Iraq: Reconstruction Audit
July 1, 2005 10:00 AM Subscribe
Iraq -
On Auditing the War and Reconstruction.
A Wealth of Facts (.pdf) - worth perusing.
'World Tribunal' Findings.
via
On Auditing the War and Reconstruction.
A Wealth of Facts (.pdf) - worth perusing.
'World Tribunal' Findings.
via
This is incredible - I had no idea it was this bad.
posted by fingerbang at 11:18 AM on July 1, 2005
posted by fingerbang at 11:18 AM on July 1, 2005
This is incredible - I had no idea it was this bad.
The thread or the situation in Iraq? The middle link (PDF) has some interesting data that shows a very mixed picture. Attacks on oil facilities and unemployment are down since last year, but attacks on Iraqi security forces are up. More Sunnis think the country is moving in the right direction than ever, but it's still under 50%. There's a case to be made based on the data in that report that things, while shitty, are improving.
As for the "world tribunal", I think I might convene a "global tribunal" of a few friends and start writing press releases. It seems to be a good way to get media these days.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 11:23 AM on July 1, 2005
The thread or the situation in Iraq? The middle link (PDF) has some interesting data that shows a very mixed picture. Attacks on oil facilities and unemployment are down since last year, but attacks on Iraqi security forces are up. More Sunnis think the country is moving in the right direction than ever, but it's still under 50%. There's a case to be made based on the data in that report that things, while shitty, are improving.
As for the "world tribunal", I think I might convene a "global tribunal" of a few friends and start writing press releases. It seems to be a good way to get media these days.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 11:23 AM on July 1, 2005
Its Friday - the people want flash fun - dress down for work - US Holiday weekend - The last thing wanted is reality when there's shopping to be done.
Would one of the supporters of the world's superpower care to comment on any of this in a meaningful way? or will they all continue with their heads in the sand baying partisan politics. Can anyone explain to me if accountability is a known concept in the corrupt collection of states known as USA? I feel hopeless, helpless, bitter and disgusted. Happy 4 july weekend to the land of the free to rape and pillage at liberty.
posted by adamvasco at 11:29 AM on July 1, 2005
Would one of the supporters of the world's superpower care to comment on any of this in a meaningful way? or will they all continue with their heads in the sand baying partisan politics. Can anyone explain to me if accountability is a known concept in the corrupt collection of states known as USA? I feel hopeless, helpless, bitter and disgusted. Happy 4 july weekend to the land of the free to rape and pillage at liberty.
posted by adamvasco at 11:29 AM on July 1, 2005
The Brookings Institute PDF really is worth checking out. I was surprised to learn that as many US forces are killed by hostile fire as by IEDs.
Also, regardless of effect, there are thousands of attacks against Coalition Forces every month, 70 per day in May 2005. Wow.
posted by mrgrimm at 11:30 AM on July 1, 2005
Also, regardless of effect, there are thousands of attacks against Coalition Forces every month, 70 per day in May 2005. Wow.
posted by mrgrimm at 11:30 AM on July 1, 2005
Would one of the supporters of the world's superpower care to comment on any of this in a meaningful way?
I think other people are trying to have a substantive discussion but the trolls sure aren't making it easier.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 11:38 AM on July 1, 2005
I think other people are trying to have a substantive discussion but the trolls sure aren't making it easier.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 11:38 AM on July 1, 2005
Hey thedevil
Sorry - should have been more clear. I find the level of corruption described in the first link incredible.
I would assert quite strongly that there is a place for throwing money around when you want to kill an insurgency. But you make sure it gets spent on improvements people notice, benefit from (and err... fear losing). Lining the pockets of American businessmen does not qualify.
Actually I read the article/PDF stats slightly differently. I think the Iraqis are optimistic for their future - that came across. But the remainder of the record was pretty miserable. Poor infrastructure, poor employment and a strong sense of identification with the insurgency. These are not good signs for the US.
The other thing I took away was the the suggestion that some of the cost of the conflict is/was being hidden by being subsidised by profits from 'surplus to quota' oil being pumped. Did I get this right? A deal this size usually involves politicians somewhere...
posted by fingerbang at 11:48 AM on July 1, 2005
Sorry - should have been more clear. I find the level of corruption described in the first link incredible.
I would assert quite strongly that there is a place for throwing money around when you want to kill an insurgency. But you make sure it gets spent on improvements people notice, benefit from (and err... fear losing). Lining the pockets of American businessmen does not qualify.
Actually I read the article/PDF stats slightly differently. I think the Iraqis are optimistic for their future - that came across. But the remainder of the record was pretty miserable. Poor infrastructure, poor employment and a strong sense of identification with the insurgency. These are not good signs for the US.
The other thing I took away was the the suggestion that some of the cost of the conflict is/was being hidden by being subsidised by profits from 'surplus to quota' oil being pumped. Did I get this right? A deal this size usually involves politicians somewhere...
posted by fingerbang at 11:48 AM on July 1, 2005
Here are the names of the members of the Jury of Conscience.
posted by TimothyMason at 11:54 AM on July 1, 2005
posted by TimothyMason at 11:54 AM on July 1, 2005
Here are the names of the members of the Jury of Conscience.
Thanks. They're all interesting people, but I'm not sure that a jury with the President of the "Nuclear Age Peace Foundation" and somebody who "went on a 58-day hunger strike upon Korean government's decision to send troops to Iraq" are exactly an unbiased panel who disregarded any ideology coming in and carefully weighed all the evidence and testimony to come to a conclusion. Ie, I'm sure that a "global tribunal" composed entirely of PNAC members might find a different result.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 12:00 PM on July 1, 2005
Thanks. They're all interesting people, but I'm not sure that a jury with the President of the "Nuclear Age Peace Foundation" and somebody who "went on a 58-day hunger strike upon Korean government's decision to send troops to Iraq" are exactly an unbiased panel who disregarded any ideology coming in and carefully weighed all the evidence and testimony to come to a conclusion. Ie, I'm sure that a "global tribunal" composed entirely of PNAC members might find a different result.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 12:00 PM on July 1, 2005
WAR is a racket. It always has been.
