Why isn't the UK paying more for the Iraq war?

[Middle finga]

Is it me or does anyone else think that the United Kingdom is not paying their fair share of the of the mess that they helped create in Iraq. UK has spent a total of $13 Billion on military operations and rebuilding in Iraq so far. Now conservative estimates say the US has spent nearly $450 Billion.

Now if both countries were forced to pay for the Iraq war based on the size of their economies, then you would have to agree the UK is getting off big time compared to what the American tax payers are paying. Based on GDP our economy is $13 Trillion annually and the UK is $2.1 Trillion annually. The US economy is 6 times that of the UK economy, so that means for every $6 dollars we pay the UK should have to pay a dollar. So if the Iraq war cost for the US and UK is $ 463 Billion so far, the UK should be required to pay approximately $66 Billion of that cost.

This should also apply to troop levels, if the "coalition of the killing" agree that they need a 170 thousand troops in Iraq then the UK should chip in 28.3 thousand soldiers based on their population. The UK population is 60 million and ours is 300 million. The US population is 5 times that of the UK, so for every 5 soldiers we contribute the UK should be required to contribute 1 soldier. I think this should apply to all the original "coalition of the killing" partners because without their complicity the war criminal George Bush couldn't have pulled this war off.

In no way am I in support of the Iraq war and the atrocities that have taken place because of the invasion. The point I'm trying to make is the so called coalition countries should also have to pay equally for their leaders decision just like the American people will have to pay for our idiot's decision even after he's long gone. The additional money should go strictly to rebuilding, security and reparations for the Iraqi people.

[Greeby]

1. Why should we pay?

We as a nation stood up and said no to this war. Biggest demonstrations ever seen in London. And President Tony just did it anyway (remember, the use of our armed forces is granted by the Queen, not by any elected body).

Besides, we're paying with bombs going off and people dying on the London Underground. We're paying with doctors trying to ram a 4X4 into an airport terminal and trying to ignite gas canisters. (Granted the only person he killed was himself, but you get my point)

[indepat]

3. Could it be the UK has a bit more savvy and good sense and fewer religious and other RW zealots?

The UK's annual defense spending is also much more in line with reason and rationality than is a nation whose population is 5% or so of the world, but spends about as much on national defense as the other 95% all the while its infrastructure rots and its health-care-delivery system is third rate and third-world like.

Edited: punctuation

[Middle finga]

5. Oh Really

"Could it be the UK has a bit more savvy and good sense and fewer religious and other RW zealots"

Then why did they march side by side and willingly into the Iraq quagmire with our religious and RW zealots. I understand that the majority of the Brits were against this war but their elected leaders chose to roll with George Bush so the Brits should have pay the equivalent amount that we have to pay.

Matter of fact Blair and his party was reelected after the invasion of Iraq so they must not have been too angry with him.

[indepat]

12. Note the qualifiers "bit more"

[Prophet 451]

14. Blair was re-elected purely because there was no realistic alternative

There are three mainstream parties in UK politics: Labour, Tory and Liberals. Blair was Labour leader so the only alternatives were Torys (swung to the extreme right-fringe) and Liberals were in the middle of a leadership crisis (it was starting to come to light that Charlie Kennedy was an alcoholic). Remember, we vote for the party here, NOT the person.

Incidently, well over 60% of the UK population was opposed to invading Iraq without UN authorisation and a fair portion of those (myself included) marched to oppose it.

I think a more realistic way of working it out is this: What percentage of troops did we contribute? Since we then made that percentage of the mess, we should pay that percentage of the clean-up bill. That seems fair.

[dipsydoodle]

2. Basically because we're not stupid enough

to let our Government get away it. Aside from which the USA uses fiat money and we don't i.e they just print the fucking stuff willy nilly.

[Harmonicaman]

4. Explaining It To Repugs and Fundies

the tame poodle, arse licking prick that was "leading" my country lied us into a war the vast majority of us didn't want.

We pay for what we put in, but then again our troops are undefunded and under-equipped as well.

As far as I'm concerned its the Red-Neck Right Wing Fundie Christian American War - they wanted it they should bloody well pay for it and send their own kids to fight in it.

oh as for Iran - to any Bush Supporting Christian Fundie blinker wearing idealogue happening to be reading this....

you're on your own..pay the bills and send your own kids to fight it - the rest of us, including the majority of other Americans have seen through the lies and bullshit and have had enough.

Its your rapture - Not mine

[Middle finga]

9. The point I'm trying to make is

if we claim that we're living in a democracy or a republic then the excuse of "Our leader lied us into war that the majority didn't want" wouldn't cut it in an international court they may give you pass if you were living under a dictatorship. We have a congress and a so called free media and England has a Parliment and a media so US an UK citizens shouldn't have been duped and since we were duped we should deal harshly with ones that duped us but in the meantime both nation have a bill to pay to rebuild Iraq.

[fedsron2us]

6. Who said war was fair ?

[BlackHawk706867]

7. If you have a problem with the money being spent, take it outta GWB's...

monies... He's the one who started this war and I don't see why any other countries should pay one dime toward it. Besides, last time I checked he was the leader of the US not the UK.

ww

[stormymonday]

8. Because the Iraq war is about the US Empire

not the British Empire. If you want to be the worlds single global super power you have to pay the price.

BTW why are you trolling this idea here this is not an editorial or an article. You state that you do not support the Iraq war while at the same time implying that US allies should supply more troops and spend more money on it. Your logic belies your claims. If the war is wrong then all US and British troops should be withdrawn immediately. As for compensating the Iraqis for their suffering that should be a matter for the UN or the International court to decide not the US government. The British public might have been stupid for re-electing Blair after the Iraq invasion (nb - his party only got 39% of the vote so he was not as popular as you think) but the US electorate did the same thing with George W. Bush. Why should British taxpayers compensate US taxpayers for the US electorates own poor decision.

[Fearless]

10. Umm... because they're smart.

[Vidar]

11. Because the UK is smarter than the US.

[Diclotican]

13. Middle Finga

Hello

Whay in the world should other nation than the US pay for that historic mess that Iraq have been?.. We as a whole, ie the most of the european continent was told that we was "irellvant" in the startup to Iraq. We haved a Secretary of Defence who dismisset 85 prosent of the NATO alliance as "the old europe". And want to get suport from the "new europe" IE the old east euoperan block, who just have been granted membership into NATO. You have a Administration who dont have NO respect for international cotyme, and now you want Europe to pay the bills becouse the war are costing a lot mor money that your goverment was thinking it should...

Do you se how STUPID ARROGANT and futile this argument you getting into in fact is?. Do you understand that THIS AMERICAN ADMINISTRATION blow a lot of suport allready long before the first rocket was fired?. Long before the first rocket hit the target in Iraq?.. You dont "harass" your allied if you want them to pay for the mess after the war was over.. And in this case send money AND troops becouse the US armed forces just dont get enough recruts to be send to Iraq.. The next on the "enternal war" in US is no doubt the DRAFT... Belive me if US want to follow that stupid path of mr Bush, they need ALL the bodyes they can get.. Even thru a DRAFT...

Sorry my friend.. This is a bill US have to pay on your own pocket.. If Mr Bush had played his card better after 911, he "may" have get many other nations in Europe not just to pay the bills, manybee to get mutch more armed forces to suport the US in Iraq too...

Diclotican

Sorry my bad engelish, not my native language

[Middle finga]

17. I'm not saying the rest of Europe should help pay

Countries like France and Germany were smart enough and honest enough not to go along with the criminal mission. But Tony Blair on the other hand who represented the UK not only joined this neocon adventure but he helped to sell the lies to the rest of the world. Blair was not deceived, he was one of main deceivers. So UK should have to pay a higher price for Blair's action. When you lie down with dogs you can expect to get up with fleas.

[struggle4progress]

15. Because the Iraq war is BushCo's effort to accomplish the following goals:

(1) bankrupt the US Federal government; (2) shovel dollars into rightwing Republican pockets; (3) solidify US control of limited resources; and (4) justify acts based on the "unitary executive" theory.

The "coalition" was largely a propaganda cover, assembled under the threat that when goal (3) was achieved, non-partners would pay for their failure to play. But BushCo didn't push harder for more financial support from coalition "partners" for the supposed objectives of the adventure because it would have undermined goal (1) and because no real partners would have tolerated the fiduciary non-accountability required for goal (2).

[Middle finga]

18. That doesn't excuse Blair/UK

and if I was the next president I would confront the UK about coming up with more money. I wouldn't care what deals Bush and Blair made in private all I know Blair was instrumental in starting this mess and it's gonna take a ton of money to fix so england need to cough up and if they're pissed off about it they should take their frustrations out on Blair just like we should punish Bush but in the meantime Iraq still need to be fixed.

[kickysnana]

16. Bush said war was over years ago why is anyone paying for it? n/t

[Middle finga]

19. I know you're being sarcastic, look I'm not saying that the money

should go to war. The country need to be rebuilt even if we turn the mission over to the UN we should take care of the cost. There's millions of Iraqis need to be repatriated, areas need to be rebuilt etc. Just cause Blair and eventually Bush will be gone doesn't mean we can just wash our hands of Iraq, both countries should have to pay up.