New news and photos underline half of the city will need rebuilding. All electrical and water is down. Estimate 4 billion. Guess who folks?
Fallujah Update
- Thread starter djv
- Start date
I wouldn't count on us rebuilding anytime soon. We've been shifting the emphasis of our funding away from reconstruction and into security and oil pipeline protection. We know our priorities - and they are not the Iraqi people.
exactly...those should be our priorities
the iraqi people are failing to irradicate the terrorists....we have given them every opportunity and they are not helping...enough is enough
hopefully we will secure our interests and get out....let them fight their own war from here on out
the iraqi people are failing to irradicate the terrorists....we have given them every opportunity and they are not helping...enough is enough
hopefully we will secure our interests and get out....let them fight their own war from here on out
Smurph There is a lot more going on in construction there than most think--however you would never know in reading and listenening to liberal media---- This might make you feel somewhat better however there is lot left to do----
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New approach to Iraqi 'rebuilding is paying off'
Published: 17 December 2004
WASHINGTON: US-funded reconstruction in Iraq is gaining pace in some areas, albeit on a smaller scale than hoped, despite mounting attacks and intimidation by insurgents, said a senior US official yesterday.
The United States has shifted to smaller, low visibility projects from the high-profile, more expensive ones originally planned and the approach is paying off, said Charles Hess, head of the Project and Contracting Office in Baghdad.
"We have taken all the smaller ones we planned and moved them to the front of the queue. We can get out there with these and have more impact," said Hess, whose office is in charge of much of the US-funded reconstruction work in Iraq.
In an interview from the Pentagon, where Hess is meeting US contractors, he said design work was going ahead on billions of dollars of large projects announced last March but building on most would begin only when security improved.
The US Congress last year allocated $18.4 billion towards reconstruction work in Iraq, where locals complain this money has done little so far to improve their lives. US politicians criticise the slow pace of rebuilding programmes.
"We are in a situation where people are shooting at us almost every day, but I think we are making good progress," Hess said.
He cited growing numbers of Iraqis employed on US-funded projects as proof that work was pushing ahead and said the pace of spending, a major focus of criticism, had quickened on these smaller projects.
As of Wednesday, Hess said, a daily average of about 100,000 Iraqis were employed on US-funded projects and he expected this would peak to 140,000-150,000 by next summer.
Dirt had been turned on 1,167 projects worth about $3bn and 70 to 100 new ones were starting each week. Of the $18.4bn, he said, $2bn had been paid out and $9.6bn legally contracted with companies to do work.
These projects included work on 364 schools, 15 hospitals, 116 border posts, 20 police stations, 66 road projects, 42 fire stations and 93 water and sewer facilities.
The decision to focus on smaller-scale projects had lowered security costs, he said, to between 10-20 per cent of funding whereas two months ago up to 40pc went to security and insurance in some areas.
Asked how much work was being done in trouble spots such as the Sunni Triangle area around Baghdad, Hess said very little was happening there in terms of reconstruction but that work was to start soon in Fallujah.
"If the contractors who do the work believe that the security environment is so unsafe that they cannot protect themselves, then they will not turn up for work," he said.
The intimidation of Iraqi workers and their families has stalled a lot of reconstruction, with contractors saying days can go by when frightened workers fail to turn up.
While "no-shows" were a problem, Hess said, the United States was working hard to remain low-key so as not to attract the attention of insurgents.
"If I put up a sign that says this project is brought to you courtesy of the U.S. government, it will be the target of terrorist activity," said Hess. "Although these projects are a gift from the United States, we just don't say that."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New approach to Iraqi 'rebuilding is paying off'
Published: 17 December 2004
WASHINGTON: US-funded reconstruction in Iraq is gaining pace in some areas, albeit on a smaller scale than hoped, despite mounting attacks and intimidation by insurgents, said a senior US official yesterday.
The United States has shifted to smaller, low visibility projects from the high-profile, more expensive ones originally planned and the approach is paying off, said Charles Hess, head of the Project and Contracting Office in Baghdad.
"We have taken all the smaller ones we planned and moved them to the front of the queue. We can get out there with these and have more impact," said Hess, whose office is in charge of much of the US-funded reconstruction work in Iraq.
In an interview from the Pentagon, where Hess is meeting US contractors, he said design work was going ahead on billions of dollars of large projects announced last March but building on most would begin only when security improved.
The US Congress last year allocated $18.4 billion towards reconstruction work in Iraq, where locals complain this money has done little so far to improve their lives. US politicians criticise the slow pace of rebuilding programmes.
"We are in a situation where people are shooting at us almost every day, but I think we are making good progress," Hess said.
He cited growing numbers of Iraqis employed on US-funded projects as proof that work was pushing ahead and said the pace of spending, a major focus of criticism, had quickened on these smaller projects.
As of Wednesday, Hess said, a daily average of about 100,000 Iraqis were employed on US-funded projects and he expected this would peak to 140,000-150,000 by next summer.
Dirt had been turned on 1,167 projects worth about $3bn and 70 to 100 new ones were starting each week. Of the $18.4bn, he said, $2bn had been paid out and $9.6bn legally contracted with companies to do work.
These projects included work on 364 schools, 15 hospitals, 116 border posts, 20 police stations, 66 road projects, 42 fire stations and 93 water and sewer facilities.
The decision to focus on smaller-scale projects had lowered security costs, he said, to between 10-20 per cent of funding whereas two months ago up to 40pc went to security and insurance in some areas.
