4 ms·
Not to mention the war in 2003 and everything afterwards, as presented by Bush (even if he hasn't personally developed the plan), it was "to bring democracy" th
by acqq 11y ago
Not to mention the war in 2003 and everything afterwards, as presented by Bush (even if he hasn't personally developed the plan), it was "to bring democracy" there.
Since the US was effectively for years in charge there, since 2003, theoretically, there was certainly enough time and money to finish the second dam.
- salgernon 11y agohttp://the-reaction.blogspot.com/2007/10/god-really-doesnt-like-bush-much.html The US was trying to provide "aid" in protecting the dam in 2007 - I have no idea if it was taken on as a legitimate project or just wallpaper to say "see how we're helping". I don't have time for fun conspiracy theories, but I'm sure lines can be traced all around construction of the dam, through the bush family, back to infrastructure, etc.
- acqq 11y agoThe estimated cost of finishing the second dam is much bigger than the "aid" from the link (the aid was meager $27m, split to 21 contractor), but still orders of magnitude lower that the money spent by the US only on the military in Iraq. Therefore not surprising, from the 2007 article behind your link: "In a report published on Tuesday, the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) said US-funded "short-term solutions" had yet to significantly solve the dam's problems." To compare: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-war-anniversary-idUSBRE92D0PG20130314 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-war-anniversary-idUSB... "Iraq war costs U.S. more than $2 trillion" If I calculate correctly, enough for 74,000 such "aid" fixes.