SnyderShrugged Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 I could certainly see situations where countries could agree to pay us for the protection of our troops. We can't impose those deals unilaterally, and after the fact. Fair enough So lets look at Iraq again though. They want our troops there to protect them even after many years post-sadaam. Shouldnt we now demand payment for continued presence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 $1 billion off of $33 billion is fine, IMO. I doubt the US deducts it though, but instead uses their help as leverage with the new Libyan government. I'm fine with that as we've helped take out a dictator whose regime has supported terrorism and now have a new government stepping up that owes us. But the suggestions of having Iraq or Afghanistan repay us hundreds of billions of dollars is ludicrous IMO. The Libyan revolution was started by it's citizens and we along with others provided assistance. Iraq and Afghanistan we invaded, and making them incur that debt would send them spiraling backward. The suggestion reminds me of the fallout from WWI and Germany being required to pay other countries back, and that combined with global economic downturn made German money better as firewood than currency and sent the population into a vulnerable, angry state which was taken advantage of by Hitler and his party. If we forced Iraq or Afghanistan to pay us back and it sent their economies into a downward spiral and into a depression, they'd blame us, regimes could be formed against us, and we're back at square one, everything we spent up to that point to stabilize those areas is then for naught. JMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 I could certainly see situations where countries could agree to pay us for the protection of our troops. We can't impose those deals unilaterally, and after the fact. Agreed. Also I think we will get some sort of reimbursment from this down the line. I just don't think we should take it ourselves now, or demand it publicly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 $1 billion off of $33 billion is fine, IMO. I doubt the US deducts it though, but instead uses their help as leverage with the new Libyan government. I'm fine with that as we've helped take out a dictator whose regime has supported terrorism and now have a new government stepping up that owes us.But the suggestions of having Iraq or Afghanistan repay us hundreds of billions of dollars is ludicrous IMO. The Libyan revolution was started by it's citizens and we along with others provided assistance. Iraq and Afghanistan we invaded, and making them incur that debt would send them spiraling backward. The suggestion reminds me of the fallout from WWI and Germany being required to pay other countries back, and that combined with global economic downturn made German money better as firewood than currency and sent the population into a vulnerable, angry state which was taken advantage of by Hitler and his party. If we forced Iraq or Afghanistan to pay us back and it sent their economies into a downward spiral and into a depression, they'd blame us, regimes could be formed against us, and we're back at square one, everything we spent up to that point to stabilize those areas is then for naught. JMHO. So now that it has been around a decade after their "liberation" who should be paying for our troops to camp out there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Fair enoughSo lets look at Iraq again though. They want our troops there to protect them even after many years post-sadaam. Shouldnt we now demand payment for continued presence? This is a different situation and it makes a lot more sense to ask for money in this case. We should demand payment imo. Cause it costs us money. My guess is that we don't ask for money because our government would do it for free anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 This is a different situation and it makes a lot more sense to ask for money in this case. We should demand payment imo. Cause it costs us money. My guess is that we don't ask for money because our government would do it for free anyway. I think we are on the same rough page (at least chapter!) then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Fair enoughSo lets look at Iraq again though. They want our troops there to protect them even after many years post-sadaam. Shouldnt we now demand payment for continued presence? You find other ways for repayment, such as share in resources. Plus, we put ourselves there, we deal with the consequences. Our continued presence is a result of a draw back plan that is gradual and born out of a desire to maintain stability through a transition period. It's our plan to still have some soldiers there, so we accept the consequences of our actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 So now that it has been around a decade after their "liberation" who should be paying for our troops to camp out there? Is that who would get the money, the troops? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 You find other ways for repayment, such as share in resources. Plus, we put ourselves there, we deal with the consequences. Our continued presence is a result of a draw back plan that is gradual and born out of a desire to maintain stability through a transition period. It's our plan to still have some soldiers there, so we accept the consequences of our actions. No, they asked us to stay beyond 2011 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-13722786 Why isnt SA or Kuwait paying us for our presence? ---------- Post added October-20th-2011 at 01:38 PM ---------- Is that who would get the money, the troops? LOL< nope, the empty treasury coffers that we currently have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Elka....we did not have parts of the Iraq and Afghanistan population on our side? The Kurds,Shia and Northern Tribes in Afghanistan will beg to differ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 No, they asked us to stay beyond 2011http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-13722786 Why isnt SA or Kuwait paying us for our presence? ---------- Post added October-20th-2011 at 01:38 PM ---------- LOL< nope, the empty treasury coffers that we currently have. Ok, well then yes, since Iraq is asking for some troops to stay past our withdrawl deadline then they should offer some form of compensation. SA and Kuwait as far as I know we have bases there and that's about strategy for the entire region. Are we providing either SA or Kuwait a bunch of protection or doing tasks for them? Heck, we have bases in Europe, should we be asking Germany for example for compensation? Or is it that them allowing a base on their land and our presence compensation? Iraq is now asking us to stay past the deadline, are SA and Kuwait asking us to stay to help them, or is our presence there our desire for military strategy for the Middle East? If both sides