Asked how much work was being done in trouble spots such as the Sunni Triangle area around Baghdad, Hess said very little was happening there in terms of reconstruction but that work was to start soon in Fallujah.
"If the contractors who do the work believe that the security environment is so unsafe that they cannot protect themselves, then they will not turn up for work," he said.
The intimidation of Iraqi workers and their families has stalled a lot of reconstruction, with contractors saying days can go by when frightened workers fail to turn up.
While "no-shows" were a problem, Hess said, the United States was working hard to remain low-key so as not to attract the attention of insurgents.
"If I put up a sign that says this project is brought to you courtesy of the U.S. government, it will be the target of terrorist activity," said Hess. "Although these projects are a gift from the United States, we just don't say that."
DBT, for someone who constantly bitches and whines about 'Liberal media', you sure do seem to view it alot. :shrug:
Why do you believe one portrayal so absolutely, and another as absolute garbage?
[I'm not asking out of naivety, we all know every 'news' outlet has their slant...I'm asking why you feel one is so right and the other way off the mark?....Because, tbh, you sound a lot like my parents, who hear people on talk-back radio, read letters written into newspapers and talk to people of the same age who have the same views and so believe that everyone thinks the same way that they do, and anyone that doesn't is wrong!]
Why do you believe one portrayal so absolutely, and another as absolute garbage?
[I'm not asking out of naivety, we all know every 'news' outlet has their slant...I'm asking why you feel one is so right and the other way off the mark?....Because, tbh, you sound a lot like my parents, who hear people on talk-back radio, read letters written into newspapers and talk to people of the same age who have the same views and so believe that everyone thinks the same way that they do, and anyone that doesn't is wrong!]
I try and read both sides as with posters here no one has all the right answers---I think if you read boths sides many time what you feel is the truth is somewhere in the middle.
Example on comparisons by different media on man of year award of prior winners
One has
"Bush joins six other presidents who have twice been named the magazine's Person of the Year: Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower (first as a general), Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. Franklin Roosevelt holds the record with three nods from the editors."
the other has
"The winner must be "the person or persons who most affected the news and our lives, for good or for ill, and embodied what was important about the year, for better or for worse," he said.
U.S. aviator Charles Lindbergh was Time's first "Man of the Year" in 1927. Some selections have been notoriously unpopular, such as Adolf Hitler in 1938, Joseph Stalin in 1939 and 1942, and Iran's Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in 1979."
While I lean strongly conservative I am sure my ideas are biased but that does not mean I agree with every conservative view.
My biggest pet peaves are those that unknowing for most part abet the terrorist on their doom and gloom tactics--and Aclu and judges trying to enforce their ideas agianst the majoity of the people. Economically I think each party is tit for tat and what they can accomplish is by product of many intangibles they have little contol over.I have several things I don't ike about Bush will can be summed up in his spending agenda, long term(non war related).
I would have to concede to you that politics probably brings out the worst in me.
Example on comparisons by different media on man of year award of prior winners
One has
"Bush joins six other presidents who have twice been named the magazine's Person of the Year: Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower (first as a general), Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. Franklin Roosevelt holds the record with three nods from the editors."
the other has
"The winner must be "the person or persons who most affected the news and our lives, for good or for ill, and embodied what was important about the year, for better or for worse," he said.
U.S. aviator Charles Lindbergh was Time's first "Man of the Year" in 1927. Some selections have been notoriously unpopular, such as Adolf Hitler in 1938, Joseph Stalin in 1939 and 1942, and Iran's Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in 1979."
While I lean strongly conservative I am sure my ideas are biased but that does not mean I agree with every conservative view.
My biggest pet peaves are those that unknowing for most part abet the terrorist on their doom and gloom tactics--and Aclu and judges trying to enforce their ideas agianst the majoity of the people. Economically I think each party is tit for tat and what they can accomplish is by product of many intangibles they have little contol over.I have several things I don't ike about Bush will can be summed up in his spending agenda, long term(non war related).
I would have to concede to you that politics probably brings out the worst in me.
Last edited:
I would have to concede to you that politics probably brings out the worst in me.
lol!! Yeah...Politics and money, huh....A political thread on a gambling board!!...It's a wonder any of us ever have a nice word to say.
I try and read both sides as with posters here no one has all the right answers---I think if you read boths sides many time what you feel is the truth is somewhere in the middle.
Agreed. I think we can assume most of us here are intelligent enough to absorb different information and make up our own minds....The problem I have is when people have pre-conceived ideas, only look at one side of a story, and don't believe anything they see about the other side.
I guess blind faith is an important part of some people's lives, but it can be a dangerous thing in the here and now, imho.
lol!! Yeah...Politics and money, huh....A political thread on a gambling board!!...It's a wonder any of us ever have a nice word to say.
I try and read both sides as with posters here no one has all the right answers---I think if you read boths sides many time what you feel is the truth is somewhere in the middle.
Agreed. I think we can assume most of us here are intelligent enough to absorb different information and make up our own minds....The problem I have is when people have pre-conceived ideas, only look at one side of a story, and don't believe anything they see about the other side.
I guess blind faith is an important part of some people's lives, but it can be a dangerous thing in the here and now, imho.
MrChristo said:
the ironic thing thing for me is i quit gambling cold turkey. it no longer had a positive role in my life. i don't even read the football threads on here anymore. ...yet - here i am still posting on what is really just a sideshow for the main purpose of the site.