It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.
It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many.
Major General Smedley Butler, USMC
posted by Floydd at 12:05 PM on July 1, 2005
It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.
It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many.
Major General Smedley Butler, USMC
posted by Floydd at 12:05 PM on July 1, 2005
tdd - I'm not an American. I have no say in your political system. I just have to live with the outcome. I see some rational discussion here but also a lot of chestbeating partisan bullshit - though to be fair that seems to dying down abit. There is no conservative on this site who will debate the facts. The US dictates and has no accountability. I find it fascinating that the first link is from the London Review of Books. I have just left the US after 2 years; during that time the public discussion about Iraq and US accountability to the rest of the world was minimal.
I got the feeling that Iraq was something overthere - a bad dream that would go away. The most animation I saw was when your ridiculously low gas prices went up. It was your president who made the statement you are either with us or against us - albeit about 9/11 and the WOT which is still being interwoven with Iraq. The only people who can change America is you Americans. You have some stars like Henry Waxman - where are the rest?
posted by adamvasco at 12:05 PM on July 1, 2005
I got the feeling that Iraq was something overthere - a bad dream that would go away. The most animation I saw was when your ridiculously low gas prices went up. It was your president who made the statement you are either with us or against us - albeit about 9/11 and the WOT which is still being interwoven with Iraq. The only people who can change America is you Americans. You have some stars like Henry Waxman - where are the rest?
posted by adamvasco at 12:05 PM on July 1, 2005
easily the most profitable
What's interesting is that there are no shortage of studies showing that since the end of the age of treasure galleons war has always been a losing proposition economically. That goes for Germany and France squabbling over coal all the way to Iraq.
That doesn't make nearly as good of a soundbite, but the truth rarely does.
On preview: Googling the quote led to a bit more context and he doesn't mean that nations as a whole profit. Still, I'm not convinced.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 12:09 PM on July 1, 2005
What's interesting is that there are no shortage of studies showing that since the end of the age of treasure galleons war has always been a losing proposition economically. That goes for Germany and France squabbling over coal all the way to Iraq.
That doesn't make nearly as good of a soundbite, but the truth rarely does.
On preview: Googling the quote led to a bit more context and he doesn't mean that nations as a whole profit. Still, I'm not convinced.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 12:09 PM on July 1, 2005
I'm not an American. I have no say in your political system. I just have to live with the outcome.
The use of "you" and "your" makes that clear.
There is no conservative on this site who will debate the facts.
That's patently false. When you frame the "debate" as "will they all continue with their heads in the sand baying partisan politics" it shouldn't suprise you at all that nobody takes the bait. If you want rational intelligent discourse then you have to at least pretend to be interested in what people say. Assuming that anybody who disagrees with your perspective is "braying partisan politics" pretty much forecloses debate.
That said, the debate over the justifyability of the war has been rehashed so many times on this site that nobody is going to waste their time doing it again. The archives are chock-a-block full of debates over US accountability and the like. Everyone who had an opinion has expressed it and there is little more to be gained by rehashing it again and again other than just more bitterness.
The most animation I saw was when your ridiculously low gas prices went up.
You must not have lived in San Francisco, which had street protests that shut down the city for two days when the war started. If you only talk to a certain group then it's not suprising that you've only seen one perspective.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 12:16 PM on July 1, 2005
The use of "you" and "your" makes that clear.
There is no conservative on this site who will debate the facts.
That's patently false. When you frame the "debate" as "will they all continue with their heads in the sand baying partisan politics" it shouldn't suprise you at all that nobody takes the bait. If you want rational intelligent discourse then you have to at least pretend to be interested in what people say. Assuming that anybody who disagrees with your perspective is "braying partisan politics" pretty much forecloses debate.
That said, the debate over the justifyability of the war has been rehashed so many times on this site that nobody is going to waste their time doing it again. The archives are chock-a-block full of debates over US accountability and the like. Everyone who had an opinion has expressed it and there is little more to be gained by rehashing it again and again other than just more bitterness.
The most animation I saw was when your ridiculously low gas prices went up.
You must not have lived in San Francisco, which had street protests that shut down the city for two days when the war started. If you only talk to a certain group then it's not suprising that you've only seen one perspective.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 12:16 PM on July 1, 2005
thedevildancedlightly; General Butler's point was that wars aren't started with a nation's interest at heart. It's the individuals running the nation that determine when and with whom that nation goes to war, and to whom to award the contracts for supporting the prosecution of that war. Halliburton, KBR, and others are profiting from mightily from decisions made by individuals at the top of the U.S. government, and, according to government audits, accountability and oversight are sorely lacking. I included the link to the full text to save you the trouble of googling, but the line "It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many." says it all.
posted by Floydd at 12:40 PM on July 1, 2005
posted by Floydd at 12:40 PM on July 1, 2005
tdd - I'm not an American. I have no say in your political system. I just have to live with the outcome.
Sick of this meme. Does your government have no influence whatsoever with the United States? Do American citizens never have to live with the outcomes of decisions from other countries? Is the U.S. the only nation in the whole world that exerts influence? I'm not aware of your specific situation, nor will I defend the whole range of U.S. foreign policy (or even the majority of it), but the innocent and helpless line, on a broad level, is quite specious.
