Foreign Affairs Discussion Group Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Harvey Allen who wrote (113907)	9/4/2003 3:49:54 PM
From: Win Smith	Read Replies (2) of 281500

Harvey, it'd be nice. But the cost of the military operations are such that it's hard to see a lot of money going toward much else. I remember an article about Afghanistan last spring or so, where the military costs were supposed to be running at $1 billion / month while non-military aid was dribbling in at maybe $30 million / month. I have no idea what current aid figures in Iraq are, but cost-plus open-ended contracts from KBR are not likely to be a bargain for anybody. Development is a very hard nut to crack. If you look around the world, there's a few places that are doing really well in the globalization game (China, India mainly) but many that are just falling further out of the game (most of Africa, say). Iraq does have the advantage that they'll probably get to walk away from a lot of their international debt, an advantage that the IMF/World Bank regime wouldn't think of allowing many much poorer countries. On the other hand, last I heard the occupation plan was to mortgage a lot of Iraq's future oil revenue to pay off the KBR crew.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next