Now that the war in Iraq is all but over, many people are questioning why we even went in the first place. Was Bush's evidence actually legit or was it all just circumstantial evidence? I, personally, believe that Bush had no legit reason to go to war with Iraq. Sure Saddam was a horrible ruler and did some hideous things to his people, but why did we have to go their and wipe everything out? What really upsets me is the fact now that our troops destroyed probably over 50% of the buildings in Iraq, its going to cost us, Americans, very large sums of money to rebuild them. It doesn't make much sense to me.
One economist from America's Yale University predicted rebuilding Iraq could cost up to $1.6 trillion over 10 years. But the final cost of rebuilding a battered Iraq will depend on how quickly the country manages to get back on its feet -- it does after all have the second largest oil reserves in the world, and a fertile agricultural economy. If you want to make comparisons, so far the cost of rebuilding Afghanistan has topped $900 million. After World War II -- the Marshall Plan -- a model for economic re-build -- cost more than $13 billion over four years, and that was back in 1948. History shows us that re-building a country is very costly, so why is our "beloved- President Bush so quick to help to re-build? .
President George Bush has said he plans to ask Congress for $87 billion in extra spending on Iraq and Afghanistan. This is substantially more than many had expected him to request, and essentially amounts to an admission from the White House that the situation in Iraq is more troubling than it had previously acknowledged. Mr. Bush hopes to justify the extra spending on Iraq by stressing that the stakes are high. Mr. Bush vowed that despite the setbacks, America would stay the course: Iraq, he said, will be no Beirut or Somalia. .
Might other countries be persuaded to contribute money, if not troops? America certainly hopes so.