#include "derail.apology"
posted by fleacircus at 12:42 PM on July 1, 2005
Sick of this meme. Does your government have no influence whatsoever with the United States? Do American citizens never have to live with the outcomes of decisions from other countries? Is the U.S. the only nation in the whole world that exerts influence? I'm not aware of your specific situation, nor will I defend the whole range of U.S. foreign policy (or even the majority of it), but the innocent and helpless line, on a broad level, is quite specious.
#include "derail.apology"
posted by fleacircus at 12:42 PM on July 1, 2005
I think Americas a bit bigger than San Francisco - beautiful city though it is. Please stop being patronising with me and consider this; The majority of Americans have never been abroad. Your agricultural subsidy system is increasing world poverty. Your garbage output per person is the highest in the world. Your consumption of non renewable resources is the highest in the world. USA has neither ratified Kyoto nor accepted the Human rights court of the Hague. USA has one of the highest prison rates per head of population in the world. USA has the highest level of personal debt in the world. Need I go on. Can you see the problem here? Where is the will for change or will USA just isolate itself more. Here we see people who accept there are grave problems but these people are a minority.
How is the message going to reach the soccermums the bible thumpers the rednecks et al. middle america - the masses not the educated few.
posted by adamvasco at 12:44 PM on July 1, 2005
How is the message going to reach the soccermums the bible thumpers the rednecks et al. middle america - the masses not the educated few.
posted by adamvasco at 12:44 PM on July 1, 2005
thedevildancedlightly: I think other people are trying to have a substantive discussion but the trolls sure aren't making it easier.
Sorry devil, I will wait for dios next time instead of pre-empting the "why do liberals hate america" conversation killer. (much, much longer post deleted)
posted by modernerd at 12:45 PM on July 1, 2005
Sorry devil, I will wait for dios next time instead of pre-empting the "why do liberals hate america" conversation killer. (much, much longer post deleted)
posted by modernerd at 12:45 PM on July 1, 2005
Your agricultural subsidy system is increasing world poverty
Whoa whoa whoa, timeout there. I'm assuming that by "Mallorca" you mean that you live in Spain. The EU is by FAR the world's biggest offender in terms of agricultural subsidies. Per-capita and total dollar amount the EU leads by a factor of almost 2-1 for the original EU members. Remember that 44% of EU spending is on farm subsidies.
Glass houses, all that. So why are you still destroying world food markets by dumping food at subsidized prices and putting world farmers out of business? I have no say in your politics. All I can do is watch and post bitter replies to MeFi about how your agricultural policies are enhancing world hunger. I can't vote in Spain. I can't vote in the EU. But I have to watch idly by while you cause poverty and starvation. Where is Spain's accountability to the world? Why aren't more Spanish people debating this?
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 12:59 PM on July 1, 2005
Whoa whoa whoa, timeout there. I'm assuming that by "Mallorca" you mean that you live in Spain. The EU is by FAR the world's biggest offender in terms of agricultural subsidies. Per-capita and total dollar amount the EU leads by a factor of almost 2-1 for the original EU members. Remember that 44% of EU spending is on farm subsidies.
Glass houses, all that. So why are you still destroying world food markets by dumping food at subsidized prices and putting world farmers out of business? I have no say in your politics. All I can do is watch and post bitter replies to MeFi about how your agricultural policies are enhancing world hunger. I can't vote in Spain. I can't vote in the EU. But I have to watch idly by while you cause poverty and starvation. Where is Spain's accountability to the world? Why aren't more Spanish people debating this?
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 12:59 PM on July 1, 2005
Your garbage output per person is the highest in the world. Your consumption of non renewable resources is the highest in the world. USA has one of the highest prison rates per head of population in the world. USA has the highest level of personal debt in the world.
We're number one! We're number one!
USA! USA! SUV! SUV!
posted by Floydd at 1:03 PM on July 1, 2005
We're number one! We're number one!
USA! USA! SUV! SUV!
posted by Floydd at 1:03 PM on July 1, 2005
Sorry devil, I will wait for dios next time instead of pre-empting the "why do liberals hate america" conversation killer. (much, much longer post deleted)
You think that dios trolls, therefore it's okay for you to do so? Please have some respect for the community instead of trying to GNAA the first post.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 1:03 PM on July 1, 2005
You think that dios trolls, therefore it's okay for you to do so? Please have some respect for the community instead of trying to GNAA the first post.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 1:03 PM on July 1, 2005
What's interesting is that there are no shortage of studies showing that since the end of the age of treasure galleons war has always been a losing proposition economically.
Ah, but you're only speaking of the total economy and the net output per individual citizen.
When it comes to those supplying the front lines, snagging 'reconstruction' contracts, profitting from chaos, etc. it is and always has been extremely lucrative.
Saying war doesn't enrich the average citizen is to miss the point so spectacularly that one would think you are joking. The point of almost all wars is to enrich the person starting the war and his cronies, not to do some service to either his country or some other.
posted by chaz at 1:10 PM on July 1, 2005
Ah, but you're only speaking of the total economy and the net output per individual citizen.
When it comes to those supplying the front lines, snagging 'reconstruction' contracts, profitting from chaos, etc. it is and always has been extremely lucrative.
Saying war doesn't enrich the average citizen is to miss the point so spectacularly that one would think you are joking. The point of almost all wars is to enrich the person starting the war and his cronies, not to do some service to either his country or some other.
posted by chaz at 1:10 PM on July 1, 2005
Saying war doesn't enrich the average citizen is to miss the point so spectacularly that one would think you are joking.
