| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Branson Hunter" |
| Date: |
13 Jun 2005 08:05:17 AM |
| Object: |
1 billion to build Baghdad embassy |
By Pamela Hess
UPI Pentagon Correspondent
$1B spent on Baghdad embassy
Washington, DC, Jun. 2 (UPI) -- Two years after the invasion of Iraq,
the United States has spent $990 million on U.S. "embassy" operations
there, but none of that has been put toward building a permanent home
for the U.S. diplomatic presence, according to a report for Congress.
That project will cost taxpayers another $1.3 billion, only $20
million of which has been put toward the project so far, according to
an April report from the Congressional Research Service.
However, two weeks ago Congress approved nearly half that amount to
begin construction of the site.
With a staff of about 1,000 Americans and 400 Iraqis, the mission is
one of the United States' largest. It is dramatically larger than what
came before it in Baghdad: When the United States pulled out of the
country after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990, the embassy staff
numbered around 50 and had an annual operating budget of $3.5 million
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20050602-040125-3089r.htm
Copyright 2005 United Press International
Fair Use Notice: This use of this article constitutes "fair use"
of copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S.
Copyright Law, and is made available in accordance with Title 17
U.S.C. § 107 in an effort to advance the understanding of
environmental, political, human rights, economic,democratic,
scientific, social, cultural or educational issues.
.
|
|
| User: "Larry Hewitt" |
|
| Title: Re: 1 billion to build Baghdad embassy |
13 Jun 2005 11:19:05 AM |
|
|
"Branson Hunter" <branson@xspam.net> wrote in message
news:2t0ra15td9l7aj6mar8vf4jasdms3ecpgr@4ax.com...
By Pamela Hess
UPI Pentagon Correspondent
$1B spent on Baghdad embassy
Washington, DC, Jun. 2 (UPI) -- Two years after the invasion of Iraq,
the United States has spent $990 million on U.S. "embassy" operations
there, but none of that has been put toward building a permanent home
for the U.S. diplomatic presence, according to a report for Congress.
That project will cost taxpayers another $1.3 billion, only $20
million of which has been put toward the project so far, according to
an April report from the Congressional Research Service.
However, two weeks ago Congress approved nearly half that amount to
begin construction of the site.
With a staff of about 1,000 Americans and 400 Iraqis, the mission is
one of the United States' largest. It is dramatically larger than what
came before it in Baghdad: When the United States pulled out of the
country after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990, the embassy staff
numbered around 50 and had an annual operating budget of $3.5 million
A great base for colonial operatons.
Larry
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20050602-040125-3089r.htm
Copyright 2005 United Press International
Fair Use Notice: This use of this article constitutes "fair use"
of copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S.
Copyright Law, and is made available in accordance with Title 17
U.S.C. § 107 in an effort to advance the understanding of
environmental, political, human rights, economic,democratic,
scientific, social, cultural or educational issues.
.
|
|
|
| User: "NV_BC" |
|
| Title: Re: 1 billion to build Baghdad embassy |
13 Jun 2005 10:24:05 PM |
|
|
"Larry Hewitt" <larryhewi@comporium.net> wrote in message
news:d8kblg$achm$1@news3.infoave.net...
"Branson Hunter" <branson@xspam.net> wrote in message
news:2t0ra15td9l7aj6mar8vf4jasdms3ecpgr@4ax.com...
By Pamela Hess
UPI Pentagon Correspondent
$1B spent on Baghdad embassy
Washington, DC, Jun. 2 (UPI) -- Two years after the invasion of Iraq,
the United States has spent $990 million on U.S. "embassy" operations
there, but none of that has been put toward building a permanent home
for the U.S. diplomatic presence, according to a report for Congress.
That project will cost taxpayers another $1.3 billion, only $20
million of which has been put toward the project so far, according to
an April report from the Congressional Research Service.
However, two weeks ago Congress approved nearly half that amount to
begin construction of the site.
With a staff of about 1,000 Americans and 400 Iraqis, the mission is
one of the United States' largest. It is dramatically larger than what
came before it in Baghdad: When the United States pulled out of the
country after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990, the embassy staff
numbered around 50 and had an annual operating budget of $3.5 million
Yeah but they did save a bunch of money by switching to Geico.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Branson Hunter" |
|
| Title: Re: 1 billion to build Baghdad embassy |
13 Jun 2005 01:16:53 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 12:19:05 -0400, "Larry Hewitt"
<larryhewi@comporium.net> wrote:
A great base for colonial operatons.
Larry, do you know how many permanent bases have already been build,
or are in progress, in Afghanistan and Iraq?
Branson
"As Americans, we want peace... I'm not willing to stake
one American life on trusting Saddam Hussein."
-- George W. Bush, October 7, 2002
.
|
|
|
| User: "Larry Hewitt" |
|
| Title: Re: 1 billion to build Baghdad embassy |
13 Jun 2005 02:36:39 PM |
|
|
"Branson Hunter" <branson@xspam.net> wrote in message
news:plira11dcb21c9314b8neeo8tn6umcqk5f@4ax.com...
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 12:19:05 -0400, "Larry Hewitt"
<larryhewi@comporium.net> wrote:
A great base for colonial operatons.
Larry, do you know how many permanent bases have already been build,
or are in progress, in Afghanistan and Iraq?
Not exactly, but certainly more than a dozen.
