Quote Originally Posted by fishman3811
"The 'reconstruction' of Iraq is the largest American-led occupation programme since the Marshall Plan (for reconstruction of Europe after the second world war)," analyst Ed Harriman wrote in the London Review of Books. "But there is a difference: the U.S.. government funded the Marshall Plan whereas (defence secretary) Donald Rumsfeld and (former administrator of Iraq) Paul Bremer have made sure that the reconstruction of Iraq is paid for by the 'liberated' country, by the Iraqis themselves."

Nevertheless, while the U.S. Congress voted to spend 18.4 billion dollars of U.S. taxpayers' money in Iraq on 'reconstruction', Harriman says that "by 28 June last year, when Bremer left Baghdad two days early to avoid possible attack on the way to the airport, his CPA (Coalition Provisional Authority) had spent up to 20 billion dollars of Iraqi money, compared to 300 million dollars of U.S. funds."
It's so easy to find the flaws in these b.s. stories. So how is it, are the poor Iraqis required to rebuild their own country or is the U.S. along with SEVERAL nations donating funds for the effort?

Have a good one!:s4:
Psycho4Bud Reviewed by Psycho4Bud on . The View from Baghdad Blair's Departure By PATRICK COCKBURN Iraq may be seen in Britain as Tony Blair's nemesis but Iraqis yesterday greeted his departure with utter indifference. Asked what they thought about it, most simply shrugged their shoulders and looked surprised at being asked the question. Others said they saw him as a surrogate for President Bush. It is easy to see why Mr Blair is not regarded with more affection in Iraq. On 8 April 2003, just before the fall of Saddam Hussein, British troops distributed a Rating: 5