You didn't read the whole post. On preview I found more context to his statement. I still don't agree with the frame of the debate, but I pretty clearly said that I knew it wasn't limited to just nations-as-nations.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 1:11 PM on July 1, 2005
You didn't read the whole post. On preview I found more context to his statement. I still don't agree with the frame of the debate, but I pretty clearly said that I knew it wasn't limited to just nations-as-nations.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 1:11 PM on July 1, 2005
The corruption outlined in the LRB piece is not surprising but still absolutely disgusting. I feel sick thinking about the greed that motivates these people. Fuck.
tddl, mr.nitpick-and-avoid-the-issue: What do you think about the LRB article and the issues presented in it? Any opinions, or just more spelling bees and whatifthis' and whatifthats?
posted by mr.marx at 1:18 PM on July 1, 2005
tddl, mr.nitpick-and-avoid-the-issue: What do you think about the LRB article and the issues presented in it? Any opinions, or just more spelling bees and whatifthis' and whatifthats?
posted by mr.marx at 1:18 PM on July 1, 2005
tddl, mr.nitpick-and-avoid-the-issue: What do you think about the LRB article and the issues presented in it? Any opinions, or just more spelling bees and whatifthis' and whatifthats?
I don't want to respond to you, Mr. ad-hominem, but I suggest that you scroll up and read some of the thread in which adults were carrying on mature converstaions. Now are you going to continue to "nitpick and avoid the issue" by questioning individual MeFites about their distribution of posts, or are you going to address something substantive beyond interjecting explitives?
Are you suggesting that it's improper to question who the members of a tribunal are? That hardly seems like nit-picking since the tribunal was one of three links. I'm sorry if I don't agree with you, but please stop attacking individuals. It makes you look bad and it makes your opinions less credible.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 1:24 PM on July 1, 2005
I don't want to respond to you, Mr. ad-hominem, but I suggest that you scroll up and read some of the thread in which adults were carrying on mature converstaions. Now are you going to continue to "nitpick and avoid the issue" by questioning individual MeFites about their distribution of posts, or are you going to address something substantive beyond interjecting explitives?
Are you suggesting that it's improper to question who the members of a tribunal are? That hardly seems like nit-picking since the tribunal was one of three links. I'm sorry if I don't agree with you, but please stop attacking individuals. It makes you look bad and it makes your opinions less credible.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 1:24 PM on July 1, 2005
TDDL: Well, you did say you are still not convinced... I'm wondering what it would take to convince you that wars are fought for anything other then personal/group 'financial' gain? Do you really believe that 'democracy in the middle east' has to do with some grand notion of self determination? Or that the myriad of business interests who pushed for and immediately jumped into the war did so for any other reason then their own profits?
Not that I'm 100% against that, per se, because the end result can still be positive, especially when you're talking about a country going backwards under a dictatorship, but let's be realistic about people's motives. And let's also hold people accountable, especially if you supported the war for something more then just a slash-and-burn profit turner.
posted by chaz at 1:26 PM on July 1, 2005
Not that I'm 100% against that, per se, because the end result can still be positive, especially when you're talking about a country going backwards under a dictatorship, but let's be realistic about people's motives. And let's also hold people accountable, especially if you supported the war for something more then just a slash-and-burn profit turner.
posted by chaz at 1:26 PM on July 1, 2005
I think that if I hadn't posted that in sarcasm, someone would've posted it in earnest. And I think three simple words have halted any public airing of many important issues: "liberals hate America".
but what I wrote doesn't add to the discussion. So again, I'm sorry.
posted by modernerd at 1:33 PM on July 1, 2005
but what I wrote doesn't add to the discussion. So again, I'm sorry.
posted by modernerd at 1:33 PM on July 1, 2005
I think that if I hadn't posted that in sarcasm, someone would've posted it in earnest. And I think three simple words have halted any public airing of many important issues: "liberals hate America".
The problem is that nobody has used the "why do you hate America?" or "STFU lib'rul" comment as anything other than an intentional straw-troll for years now. If somebody really had posted "liberals hate america" and nothing more it would have been flagged, deleted, and forgotten. Instead MeFi gets more and more clogged with the "STFU lib'rul" straw-trolls. I'm not sure that's a better idea. If somebody really think that liberals hate America then they are painfully wrong-headed and closed-minded. They're also probably not on MeFi.
That said, apology accepted. You seem responsible and mature.
I'm wondering what it would take to convince you that wars are fought for anything other then personal/group 'financial' gain? Do you really believe that 'democracy in the middle east' has to do with some grand notion of self determination? Or that the myriad of business interests who pushed for and immediately jumped into the war did so for any other reason then their own profits?
I'm questioning the correlation/causality link there. Yes, there are a ton of companies making money off the war. But there are also a ton of companies that make money off hurricanes (ie, roofing contractors in Florida). They swarm in as soon as there is a disaster and make gobs of money cleaning it up. Does that mean that they caused the hurricane? Absolutely not.
By your logic then Bill Clinton must have been indebted to Raytheon and Sikorsky because he fired Tomahawk missles at Iraq (Raytheon) and flew Blackhawks into Somalia (Sikorsky).
I can't say for certain what the motivation was for each congressperson, senator, and armed forces chair to support the war since I'm not inside their head. But, I would think that if the point really was just to blow armament and create profit then we would have picked an easier target. I mean, there are plenty of ways we could be blowing the same money by staying in Afghanistan. That said, no, I don't think that pure profit was the motivation. To say that it is over-simplifies the issue and makes it a lot harder to discuss a lot of the important motivations and how we can avoid future conflicts.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 1:53 PM on July 1, 2005
The problem is that nobody has used the "why do you hate America?" or "STFU lib'rul" comment as anything other than an intentional straw-troll for years now. If somebody really had posted "liberals hate america" and nothing more it would have been flagged, deleted, and forgotten. Instead MeFi gets more and more clogged with the "STFU lib'rul" straw-trolls. I'm not sure that's a better idea. If somebody really think that liberals hate America then they are painfully wrong-headed and closed-minded. They're also probably not on MeFi.
That said, apology accepted. You seem responsible and mature.
