Praise Allah!

March 30, 2003 2:50 PM

Before 9/11, Before War on .... there was serious concern that Halliburton would be forced into bankruptcy / The company -- and Cheney's million-dollar paychecks -- were saved. Praise Allah! Never in American history has a group of government leaders profited so directly from war -- never. Like their brothers-in-arms, Saddam's Baathists, the Bushists treat their own country like a sacked town, looting the treasury for their family retainers and turning public policy to private gain. Like Saddam, they feed on fear and glorify aggression. Like Saddam, they have dishonored their nation and betrayed its people. But the money sure is good, eh, Dick?
posted by bureaustyle (26 comments total)

Praise pseudo-clever posters!
posted by ParisParamus at 2:52 PM on March 30, 2003

Paramus: you forgot the "nothing to see here, move along." part.
posted by Space Coyote at 3:04 PM on March 30, 2003

It's nice too see Metafilter becoming the one place where the anti war conspiracy theorists can call home.

Metafilter - aiming to be to the Gulf War what Slashdot is to Microsoft.
posted by soulhuntre at 3:32 PM on March 30, 2003

Never in MetaFilter history has a poster had such an agenda -- never.
posted by xmutex at 3:35 PM on March 30, 2003

It's fun to see which American Companies the US government gives contracts to, paid for by American tax dollars, that are harbored off shore. Off shore, so that they will not pay American taxes. Because, these Republican leaders of the business community are true patriots.

Quite a few.
posted by four panels at 3:43 PM on March 30, 2003

While hysterical (one can almost hear the heavy breathing of the author at work) doesn't this screed display what our former allies think of the Bush administration. One of our diplomatic problems is the unchecked contempt with which foreign government view the current occupants of the Whitehouse. Readers in Moscow are looking at that article and nodding their heads.

Why do people feel this way about the Bush Whitehouse? I'd say that in spirit, the article is fairly accurate. W talks of democracy, yet wasn't really elected to office. W talks of opening markets, yet restricts trade not for the benefit of the US or global economy, but for his own business interests. W talks of diplomacy and peace, but fights a unilateral war of shadowy and shifting goals.

That said, (I don't care if some web-based language Fascist no longer feels 'that said' is appropriate) this post doesn't belong on the front page. I bother to comment only out of frustration at my country and it's sitting government.

Flame out, yo.
posted by elwoodwiles at 3:51 PM on March 30, 2003

Interesting how Halliburton is no longer in the running for a contract to rebuild post-war Iraq.
posted by Hankins at 3:53 PM on March 30, 2003

Interesting how Halliburton is no longer in the running for a contract to rebuild post-war Iraq.

Yes, but is is still open to sub-contracting.

Kind of like how Richard Perle resigned as Chairman of the Defense Policy Board, yet is still retained as a sitting member.
posted by four panels at 4:00 PM on March 30, 2003

Did it not cross your mind to phrase that in a less inflammatory way, bureaustyle? Then again, the article is just as colourful.
Not that I can talk.
It has been suggested that current US government behaviour, fighting wars for natural resources (OK, and other things) with friends and business associates profiteering, is somewhat like the behaviour of certain African states in the past. Some of which haven't ended up very nice places to live, but in their case the combat ison their home turf. And the US does have some other substantial revenue streams. You've got to look at the whole pie.
/ David Brent
posted by asok at 4:00 PM on March 30, 2003

And lastly, at the mention of government contracts awarded without bids, I'd like to throw the Teapot Dome scandal into the hat.
posted by four panels at 4:12 PM on March 30, 2003

Before the first cruise missile crushed the first skull of the first child killed in the first installment of George W. Bush's crusade for world dominion...

That's when I stopped reading the article. It's the first sentence.

Shit post, by the way.
posted by Karl at 4:17 PM on March 30, 2003

Never in MetaFilter American history has a poster an unelected cabal of oil tycoons and religious obsessives had such an agenda -- never.
posted by quonsar at 4:30 PM on March 30, 2003

I don't like Dick Cheney.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:36 PM on March 30, 2003

why is this a conspiracy theory? the wording of the post is shit, but to point out that someone is making money off a war and that they also made decisions about whether or not to have that war, as well as how and when is not a "conspirarcy theory". those are two independent observations, and are both evidenced. thus, they can either be true statements or false statements. in this case, they are true.