All colonial operations need an administrative HQ. The existing bases are
all military, intended to keep the population pacified. The new $1.3BILLION
embassy with 1000 US employees and 400 colonial employees is required to
administer Iraq --- to siphon off oil profits and to manage commerce,
infrastructure, imports/exports, education, and news media.
It can be nothing else. It is far larger and far more expensive than the
previous winner, the Moscow embassy, with all of its special provisions for
spying and counter spying.
Such an expenditure and such massive staffing levels cannot be justified if
we intend to return Iraq to self determination in a few years --- especially
given that construction funding is long term. The only possible conclusion
is Bush is lying (surprise!) and intends to stay there for a very long time.
Larry
Branson
"As Americans, we want peace... I'm not willing to stake
one American life on trusting Saddam Hussein."
-- George W. Bush, October 7, 2002
.
|
|
|
| User: "Branson Hunter" |
|
| Title: Re: 1 billion to build Baghdad embassy |
13 Jun 2005 05:28:24 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 15:36:39 -0400, "Larry Hewitt"
<larryhewi@comporium.net> wrote:
"Branson Hunter" <branson@xspam.net> wrote in message
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 12:19:05 -0400, "Larry Hewitt"
<larryhewi@comporium.net> wrote:
Larry, do you know how many permanent bases have already been build,
or are in progress, in Afghanistan and Iraq?
Not exactly, but certainly more than a dozen.
All colonial operations need an administrative HQ. The existing bases are
all military, intended to keep the population pacified. The new $1.3BILLION
embassy with 1000 US employees and 400 colonial employees is required to
administer Iraq --- to siphon off oil profits and to manage commerce,
infrastructure, imports/exports, education, and news media.
It can be nothing else. It is far larger and far more expensive than the
previous winner, the Moscow embassy, with all of its special provisions for
spying and counter spying.
Such an expenditure and such massive staffing levels cannot be justified if
we intend to return Iraq to self determination in a few years --- especially
given that construction funding is long term. The only possible conclusion
is Bush is lying (surprise!) and intends to stay there for a very long time.
Nice post, Larry. Just finishing reading an article by Winslow T.
Wheeler, Visiting Senior fellow at the Center for Defense Information,
dated Tuesday, June 13, 2005. He states this Administration and the
neo-cons have come out-of-the cold and have (finally) played their
cards. One of their ravenous plans is this:
-
"One of the grand Create new networks of overseas bases," which is
explained as a "semipermanent ring of 'frontier forts' along the
American security perimeter from West Africa to East Asia." Plus, as
Donnelly explained in his verbal comments, the US "homeland" (not to
be confused with the above mentioned "American security perimeter"
from Morocco to Japan) includes the area defined in the Monroe
Doctrine, i.e. the Caribbean and Central America."
[Complete Article http://www.counterpunch.org/]
Our government (to date) and most of America's wealth has been usurped
by the errie malignity of American neo-con imperialists? Are we
becoming neo-fascist? Whattaya think Larry?
Branson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Larry Hewitt" |
|
| Title: Re: 1 billion to build Baghdad embassy |
13 Jun 2005 06:00:30 PM |
|
|
"Branson Hunter" <branson@xspam.net> wrote in message
news:7brra1t9ncn3rj1r06lc5f2puj55pfrmhj@4ax.com...
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 15:36:39 -0400, "Larry Hewitt"
<larryhewi@comporium.net> wrote:
"Branson Hunter" <branson@xspam.net> wrote in message
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 12:19:05 -0400, "Larry Hewitt"
<larryhewi@comporium.net> wrote:
Larry, do you know how many permanent bases have already been build,
or are in progress, in Afghanistan and Iraq?
Not exactly, but certainly more than a dozen.
All colonial operations need an administrative HQ. The existing bases
are
all military, intended to keep the population pacified. The new
$1.3BILLION
embassy with 1000 US employees and 400 colonial employees is required to
administer Iraq --- to siphon off oil profits and to manage commerce,
infrastructure, imports/exports, education, and news media.
It can be nothing else. It is far larger and far more expensive than the
previous winner, the Moscow embassy, with all of its special provisions
for
spying and counter spying.
Such an expenditure and such massive staffing levels cannot be justified
if
we intend to return Iraq to self determination in a few years ---
especially
given that construction funding is long term. The only possible
conclusion
is Bush is lying (surprise!) and intends to stay there for a very long
time.
Nice post, Larry. Just finishing reading an article by Winslow T.
Wheeler, Visiting Senior fellow at the Center for Defense Information,
dated Tuesday, June 13, 2005. He states this Administration and the
neo-cons have come out-of-the cold and have (finally) played their
cards. One of their ravenous plans is this:
-
"One of the grand Create new networks of overseas bases," which is
explained as a "semipermanent ring of 'frontier forts' along the
American security perimeter from West Africa to East Asia." Plus, as
Donnelly explained in his verbal comments, the US "homeland" (not to
be confused with the above mentioned "American security perimeter"
from Morocco to Japan) includes the area defined in the Monroe
Doctrine, i.e. the Caribbean and Central America."
[Complete Article http://www.counterpunch.org/]
Our government (to date) and most of America's wealth has been usurped
by the errie malignity of American neo-con imperialists? Are we
becoming neo-fascist? Whattaya think Larry?
We got there last year when Bush arranged to steal his second appointment to
the presidency.
Larry
Branson
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