I'm wondering what it would take to convince you that wars are fought for anything other then personal/group 'financial' gain? Do you really believe that 'democracy in the middle east' has to do with some grand notion of self determination? Or that the myriad of business interests who pushed for and immediately jumped into the war did so for any other reason then their own profits?
I'm questioning the correlation/causality link there. Yes, there are a ton of companies making money off the war. But there are also a ton of companies that make money off hurricanes (ie, roofing contractors in Florida). They swarm in as soon as there is a disaster and make gobs of money cleaning it up. Does that mean that they caused the hurricane? Absolutely not.
By your logic then Bill Clinton must have been indebted to Raytheon and Sikorsky because he fired Tomahawk missles at Iraq (Raytheon) and flew Blackhawks into Somalia (Sikorsky).
I can't say for certain what the motivation was for each congressperson, senator, and armed forces chair to support the war since I'm not inside their head. But, I would think that if the point really was just to blow armament and create profit then we would have picked an easier target. I mean, there are plenty of ways we could be blowing the same money by staying in Afghanistan. That said, no, I don't think that pure profit was the motivation. To say that it is over-simplifies the issue and makes it a lot harder to discuss a lot of the important motivations and how we can avoid future conflicts.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 1:53 PM on July 1, 2005
I'm questioning the correlation/causality link there. Yes, there are a ton of companies making money off the war. But there are also a ton of companies that make money off hurricanes (ie, roofing contractors in Florida). They swarm in as soon as there is a disaster and make gobs of money cleaning it up. Does that mean that they caused the hurricane? Absolutely not.
This is news to me. I thought wars were started by people. I did not realize that they just happened, like a hurricane, or an earthquake. I guess all those billions of dollars that have gone missing in Iraq just blew away. Mistakes were made. It's a war, it's not like anybody could have done anything to prevent it, or plan for the aftermath, or keep track of the companies who were just randomly picked out of the blue to help rebuild the country which just seemed to fall apart after a war inadvertently occurred within its borders.
War just happens, you know, like a hurricane.
I don't know why people get so worked up over what's really just another natural disaster.
posted by Floydd at 2:16 PM on July 1, 2005
This is news to me. I thought wars were started by people. I did not realize that they just happened, like a hurricane, or an earthquake. I guess all those billions of dollars that have gone missing in Iraq just blew away. Mistakes were made. It's a war, it's not like anybody could have done anything to prevent it, or plan for the aftermath, or keep track of the companies who were just randomly picked out of the blue to help rebuild the country which just seemed to fall apart after a war inadvertently occurred within its borders.
War just happens, you know, like a hurricane.
I don't know why people get so worked up over what's really just another natural disaster.
posted by Floydd at 2:16 PM on July 1, 2005
War just happens, you know, like a hurricane.
I don't know why people get so worked up over what's really just another natural disaster.
I think you're missing the point pretty badly. chaz is questioning whether the war was started because of profiteering, or if profiteering was a side-effect.
Yes, clearly, somebody started the war. But if they started the war for a different reason (because they truly believe in democracy in the middle east, because they thought it would be a way to get an increase in approval, because they are hell-bent on world domination, whatever) then it's incorrect to say that profiteering was the reason why the war was started. If profiteering was a side-effect and not a cause then blaming the war on profit would blind future generations to the real causes (ie, a president hell-bent on world domination).
Make sure you understand the argument before you snark about it.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 2:32 PM on July 1, 2005
I don't know why people get so worked up over what's really just another natural disaster.
I think you're missing the point pretty badly. chaz is questioning whether the war was started because of profiteering, or if profiteering was a side-effect.
Yes, clearly, somebody started the war. But if they started the war for a different reason (because they truly believe in democracy in the middle east, because they thought it would be a way to get an increase in approval, because they are hell-bent on world domination, whatever) then it's incorrect to say that profiteering was the reason why the war was started. If profiteering was a side-effect and not a cause then blaming the war on profit would blind future generations to the real causes (ie, a president hell-bent on world domination).
Make sure you understand the argument before you snark about it.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 2:32 PM on July 1, 2005
My position on this specific war is that different people in power supported it for different reasons, but most of them can be boiled down to potential to make money. Some of those are the grander, more noble ways of making money (the middle east is currently a black hole in an increasingly free-trade world, democracy and capitalism would improve the entire world's economy) and others are the more cynical (billions upon billions to be made in arms, construction, oil services).
And what is world domination if not profitting through war? My general opinion that wars get started because there is a personal profit motive is not shaken by the fact that different people have different reasons to support the war-- take away the profit and there would be no war. Not because certain people still wouldn't support it on ideological grounds, but that those people would have very little support from the heavy hitters in industry who stand to profit.
The counterexamples you give are far too flimsy. Launching a few missles is not a war, and the profit potential is smaller on the order of billions. It only becomes something people get interested in when your'e talking about the potential for tremendous profits. Afghanistan is a desperately poor country, with no real natural resources and very little opportunity to make money for anyone, whereas eople have been salivating to get into Iraq for years-- some companies were happy enough to just get involved in raping the country in concert with Saddam (oil for food scandal, etc.) and others wanted to do it wholesale, from scratch. Bigger risks, but bigger rewards.
Now, I'm not saying that these companies have the power to utterly dictate power, or that they are complete gangsters. If they would, they'd probably just invade Kuwait or Luxembourg. But when you combine reasonable reasons (Saddam is an evil dictator) with the changes for immense profits, you have a pressure which builds and builds.
posted by chaz at 3:43 PM on July 1, 2005
And what is world domination if not profitting through war? My general opinion that wars get started because there is a personal profit motive is not shaken by the fact that different people have different reasons to support the war-- take away the profit and there would be no war. Not because certain people still wouldn't support it on ideological grounds, but that those people would have very little support from the heavy hitters in industry who stand to profit.
