« Oh My God, Oh His God, Oh Her God, Oh Your God | Main | BP Oil Spill Questions »

July 28, 2010

Comments

Echoing Colin Powell, you break it, you buy it.

Humanitarian assistance for refugees and displaced persons, much like unemployment insurance, merely subsidizes and encourages refugee status and displacement.

Ordnance raining from the sky and civil war were not the cause of the problems in Iraq. It was the carrot of humanitarian assistance that drew millions of people from their homes just ahead of the explosions.

They virtually cha-cha'd across borders, waggling their fingers, singing "We Loves Us A Hand-Out") to set up the happy hovels of the serially dependent.

What most people don't know, too, is that minutes before the bombing, Saddam Hussein passed a hike in marginal taxes. Many of these so-called refugess were small businessmen quitting their jobs, gathering their families up, and fleeing to freedom.

The fact that the bombs hit so soon after and blew up their homes and places of work so they could collect humanitarian assistance was just gravy.

We have to divert that money to building orphanages in Afghanistan that don't have any orphans.

Halfway through 2010, the US has only contributed $7.2 million to the [Iraq Humanitarian Action Plan] and other humanitarian assistance programs in Iraq

This is terrible. This is really, really bad.

I could hardly believe it was true so I went to look for the UN documents upon which this is based, and yep, it's true all right.

Now, it's not quite as bad as it seems: the $7.2 million figure was based on July 9, 2010 numbers, and the amount donated by the US government is now up to $13.6 million. (See "Iraq 2010" in this document: http:\\ocha.unog.ch/fts/reports/daily/ocha_Rdonor6_DC224_Y2010___1007290206.pdf


And the US government has also donated $17.7. million in 2010 for "Iraqi Refugees in Neighbouring Countries" (see above document).

But still. $13.6 million for all humanitarian relief in the ENTIRE COUNTRY?

You have got to be kidding me.

I suggest we donate 9 billion, but this time not let 95% of it fall off the back of the truck.

Just remember, we invaded to help the Iraqi people and rid them of Saddam.

Just remember, we invaded to help the Iraqi people and rid them of Saddam.

And isn't that, as Stephen Colbert would say, the greatest gift of all?

I suggest we donate 9 billion, but this time not let 95% of it fall off the back of the truck.

Ah, that's crazy talk.

IMO Any war fought "for the benefit of the citizens" should immediately result in opening up immigration to all citizens of the country we've invaded. Seems pretty basic. But, wait, that would be an actual helpful thing to do that would demonstrate real good will - not even up for discussion.

Echoing Colin Powell,
we know from sources that a missile brigade outside Baghdad was dispersing rocket launchers and warheads containing biological warfare agents to various locations, distributing them to various locations in western Iraq. Most of the launchers and warheads have been hidden in large groves of palm trees and were to be moved every one to four weeks to escape detection.
...
We also have satellite photos that indicate that banned materials have recently been moved from a number of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction facilities.

This one is about a weapons munition facility, a facility that holds ammunition at a place called Taji. This is one of about 65 such facilities in Iraq. We know that this one has housed chemical munitions. In fact, this is where the Iraqis recently came up with the additional four chemical weapon shells.

Here, you see 15 munitions bunkers in yellow and red outlines. The four that are in red squares represent active chemical munitions bunkers.
...
This is evidence, not conjecture. This is true. This is all well-documented.

What I don't see is any discussion of whether the funds are shifting from NGO's to the Iraq government itself. Is that happening?

From what I understand, the government is running a deficit but does have substantial revenues and will probably be running a balanced budget with increased revenues in 2013-2014 when production levels increase.

If the Iraq government doesn't have the funds, then no doubt we should be continuing to provide humanitarian assistance until funds become available.

But if they're running a deficit, do they have the funds? In the amounts required given the enormity of the humanitarian crisis caused by the invasion?

And is it right to hand it all off to the Iraqi government. Kind of like, "oops, our bad, but you can take care of this now."

What's a few million displaced persons between friends!

The US has only contributed $7.2 million? So little....

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad