Does the United States owe Iraq war reparations?

[sdbest]

The United States and other "coalition" countries invaded Iraq illegally, according to, at least, Kofi Annan, the former Secretary General of the United Nations. Annan's view would likely be upheld in an international court of law.

None of the original U.S. claims for invading Iraq have turned out to be true. Iraq was not a threat either to the U.S. or its neighbors. The killing of many hundreds of thousands of innocent people by the U.S. and its "coalition" allies was unnecessary.

The U.S. has lost the war in Iraq, and will be forced to leave within a few years--if not sooner.

Given the above, do the U.S. and its "coalition" allies owe Iraq war reparations? If so, why? If not, why not? And if so, how much?

Evading the questions by arguing the U.S. would never pay even if found guilty of illegally invading Iraq would not be helpful.

Regards
S.

[Clarence]

unfortunately, we should have to.

[Maybe-not]

Naturally they do. And the ammount.. Well, as the USA being a economic superpower, we don't have to worry about long term economic problems. (As war reparations from Germany after WW2). So i say, what it takes to rebuild anything that broke during the war. Due to American/Allied bombings, and Terrorist destruction.

America has done all they can to encourage more terrorism. The "Share and rule" tactic at work. If the country beats itself up, and divides into several smaller states, they are all easy'r to dominate. The extensive bombings being one part of this strategy. There is no question America is extremely military superior to Iraq. There was no need to bomb fx. Baghdad. Those were Terror bombings.

[Clarence]

U.S., Iraq, Iran plan security committee - Yahoo! News

I think this might be a step in the right direction. so long as it's not another avenue to jerk these people around.

BAGHDAD - The United States, Iran and Iraq have agreed to set up a security subcommittee to carry forward talks on restoring stability in Iraq, the U.S. envoy said Tuesday at the end of a second round of groundbreaking talks with his Iranian counterpart. ADVERTISEMENT "We discussed ways forward, and one of the issues we discussed was the formation of a security subcommittee that would address at an expert or technical level some issues relating to security, be that support for violent militias, al-Qaida or border security," Ambassador Ryan Crocker said after the meeting that included lunch and spanned nearly seven hours.

everyone needs to round up thier forces and consider the weak and innocent for a second. more like a decade.

[saif]

Quote by: sdbest according to, at least, Kofi Annan, the former Secretary General of the United Nations. Annan's view would likely be upheld in an international court of law.

If we have to pay war reparations I think Kofi Annan can pay them on behalf of the US with the oil for food scandal money!

[Ibn_Sina]

Yes, USA does owe many things to Iraq.

Although there is no compensation for innocent deaths, USA should rebuilt the infrastructures it bombed in 2003 onwards. USA should also pay, let's say 10 billion, to health programmes and security. In spite of the fact that USA does not believe in an economic system that spends money on civillian purposes, that is the type of reparation Iraq needs.

[rmnunez]

I think the answer depends on how much of a lefty one is. Those who normally oppose US foreign policy regardless of shape or form will see the US is clearly obligated to compensate Iraq for the harm and damage they've rendered and likely they'd expect valuation by western standards so whatever a wrongful death claim averages in US court would seem appropriate to multiply by whatever the critic believes is a 'reasonable' estimate of the casualties in Iraq. Probably they'd also expect the infrastructure to be better than merely restored, it would have to be upgraded to be fully functional despite any deficiencies it previously had. Given that many who were quite critical early-on so strongly endorsed this "nationbuilding" concept, likely something on the scale of the Marshall Plan (but without any strings attached) would be the ticket.

[sdbest]

[quote=rmnunez;412809]I think the answer depends on how much of a lefty one is. /QUOTE]

Now that you've set up and attacked the mythical straw man named "lefty." Perhaps you could tell us what his counterpart, "righty", might think about the U.S.'s and its "coalition" allies' obligations to Iraq for waging a preemptive, unnecessary war that has killed hundreds of thousands of people and caused billions of dollars worth of damage?

Regards
S.

[sdbest]

Quote by: saif If we have to pay war reparations I think Kofi Annan can pay them on behalf of the US with the oil for food scandal money!

According to the U.S. GAO the "oil for food scandal" netted Saddam Hussein regime about $10.1 billion in illegal revenues [Source].

So far the Iraq war has cost the U.S. over $450 billion [Source]. Given the death and damage such an amount of military actiion can inflict, I doubt that Annan could cover the war reparations the U.S. and its "coalition" partners should pay.

Nice try, but you can't put the U.S.'s and its "coalition" partners' obligations on to someone who didn't invade Iraq.

Regards
S.

[GodBlessAmerica]

If the Islamic culture wasn't so backwards, none of this would have come about.
As long as they value their hate over their women and children, they can not be a normal society.
They are hardly due reparations, but they should be submitted quite a bill IMO.

[sdbest]

Quote by: GodBlessAmerica If the Islamic culture wasn't so backwards, none of this would have come about. As long as they value their hate over their women and children, they can not be a normal society. They are hardly due reparations, but they should be submitted quite a bill IMO.

Given who illegally and unnecessarily invaded whom, I think it's not clear which culture is "backward", "the Islamic culture or the American culture.

Iraq was not invaded because "they value their hate over their women and children" which is a patently false statement but ostensibly to protect America and its allies from the smoking gun being a "mushroom cloud."

The American coalition illegally and unnecessarily invaded a country that was no threat and killed hundreds of thousands of people. America should pay for its war crime, just as Germany and Japan did.

Or is there one set of rules for America and one for everybody else?

Regards
S.

[Yarn]

Iraq has one of the most corrupt governments in the world, and is unsafe for NGOs. It would be incapable of getting much good out of reparations at the moment. The people with the power to would parasite the money and who would we use to deliver it-the only people we could use would be our troops, yet I have a better idea.

The US should pay reparations to humanity for what it did, and give the money to a country which will make good use of them. We are to blame for hundreds of thousands of deaths, so lets save hundreds of thousands lives, but the sad reality, is that we have no way of saving hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives.

Nevertheless, 40,000 people die of preventable causes a day, and most of them aren't Iraqi.

[GodBlessAmerica]

Quote by: sdbest Given who illegally and unnecessarily invaded whom, I think it's not clear which culture is "backward", "the Islamic culture or the American culture. Iraq was not invaded because "they value their hate over their women and children" which is a patently false statement but ostensibly to protect America and its allies from the smoking gun being a "mushroom cloud." The American coalition illegally and unnecessarily invaded a country that was no threat and killed hundreds of thousands of people. America should pay for its war crime, just as Germany and Japan did. Or is there one set of rules for America and one for everybody else? Regards S.

Saddam had recent mass graves, was shooting at Nato planes flying over for the UN 300 times a day and were trying to start up their nuclear programs.
The country was full of dual use parts, Iraq scientists has some parts buried around their homes and ex leaders of Saddam's military has reported lots of WMDs were transfered out in planes as disaster relief to Syria.
Saddam destabilized the Middle East. He had hosted terrorist training camps in Iraq and was threatening everyone.

Later we had Al Qaeda from Iran and Syria flow in as a proxy war, so it is a tough situation, but a just one.

We spent 50 years in Germany and Japan, to expect us to do miracles in 5 years is unheard of.

We most certainly don't want to listen to our liberals who made us leave Nam early causing a genocide after we left. This time we stay till it is stable and that is all.

If anything Iraq is welcome to help us later cover our expenses, not the other way around.

We have also been building their infrastructure. If you want to read about that great progress, just do new searches on the net.

I remember the groups in the prisons of iraq where hundreds of children were imprisoned by Saddam to make their parents behave. He was a devil. Al Qaeda in Iraq are more devils and they need to be gone.
We are there to help and that is a just cause.

[sdbest]

Quote by: GodBlessAmerica We spent 50 years in Germany and Japan, to expect us to do miracles in 5 years is unheard of.

Reality check, GodBless.... Germany invaded its neighbors. Japan bombed Pearl Harbor.

Gulf War I-Iraq invaded a neighbor, was thrown out by an international coalition of troops under U.N authority, and was disarmed. [Let's not talk about the Iraq/Iran war which the U.S. promoted by supporting Iraq. You'll recall that the Iranians threw out the Shah who was a brutal dictator and a puppet of (let me think, oh yes!) the United States.]

Gulf War II-the U.S. invades Iraq on trumped up evidence which is what (let me think, oh yes!) Germany and Japan did.

Regards
S.

[Clarence]

Quote by: GodBlessAmerica Saddam had recent mass graves, was shooting at Nato planes flying over for the UN 300 times a day and were trying to start up their nuclear programs.

yeah there are very recent mass graves. did he shoot at NATO? nuclear programs? Not!

The country was full of duel use parts, Iraq scientists has some parts buried around their homes and ex leaders of Saddam's military has reported lots of WMDs were transfered out in planes as disaster relief to Syria.

source?

Saddam destabilized the Middle East. He had hosted terrorist training camps in Iraq and was threatening everyone.

at what date did he destabilize the middle east?

Later we had Al Qaeda from Iran and Syria flow in as a proxy war, so it is a tough situation, but a just one.

I must have been a genius when l predicted this before the war even started. :confused: sounds like an excuse.

We spent 50 years in Germany and Japan, to expect us to do miracles in 5 years is unheard of.

not unheard of. Donold Rumsfeld made it sound like a walk in the park to people like you before the war. It's ok buddy. I forgive you. you were tricked.

We most certainly don't want to listen to our liberals who made us leave Nam early causing a genocide after we left. This time we stay till it is stable and that is all.

I thought this war was nothing like vietnam?

If anything Iraq is welcome to help us later cover our expenses, not the other way around.

maybe. but not with that attitude mister.

We have also been building their infrastructure. If you want to read about that great progress, just do new searches on the net.

mhmm.

I remember the groups of prisons I iraq where hundreds of children were imprisoned by Saddam to make their parents behave.

correction. unless you were there you don't remember it at all. perhaps you remember reading it somewhere. Lets have a look?

We are there to help and that is a just cause.

if our leadership is trying to help, they must be bumbling fools. right.

[rmnunez]

According to the U.S. GAO the "oil for food scandal" netted Saddam Hussein regime about $10.1 billion in illegal revenues [Source]. So far the Iraq war has cost the U.S. over $450 billion [Source]. Given the death and damage such an amount of military actiion can inflict, I doubt that Annan could cover the war reparations the U.S. and its "coalition" partners should pay.

What makes you think military costs in destroying things would have any relationship to the cost of replacing the things they destroyed? Would a bridge be more expensive to replace if destroyed by a multimillion-dollar cruise missile instead of some cheaper weapon?

[GodBlessAmerica]

Quote by: sdbest Reality check, GodBless.... Germany invaded its neighbors. Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. Gulf War I-Iraq invaded a neighbor, was thrown out by an international coalition of troops under U.N authority, and was disarmed. [Let's not talk about the Iraq/Iran war which the U.S. promoted by supporting Iraq. You'll recall that the Iranians threw out the Shah who was a brutal dictator and a puppet of (let me think, oh yes!) the United States.] Gulf War II-the U.S. invades Iraq on trumped up evidence which is what (let me think, oh yes!) Germany and Japan did. Regards S.

Saddam instead of complying in 11 years time did not cooperate, was increasing his mass graves and was shooting at coalition UN planes as a new thing. When we went in we found torture chambers, videos in the tens of thousand of tortures and murder. We found lots of kids in prison.

He was destabilizing the Middle East and had to go.
Nobody denies he was sponsoring and hosting terror training camps.
Al Qaeda were protected there and there are lots of them still there as they flow in from Syria and Iran.

We were also attacked by Islamic terrorist since the 70s, this did not begin by a long shot with the second attack of the Twin Towers on 911. that was just the call to once and for all resist Islamic terrorism.

We also got Libya to give up on their WMD without an evasion due to the threats they felt looking at what is happening in Iraq.

Below was taken from "Saddam's Fingerprints on N.Y. Bombings" (Wall Street Journal, June 1993)

The 1993 Twin Tower bombing also had Iraq connections. Trade Center bomber. [Convicted terrorist] Ramzi Yousef came into the United States on an Iraqi passport in the name of Ramzi Yousef, which is why he's known by that name. He left on a Pakistani passport in the name of Abdul Basit Karim, who is a real individual. He was a Pakistani born and raised in Kuwait, where his father worked.
When Saddam invaded Iraq they also messed with files there.
That Abdul Basit's file in Kuwait was tampered with leads many to believe that Iraqi intelligence tampered with that file to create a false identity for Ramzi Yousef. Only Iraqi intelligence, reasonably, could have tampered with the Kuwaiti Interior Ministry files.

[GodBlessAmerica]

Quote by: Clarence yeah there are very recent mass graves. did he shoot at NATO? nuclear programs? Not! source? at what date did he destabilize the middle east? I must have been a genius when l predicted this before the war even started. :confused: sounds like an excuse. not unheard of. Donold Rumsfeld made it sound like a walk in the park to people like you before the war. It's ok buddy. I forgive you. you were tricked. I thought this war was nothing like vietnam? maybe. but not with that attitude mister. mhmm. correction. unless you were there you don't remember it at all. perhaps you remember reading it somewhere. Lets have a look? if our leadership is trying to help, they must be bumbling fools. right.

“Based on the UNSCOM report to the UN Security Council in January 1999 and earlier UNSCOM reports, we assess that when our inspectors left Iraq in 1998 they were unable to account for:

¨up to 360 tonnes of bulk chemical warfare agent, including 1.5 tonnes of VX nerve agent;

¨up to 3,000 tonnes of precursor chemicals, including approximately 300 tonnes which, in the Iraqi chemical warfare programme, were unique to the production of VX;

¨growth media procured for biological agent production (enough to produce over three times the 8,500 litres of anthrax spores Iraq admits to having manufactured);

¨over 30,000 special munitions for delivery of chemical and biological agents;

¨20 al-Hussein missiles, with a range of 650km. (Iraq told UNSCOM that it filled these warheads with anthrax and botulinum);

¨2,850 tonnes of mustard gas, 210 tonnes of tabun, and 795 tonnes of sarin and cyclosarin;

Iraq’s recent dossier claims that all of the above has been destroyed. No convincing proof of any kind has been produced to support this claim.”

[sdbest]

Quote by: GodBlessAmerica He was destabilizing the Middle East and had to go. Nobody denies he was sponsoring and hosting terror training camps. Al Qaeda were protected there and there are lots of them still there as they flow in from Syria and Iran.

I can think of many people who "[deny] he was sponsoring and hosting terror training camps. Al Qaeda were protected there ...". One of them you might know, President Bush.

The canard that Saddam was sponsoring terrorists has been discredited for years yet people like you still haven't read the memo. How tragic.

Regards
S.

[sdbest]

Quote by: GodBlessAmerica were unable to account for: ... Iraq’s recent dossier claims that all of the above has been destroyed. No convincing proof of any kind has been produced to support this claim.”

"Unable to account for", GodBlessAmerica, is quite different than possessing. And, as you may recall, Saddam had no WMD, as he claimed.

As for "unable to account for", is that so unusual that a massive illegal invasion is called for? After all, "the beleaguered [United States] Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) is unable to account for 765 kilograms of plutonium -- enough to make 150 nuclear weapons (source).

Regards
S.