The counterexamples you give are far too flimsy. Launching a few missles is not a war, and the profit potential is smaller on the order of billions. It only becomes something people get interested in when your'e talking about the potential for tremendous profits. Afghanistan is a desperately poor country, with no real natural resources and very little opportunity to make money for anyone, whereas eople have been salivating to get into Iraq for years-- some companies were happy enough to just get involved in raping the country in concert with Saddam (oil for food scandal, etc.) and others wanted to do it wholesale, from scratch. Bigger risks, but bigger rewards.
Now, I'm not saying that these companies have the power to utterly dictate power, or that they are complete gangsters. If they would, they'd probably just invade Kuwait or Luxembourg. But when you combine reasonable reasons (Saddam is an evil dictator) with the changes for immense profits, you have a pressure which builds and builds.
posted by chaz at 3:43 PM on July 1, 2005
please replace "if they would" with "if they were" and "the changes" with "the chance"
posted by chaz at 3:44 PM on July 1, 2005
posted by chaz at 3:44 PM on July 1, 2005
I realize that this is irresponsible. And -- alas! -- immature. But it's 'expletives.'
posted by Haruspex at 3:51 PM on July 1, 2005
posted by Haruspex at 3:51 PM on July 1, 2005
Now, I'm not saying that these companies have the power to utterly dictate power, or that they are complete gangsters. If they would, they'd probably just invade Kuwait or Luxembourg. But when you combine reasonable reasons (Saddam is an evil dictator) with the changes for immense profits, you have a pressure which builds and builds.
That's totally fair, and I agree that the counter-examples were hastily concocted.
However, what about the idea that companies that profit from war are far outnumbered by ones that don't. In fact, there are quite a large number of industries that suffer by increased world conflict (shipping, airlines, tourism, etc). Why is their influence against war ignored?
Further, the money being spent in Iraq and Afghanistan could have easily funded a giant amount of pork (or targeted corporate tax breaks) right here at home. Wouldn't (to pick a company at random) ADM prefer that all of the war spending be spent on subsidizing ethanol from corn? Why would the government listen to Lockheed-Martin (or whatever they're calling the merged firm today) over ADM when deciding when/where to blow taxpayer money?
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 3:52 PM on July 1, 2005
That's totally fair, and I agree that the counter-examples were hastily concocted.
However, what about the idea that companies that profit from war are far outnumbered by ones that don't. In fact, there are quite a large number of industries that suffer by increased world conflict (shipping, airlines, tourism, etc). Why is their influence against war ignored?
Further, the money being spent in Iraq and Afghanistan could have easily funded a giant amount of pork (or targeted corporate tax breaks) right here at home. Wouldn't (to pick a company at random) ADM prefer that all of the war spending be spent on subsidizing ethanol from corn? Why would the government listen to Lockheed-Martin (or whatever they're calling the merged firm today) over ADM when deciding when/where to blow taxpayer money?
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 3:52 PM on July 1, 2005
I think you're missing the point pretty badly. chaz is questioning whether the war was started because of profiteering, or if profiteering was a side-effect.
Actually, I raised that question further up thread. Try to keep up.
What's with the hurricane analogy? What are we supposed to do with that? How does that even begin to address the issue of accountability for profiteering in this war? Why do you continue to dance so clumsily around the issues raised by the front page post? Why is it you now wish to discuss the reasons for the war when you just said:The debate over the justifiability of the war has been rehashed so many times on this site that nobody is going to waste their time doing it again. The archives are chock-a-block full of debates over US accountability and the like. Everyone who had an opinion has expressed it and there is little more to be gained by rehashing it again and again other than just more bitterness.
Your contributions to this thread have been:
1) Post addressing content. Sentence questioning bona-fides of one source.
2) Snark about trolling.
3) Snark about one source.
4) Misinterpretation of quote, retracted within the same post.
5) Dancing around ancillary issues.
6) Snark about agricultural subsidies in Spain(!)
7) dios derail
8) More clarification of 4)
9) Name-calling derail
10) Accepting apology (that was a nice thing) and the hurricane thing.
11) A snark about me snarking, and an attempt steer the discussion in yet another direction.
Lets talk about the untold billions wasted in Iraq, lets' talk about accountability, let's talk about following the money into the pockets of the people who are directly enriched by the blood of our sons and daughters sent under false pretenses to die on foreign soil, shall we? Can you step up?
posted by Floydd at 3:55 PM on July 1, 2005
Actually, I raised that question further up thread. Try to keep up.
What's with the hurricane analogy? What are we supposed to do with that? How does that even begin to address the issue of accountability for profiteering in this war? Why do you continue to dance so clumsily around the issues raised by the front page post? Why is it you now wish to discuss the reasons for the war when you just said:The debate over the justifiability of the war has been rehashed so many times on this site that nobody is going to waste their time doing it again. The archives are chock-a-block full of debates over US accountability and the like. Everyone who had an opinion has expressed it and there is little more to be gained by rehashing it again and again other than just more bitterness.
Your contributions to this thread have been:
1) Post addressing content. Sentence questioning bona-fides of one source.
2) Snark about trolling.
3) Snark about one source.
4) Misinterpretation of quote, retracted within the same post.
5) Dancing around ancillary issues.
6) Snark about agricultural subsidies in Spain(!)
7) dios derail
8) More clarification of 4)
9) Name-calling derail
10) Accepting apology (that was a nice thing) and the hurricane thing.
11) A snark about me snarking, and an attempt steer the discussion in yet another direction.