are gaining in the arrangement then compensation is not necessary I believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Maybe they should have. We didn't have to go in, you know.And that is not really what this discussion is about, is it? What this discussion is about is some people seeming to think that the US can pretty much impose any after the fact "deal" on a weaker country, and pretending that there will be no diplomatic consequences from doing so (or just not caring). This is a really stupid idea with great populist emotional appeal. Did the Tea Party or the Occupy Wall Street people come up with it? I think you're taking the point more specifically than others. I dont think can or should send a bill to Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya. However, the next time a nation would like our help, I think it needs to be part of the discussion and equation. EDIT. Just saw your other response. We agree in principle it appears. Which means it has to be terribly wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Elka....we did not have parts of the Iraq and Afghanistan population on our side?The Kurds,Shia and Northern Tribes in Afghanistan will beg to differ I didn't say that at all, so spare me your condescending and unnecessary remarks, like I don't know the US had allied regimes in either country. Tell me, were either having successful rebellions which only required outside assistance and no troop commitments like Libya? Nope. We invaded the other two, so to ask for repayment for invasion is ludicrous. To ask for repayment for assisting with a rebellion, when the amount is only 1/33rd of what they'll receive, is a different story and a very clear point I made. You wouldn't have missed it had you bothered to address the whole of my post instead of commenting on just one fraction of it and completely misconstruing the point. Sorry if I sound like a jerk in my response, but it's very irritating when someone argues against a point I didn't make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Ok, well then yes, since Iraq is asking for some troops to stay past our withdrawl deadline then they should offer some form of compensation.SA and Kuwait as far as I know we have bases there and that's about strategy for the entire region. Are we providing either SA or Kuwait a bunch of protection or doing tasks for them? Heck, we have bases in Europe, should we be asking Germany for example for compensation? Or is it that them allowing a base on their land and our presence compensation? Iraq is now asking us to stay past the deadline, are SA and Kuwait asking us to stay to help them, or is our presence there our desire for military strategy for the Middle East? If both sides are gaining in the arrangement then compensation is not necessary I believe. Yes, we should ask for compensatyion from every country that we keep bases in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 So people want the US to turn into homeless windshield washers. Show up, do something, and then expect compensation. Prices are negotiated UP FRONT not after the fact as a "oh by the way" scam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 So people want the US to turn into homeless windshield washers. Show up, do something, and then expect compensation. Prices are negotiated UP FRONT not after the fact as a "oh by the way" scam. Would you agree that should be part of our international footprint going forward? Let the world know this police force is no longer a volunteer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Would you agree that should be part of our international footprint going forward?Let the world know this police force is no longer a volunteer. In certain situations it makes sense to negotiate up front. Libya for instance. They asked for western air power and the response should have been "sure but..." There is always a chance the people you are speaking with won't have power later and can't come through, but that's a risk that needs to be considered before making an offer. I'm not saying it has to be a signed check but if the goal is upside then agree on the front end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 "having successful rebellions which only required outside assistance and no troop commitments like Libya? "" If ya don't want me to condescend ya are gonna need to stop using phrases like this I remember it as come protect us or he is gonna kill us all selling it as taking the losing side in a civil war loses justification needed for UN cover Humanitarians don't demand pay,mercenaries do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 "having successful rebellions which only required outside assistance and no troop commitments like Libya? ""If ya don't want me to condescend ya are gonna need to stop using phrases like this I remember it as come protect us or he is gonna kill us all selling it as taking the losing side in a civil war loses justification needed for UN cover Humanitarians don't demand pay,mercenaries do. if we're gonna act like a world government then it might make sense to start taxing the world Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 "having successful rebellions which only required outside assistance and no troop commitments like Libya? ""If ya don't want me to condescend ya are gonna need to stop using phrases like this I remember it as come protect us or he is gonna kill us all selling it as taking the losing side in a civil war loses justification needed for UN cover Humanitarians don't demand pay,mercenaries do. mercenaries is exactly how our troops have been used. Might as well have the customers foot the bill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 if we're gonna act like a world government then it might make sense to start taxing the world Good point Maybe we can be a sub-contractor to the UN? Join the Coalition of the Billing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Good pointMaybe we can be a sub-contractor to the UN? Join the Coalition of the Billing we are the 99% or something like that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 We should be reimbursed for ALOT of wars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Lindsey Graham was just saying on CNN that he and others are urging the administration to help out with medical relief and reconstruction and that Libya has promised to reimburse them if they do. He says that Obama and co. are taking the idea seriously. (this seems to be aside from what has already been done though) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWFLSkins Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Are we using our military as mercenaries? Corporations certainly are. ---------- Post added October-20th-2011 at 05:37 PM ---------- We should be reimbursed for ALOT of wars. funny most leaders up until the US never asked, they just went ahead and paid themselves and their people handsomely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.