hardheadjarhead
Senior Master
On another thread I debated Kaith briefly over the situation in Iraq. He had cited several sources indicating that things were going well, and I listed more recent articles and reports stating that things were not all that they could be.
This morning the New York Times posted this on line:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/16/politics/16intel.html?pagewanted=1&th
The article details a National Intelligence Estimate that is quite gloomy. It also mentions that only $1 billion has been spent so far on reconstruction. House Republicans like Lugar and Hagel are pessimistic as to the outcome.
Baroness Amos reported this to the British Parlimant in January of 204:
"Baghdad's three sewage treatment plants serve approximately 80 per cent of the city's population. They are currently under repair by USAID, and are expected to be restored to full capacity by October 2004. Meanwhile, the majority of sewage from Baghdad's 3.8 million residents will remain untreated.
It is estimated that only 9 per cent of the urban population outside Baghdad is served by sewage systems. In Basra, sewage is currently not being treated. Rural areas and the north of Iraq largely have no piped sewerage systems.
The United Nations and World Bank have identified the following priority targets for sewerage 200407: raise sanitation coverage in urban areas by 10 per cent; prepare a comprehensive strategy for sanitation in rural areas; develop city master plans for the provision of water and sanitation services in 15 major cities; and, in the medium term, raise sanitation coverage by 30 per cent in both urban and rural areas.
From its recently agreed supplemental appropriation, the USA has allocated 675 million US dollars towards improving sewerage systems in Iraq. The initial focus will be on the cities of Baghdad, Basra, Erbil and Kula."
Anyone have anything pro or con concerning reconstruction?
Regards,
Steve
This morning the New York Times posted this on line:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/16/politics/16intel.html?pagewanted=1&th
The article details a National Intelligence Estimate that is quite gloomy. It also mentions that only $1 billion has been spent so far on reconstruction. House Republicans like Lugar and Hagel are pessimistic as to the outcome.
Baroness Amos reported this to the British Parlimant in January of 204:
"Baghdad's three sewage treatment plants serve approximately 80 per cent of the city's population. They are currently under repair by USAID, and are expected to be restored to full capacity by October 2004. Meanwhile, the majority of sewage from Baghdad's 3.8 million residents will remain untreated.
It is estimated that only 9 per cent of the urban population outside Baghdad is served by sewage systems. In Basra, sewage is currently not being treated. Rural areas and the north of Iraq largely have no piped sewerage systems.
The United Nations and World Bank have identified the following priority targets for sewerage 200407: raise sanitation coverage in urban areas by 10 per cent; prepare a comprehensive strategy for sanitation in rural areas; develop city master plans for the provision of water and sanitation services in 15 major cities; and, in the medium term, raise sanitation coverage by 30 per cent in both urban and rural areas.
From its recently agreed supplemental appropriation, the USA has allocated 675 million US dollars towards improving sewerage systems in Iraq. The initial focus will be on the cities of Baghdad, Basra, Erbil and Kula."
Anyone have anything pro or con concerning reconstruction?
Regards,
Steve