Lets talk about the untold billions wasted in Iraq, lets' talk about accountability, let's talk about following the money into the pockets of the people who are directly enriched by the blood of our sons and daughters sent under false pretenses to die on foreign soil, shall we? Can you step up?
posted by Floydd at 3:55 PM on July 1, 2005
Tddl, those are good questions, but I think the answer lies with the fact that this a democracy, and the momentum that a war can create is pretty much unstoppable once the people are behind it. With public support for the war high, and support inside the whitehouse even higher, would industries not directly benefitted by the conflict dare speak out against it? The subsidies and pork question kind of answers itself, because we already have massive amounts of spending in those areas! And again it goes back to momentum in a democracy-- if the 9/11 terrorists had attacked a giant corn syrup factory, even if it was unnecessary I think you'd see massive support for even larger subsidies for that industry.
Furthermore, I'm not saying war is simply a handout from governments to private business. I'm saying that with multiple reasons for going to war, it's only natural that companies who stand to profit in the billions will be pushing for it, especially when many of these companies are already very powerful and influential.
Finally, given the globalization of business today, ADM (I know it's just a random example, but still) probably has no quibble whatsoever with opening up the middle east market. The alternative was to deal with Saddam!
posted by chaz at 4:09 PM on July 1, 2005
Furthermore, I'm not saying war is simply a handout from governments to private business. I'm saying that with multiple reasons for going to war, it's only natural that companies who stand to profit in the billions will be pushing for it, especially when many of these companies are already very powerful and influential.
Finally, given the globalization of business today, ADM (I know it's just a random example, but still) probably has no quibble whatsoever with opening up the middle east market. The alternative was to deal with Saddam!
posted by chaz at 4:09 PM on July 1, 2005
Can you step up?
What is this, a baseball game? I'll pass if your idea of having a conversation is keeping score and issuing challenges.
Some people on the thread are discussing some interesting ideas and listening to each other. Other people are trying to pull out their scorecards and figure out who is "winning" the conversation. Guess which side you fall on.
Call me when you want to have a mature discussion.
Lets talk about the untold billions wasted in Iraq, lets' talk about accountability, let's talk about following the money into the pockets of the people who are directly enriched by the blood of our sons and daughters sent under false pretenses to die on foreign soil, shall we?
When you present things like that it's clear that you don't want a discussion, but rather that you want to score political points by repeating your talking points until the "other side" "admits" what you want. Your blog would be a more appropriate place to carry on such a one-sided broadcast of information.
If you really have a problem with my posting history in this thread then I invite you to take it to MeTa and to stop derailing this thread which had an otherwise interesting discussion. I'm happy to keep talking about the substance of issues if you're willing to present them in a mature way. Otherwise I wish you well and hope that you come back to MeFi with a better attitude.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 4:09 PM on July 1, 2005
What is this, a baseball game? I'll pass if your idea of having a conversation is keeping score and issuing challenges.
Some people on the thread are discussing some interesting ideas and listening to each other. Other people are trying to pull out their scorecards and figure out who is "winning" the conversation. Guess which side you fall on.
Call me when you want to have a mature discussion.
Lets talk about the untold billions wasted in Iraq, lets' talk about accountability, let's talk about following the money into the pockets of the people who are directly enriched by the blood of our sons and daughters sent under false pretenses to die on foreign soil, shall we?
When you present things like that it's clear that you don't want a discussion, but rather that you want to score political points by repeating your talking points until the "other side" "admits" what you want. Your blog would be a more appropriate place to carry on such a one-sided broadcast of information.
If you really have a problem with my posting history in this thread then I invite you to take it to MeTa and to stop derailing this thread which had an otherwise interesting discussion. I'm happy to keep talking about the substance of issues if you're willing to present them in a mature way. Otherwise I wish you well and hope that you come back to MeFi with a better attitude.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 4:09 PM on July 1, 2005
Finally, given the globalization of business today, ADM (I know it's just a random example, but still) probably has no quibble whatsoever with opening up the middle east market. The alternative was to deal with Saddam!
True, but I don't think the mideast market for ethanol (it happened to be a good example for the wrong reasons) is very big given that the mideast is sitting on oil. In fact, I'd be suprised if there was any ethanol at all sold in the mideast.
Furthermore, I'm not saying war is simply a handout from governments to private business. I'm saying that with multiple reasons for going to war, it's only natural that companies who stand to profit in the billions will be pushing for it, especially when many of these companies are already very powerful and influential.
True, but I suspect that the power of the traditional military players has declined significantly since the end of the cold war. See, eg, how Martin Marietta, Northrop, Grumman, and Lockheed all merged to form Lockheed Martin. The mergers were due largely to the decline of the industry as defense spending shifted after the cold war.
On the other hand, ADM and the farmer's lobbies are quite powerful. We still have ridiculous agricultural subsidies (see, it does all relate) for a reason. We still look at ethanol as the solution rather than biodiesel because ADM has its sugary fingers all over the ethanol business. etc.
With public support for the war high, and support inside the whitehouse even higher, would industries not directly benefitted by the conflict dare speak out against it? The subsidies and pork question kind of answers itself, because we already have massive amounts of spending in those areas! And again it goes back to momentum in a democracy-- if the 9/11 terrorists had attacked a giant corn syrup factory, even if it was unnecessary I think you'd see massive support for even larger subsidies for that industry.
No, of course a company benefitted by the war would not speak out against it. But industries that are hurt (airlines, shipping, tourism, etc) by a war I'm sure did lobby against it.
I agree that there is a huge amount of pork in the (for example) ethanol industry already, but that doesn't mean there isn't room for more! In fact, the current largess funds lobbying for more, and I don't doubt that ADM (for example) spends giants amounts of money lobbying for still more. I'm sure they'd be much happier with $10 billion than $5, $20 than $10, etc etc etc. I don't think there's any amount of pork that would satiate ADM.
