http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12319798/

Supposedly cost $700 million and climbing. Will cost $2 billion a year to run it once it's totally operational. Is this really a good idea?

4/17/2008 10:51:11 PM

Of course, you terrorist. Don't you support our troops?

4/17/2008 10:52:21 PM

Don't you mean "WAS this really a good idea" that article is 2 years old.

That seem unusually large and expensive for an embassy though.

4/17/2008 11:01:57 PM

the building of the embassy in Iraq was/is a complete clusterfuck and another example of wasting money by our lovely state department

4/17/2008 11:04:04 PM

i love that its the biggest embassy anywhere ever...that means the US means business and will at least leave some amount of people to protect the people at that embassey etc...i heard it was originally like 485 mil but hey i mean 300 mill is nothing...we spend that like in a day in iraq

4/17/2008 11:32:09 PM

Sorry, I didn't notice when the article was written. There was a video on the front page of MSNBC and this was the article attached to it. If you click on the article and then click on the video link next to it that video was made recently. That's where I got the financial info.

4/18/2008 12:34:25 AM

I suspect that a fair portion of the expense comes from the embassy being in what the state department is tacitly admitting to be a hostile country.

Assuming (perhaps to the point of strained credulity) that our operations in Iraq are a success by the administration's standards, I think it makes sense to have our most prominent embassy be smack in the middle of a country similar to the lot of countries that hate us the most. I also think that it's the case that, if the mission fails colossally, the money poured into it will be dramatically reduced.

4/18/2008 12:57:58 AM

2 billion to run/year?!?!?!?

how the fuck is that possible?

[Edited on April 18, 2008 at 8:05 AM. Reason : t]

4/18/2008 8:05:34 AM

^$100 toilet seats and hammers

4/18/2008 9:14:54 AM

a fortress that is self sustainable and able to withhold a shit ton of bombage before falling? our last ditch compound in an area of the world thats sure to see 3-4 more wars in our remaining lifetimes? 2 billion that's it? for permanent selt sustaining ground operations and it's own water/fuel supply?

yep. i'd say it's a damn good idea. gg usa.

next thread plz.

4/18/2008 9:22:36 AM

I'd rather spend that money on Americans.

4/18/2008 10:07:52 AM

I'd rather spend that money directly on welfare for drug money to fuel inner city collapse and violence

4/18/2008 10:15:18 AM

Yes, because welfare for people with physical and mental handicaps spurs gang violence, building and repairing roads/bridges helps streamline drug trafficking, providing cheap student loans or increasing educational funding gives young miscreants places to gather and plot the next terrorist attack.

You're a 2 dimensional idiot with no capacity to think outside of the box. Grow some balls and learn to do something other than be a partisan idiot.

4/18/2008 10:20:31 AM

Rat, it's not that cut and dry. While I'm not completely opposed to the idea because we're obviously over there and our civilians deserve the same protection our soldiers do. But are you not the least bit curious why this happened? It's obviously no accident. I was listening to someone last week who claimed that the entire reason we were over in Iraq was to establish a permanent military base in the Middle East. If that's true it would definitely more costly than any possible benefit we could get out of being over there in the long run. This fortress in the middle of Baghdad kind of gives a little credit to argument. It looks like we're settling in for the long haul and seeing as how this place got built so quickly (it was finished 2 years ago apparently) there is at least a decent possibility that this is what was planned all along. If that's true we're gonna be paying out our asses for this shit forever. I'm not down with that, I don't know about you.

4/18/2008 10:24:37 AM

is this why the US has smart bombs? to clear the way for new embassies?

4/18/2008 1:13:29 PM

^ The U.S. Government is building new embassies in quite a few new embassies in countries where smart bombs (or dumb bombs) havent be dropped by the US recently (Embassy Berlin and Sarajevo are two that Ive seen recently). A lot of embassies are aging and cannot handle the increased number of diplomats sent out in the past few years, not to mention that they cannot meet the heightened security standards that have arised since 9/11 and the 97 bombings in Dar es Salaam and Nairobi.

Embassy Baghdad is outrageously large but its not unheard of to have huge embassies in that neighborhood. The embassy which formerly held the title of largest in the world is just a few states away from Iraq. Obviously security concerns are a huge reason for the insane cost of operating the embassy but you also have to take into account that not only is the embassy self-sustaining, but it is one of the few embassies in the world which houses all of its employees. The embassy compound is effectively a city in itself.

Having previously worked in an embassy that is labeled a hazardous duty post, I can understand the expensive cost of conducting diplomacy. Just outfitting my residence off post must have cost a fortune and I was at the bottom of the pecking order. There is a lot that goes on in an embassy that a lot of people dont see or think about and the sheer number of employees at Embassy Baghdad (1000+) only increases the cost of doing business

4/18/2008 1:30:57 PM

I tend to think that in the long run, getting Iraq on its feet will pay for itself.

Yes I know we went wrecked it. I am talking about the two different paths VIA Kerry/Bush

4/18/2008 2:15:57 PM

did you hear that Monica Seles was stabbed?!1

holy crap, that link is from TWO YEARS AGO

4/19/2008 12:26:54 PM

Quote :

"There was a video on the front page of MSNBC and this was the article attached to it. If you click on the article and then click on the video link next to it that video was made recently."

4/19/2008 12:46:11 PM

ya but why do we need a base in the middle east. why can't we just focus on america and only america?

4/19/2008 3:50:45 PM

Good question... for one thing it would go against our foreign policy of the last 60 years. Isolationism of the type you're asking about would run counter to our stated diplomatic and humanitarian goals.

For another having a base in the region ensures stable energy prices. The thing that could cause oil to spiral out of control would be a major war in the region, and a base in the area allows us to step in quickly in the event of another conflict.

Of course, the way this administration operates, any action they take in the region would probably backfire and cause a bigger mess than they started with.

[Edited on April 19, 2008 at 4:31 PM. Reason : 2]

4/19/2008 4:28:46 PM

Quote :

"2 billion to run/year?!?!?!? how the fuck is that possible? "

good question. what a waste.

4/19/2008 5:14:25 PM

I'm trying to substantiate the claim that it'll take 2 billion a year to maintain. So far I haven't seen anything online that gives credence to those numbers.

4/19/2008 9:13:06 PM