got knocked out after the bombing of Baghdad in the first Gulf War, Saddam got it back up and running in three weeks. Electricity, water, the works. After the second Gulf War, it has now been three years and the Allies still haven't got them up and running. The people who are preventing the rebuilding, of course, are a terrorist minority that have nothing to do with the (alledged stupidity of the) majority of citizens who just want to get on with their lives (after all, most Iraqis are grateful for our intervention, remember? ). Oh, and that terrorist minority got free reign because the Allies overthrew the only power that kept those elements out of the country and under control.
Personally, I love Venesula's (sp?) response to the U.S. "**** off! If you attack us, we're blowing up all of our oil fields!" Hahaha, I roffled when I read that in the news earlier today.
I really don't think there is any supposedly about it. Hmmm. Yes Saddam did keep a tight grip on his country. How did he do this, ah yes, killing you if you didnt' vote for him, torturing and terrorizing his people, and massacring thousands of his own people( and his sons were worse than he was). And a lot of the terrorists were once employed by Saddam, I wonder why they're mad. I'm not trying to defend the US's handling of resonstruction in Iraq, just pointing out that Saddam isn't very good support for an argument.
Right, to us an embassy means diplomacy. I'm trying to think from a generic Iraqi's point of view: Saddam was bad (and I'll agree, he was a bad guy). He tortured, he killed. But, he kept the warlords in their places and he managed to get most of the infrastructure up and running shortly after the first war. The US just came over, blew the place up and got rid of Saddam becasue he was a bad guy. Or was it because they were looking for Osama? Oh right, it was the WMDs, wasn't it? Looking for terrorists? Well, that part doesn't matter now because we have Democracy. See, I voted. Of course while we're glad Saddam is gone, the US continues to blow stuff up, the warlords have taken over, and there is no infrastructure after 3 years. And now the US is building a gigantic compound to keep the goverment people safe. But still, we have Democracy. -monkey
Only if we prove that we are better than him, or at least, offer his people a better alternative. So far we haven't. Pot, kettle. That embassy is going to be one glass house.
Why not just get US soldiers to build it then with their bulldozers and stuff...and hire machines... hmmmm (sarcasm).