In short, I agree that there probably was lobbying by many firms in favor of and against the war, but I disagree as to what extent that lobbying influenced the number of people who had to make the ultimate decisions.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 4:16 PM on July 1, 2005
True, but I don't think the mideast market for ethanol (it happened to be a good example for the wrong reasons) is very big given that the mideast is sitting on oil. In fact, I'd be suprised if there was any ethanol at all sold in the mideast.
Furthermore, I'm not saying war is simply a handout from governments to private business. I'm saying that with multiple reasons for going to war, it's only natural that companies who stand to profit in the billions will be pushing for it, especially when many of these companies are already very powerful and influential.
True, but I suspect that the power of the traditional military players has declined significantly since the end of the cold war. See, eg, how Martin Marietta, Northrop, Grumman, and Lockheed all merged to form Lockheed Martin. The mergers were due largely to the decline of the industry as defense spending shifted after the cold war.
On the other hand, ADM and the farmer's lobbies are quite powerful. We still have ridiculous agricultural subsidies (see, it does all relate) for a reason. We still look at ethanol as the solution rather than biodiesel because ADM has its sugary fingers all over the ethanol business. etc.
With public support for the war high, and support inside the whitehouse even higher, would industries not directly benefitted by the conflict dare speak out against it? The subsidies and pork question kind of answers itself, because we already have massive amounts of spending in those areas! And again it goes back to momentum in a democracy-- if the 9/11 terrorists had attacked a giant corn syrup factory, even if it was unnecessary I think you'd see massive support for even larger subsidies for that industry.
No, of course a company benefitted by the war would not speak out against it. But industries that are hurt (airlines, shipping, tourism, etc) by a war I'm sure did lobby against it.
I agree that there is a huge amount of pork in the (for example) ethanol industry already, but that doesn't mean there isn't room for more! In fact, the current largess funds lobbying for more, and I don't doubt that ADM (for example) spends giants amounts of money lobbying for still more. I'm sure they'd be much happier with $10 billion than $5, $20 than $10, etc etc etc. I don't think there's any amount of pork that would satiate ADM.
In short, I agree that there probably was lobbying by many firms in favor of and against the war, but I disagree as to what extent that lobbying influenced the number of people who had to make the ultimate decisions.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 4:16 PM on July 1, 2005
Heh.
That's what I thought.
You've got nothin'.
I think you just proved my point for me.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 4:17 PM on July 1, 2005
That's what I thought.
You've got nothin'.
I think you just proved my point for me.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 4:17 PM on July 1, 2005
Thanks, chaz and thedevildancedlightly, for turning a trainwreck into a thoughtful and interesting thread.
posted by event at 5:01 PM on July 1, 2005
posted by event at 5:01 PM on July 1, 2005
Mr J Run interrupted my post yesterday so I offed to bed.
Tddl - By Mallorca I mean exactly that. The principal island in the autonomous province of Baleares where I have had the pleasure of living on and off for the last 25 years.
The Spanish goverment has withdrawn its forces from Iraq.
Spain has ratified Kyoto in Feb 2002
Spain has approved gay unions.
The Spanish and European social education and medical program is far in advance of US models. Spain looks after its own in many ways.
Spain is also indirectly responsible for the the largest minority in the USA - the latino community - without which there would be no fruit or vegetables, nor waiters nor gardners in S. California.
Europe subsidises agriculture heavily. So does USA which is 3rd in world rankings of agricultural subsidies after Europe and Japan. At least Europe is discussing the problem.
I do not agree with agriculture subsidies nor the greed of the corporate lobby system. However America holds itself up as the leader of the free world. Most of the free world has seen through the smokescreen and sees the bully for what it is.
We love your tourists; come here, spend your money - its expensive, go home.
Today’s Guardian once again talks about US intransigence; and this is probably the main problem – does the USA as a country and therefore by implication its citizens wish things to improve for the have nots or will it become further isolated.
posted by adamvasco at 6:56 AM on July 2, 2005
Tddl - By Mallorca I mean exactly that. The principal island in the autonomous province of Baleares where I have had the pleasure of living on and off for the last 25 years.
The Spanish goverment has withdrawn its forces from Iraq.
Spain has ratified Kyoto in Feb 2002
Spain has approved gay unions.
The Spanish and European social education and medical program is far in advance of US models. Spain looks after its own in many ways.
Spain is also indirectly responsible for the the largest minority in the USA - the latino community - without which there would be no fruit or vegetables, nor waiters nor gardners in S. California.
Europe subsidises agriculture heavily. So does USA which is 3rd in world rankings of agricultural subsidies after Europe and Japan. At least Europe is discussing the problem.
I do not agree with agriculture subsidies nor the greed of the corporate lobby system. However America holds itself up as the leader of the free world. Most of the free world has seen through the smokescreen and sees the bully for what it is.
We love your tourists; come here, spend your money - its expensive, go home.
Today’s Guardian once again talks about US intransigence; and this is probably the main problem – does the USA as a country and therefore by implication its citizens wish things to improve for the have nots or will it become further isolated.
posted by adamvasco at 6:56 AM on July 2, 2005
Good info....
posted by fluffycreature at 6:09 AM on July 3, 2005
posted by fluffycreature at 6:09 AM on July 3, 2005
« Older Flash Biking Games | FFFFFF! Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Try to be more considerate of our corrupt, America-raping far extremist neoconservative overlords.
Why do liberals hate a small minority of Americans, who only want to rob the middle class and trade our international good name for pennies on the Franklin? Huh? Why does 51% of the country have this irrational desire to promote the virtues and ideals of the founding fathers? Damn realistic, honest, patriotic liberals.
WWJD (Who Would Jesus Deceive) ?
F#&%ing conservative media.
posted by modernerd at 10:47 AM on July 1, 2005