1. a few people wanted to fight a war in 1998
2. now a lot of them are in the administration
3. after 9/11 congress no longer has to delcare war
4. the people mentioned in #1 are all making money off the war.


all of the links are to primary source info, folks, no editorials or news stories there. clicking those links won't hurt you. does anyone understand that this is ideological war-profiteering and want to defend it, or are we going to continue to be subjected to the whining and pom-pom waving of people who refuse to inform themselves? those who spout off about "protecting freedom" ought to be advised of the fact that democracy brings with it an encumbent responsibility, upon the populace, to use their fucking noodles!
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 5:06 PM on March 30, 2003

I would not be surprised if Matt deletes this post, but...

...please, somebody tell me that this war is not about oil. Not at all? No one, no Americans, no American companies are going to make any amount of money from it?
posted by jaronson at 5:20 PM on March 30, 2003

jaronson: Are you using oil as a proxy for all American business interests? Otherwise your post is a non-sequiter. Either way its certainly a troll that adds +/- nil to the discussion, so thanks for that.
posted by billsaysthis at 5:32 PM on March 30, 2003

please, somebody tell me that this war is not about oil.

It's not "about oil".

Any more reductive theories about this otherwise highly complex, tragic situation in the Middle East?
posted by Karl at 5:45 PM on March 30, 2003

I'm sure I've asked this a million times already, but why exactly are we in this war?

Disarming Hussen? If he has WoMD, why isn't he using them?
Installing democracy in Iraq? Why don't we start with Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia?
Fighting terror? Didn't the 9/11 terrorist come from Saudi Arabia?
Fighting fundamentalist islam? Then why aren't we attacking Saudi Arabia?
Because he gassed the kurds? Wasn't that actually done by Iran? And why are we allied with Turkey, who's killed more kurds than anyone else?

Sorry to go on about this, but since this obviously isn't about oil, it must be about something else, right? Or are we in this mess because those marines sure could use a nice trip to the desert?
posted by spazzm at 6:07 PM on March 30, 2003

hear, hear ignatius.
posted by donkeyschlong at 6:41 PM on March 30, 2003

>Installing democracy in Iraq? Why don't we start with Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia?

How about Kuwait, the place America last liberated in it's war with Iraq.

There are scores of political prisoners in Kuwait, and prison conditions are often inhumane. There have been reports of torture and inhuman treatment of detainees, and some of those responsible have been prosecuted. Freedom of speech and the press is severely curtailed, and journalists have been sentenced to prison for criticizing the government or Islam. Most practice self-censorship. There is no freedom of assembly. The death penalty is applied.

Hmmm, so if America does for Iraq what they did for Kuwait, I guess Iraqis will shortly be calling for the return of Saddam using their new democratic powers?
posted by shepd at 6:56 PM on March 30, 2003

Any more reductive theories about this otherwise highly complex, tragic situation in the Middle East?

yeah, if you're against the war, then you are pro-saddam.

Iraqfilter

do you ever visit metatalk?
posted by mcsweetie at 7:21 PM on March 30, 2003

MetaTalk is where I learned about IraqFilter
posted by stbalbach at 8:05 PM on March 30, 2003

billsaythis:...Otherwise your post is a non-sequiter. Either way its certainly a troll that adds +/- nil to the discussion, so thanks for that.

Yes, I was talking about all American businesses and, by the way, can you point me in the direction of what you added to the discussion?

And Karl...never mind.
posted by jaronson at 8:18 PM on March 30, 2003

Halliburton is profiting off of the vice-president's position? Why I never would've guessed.

Okay, well I might have guessed when I purchased 1200 shares in July 2002, when I first became convinced that we were definitely going into Iraq, and Halliburton would somehow profit from it. Also, I might have guessed in January 2003, when I picked up another 500 shares on the theory that it would be shocking if Cheney allowed Halliburton to miss profit opportunities that might present themselves during and after the new invasion.

Other than that though, I never imagined that our government would engage in such duplicitous behaviors.

* In order to help reduce the chances that I'll go to hell for that particular bit of investing strategy, 50% of my net profits will be donated to charities that, in my opinion, make the world a better place to live.
posted by mosch at 8:26 PM on March 30, 2003

Mosch:
I'm shocked and awed by your business practices.
posted by spazzm at 2:41 AM on March 31, 2003

Then there was the legislation last June to "clean up corporate fraud" which removed the privilege of offshore companies from getting government contracts. That little codicle was quickly removed in December by the Homeland Security bill. Nothing shady going on there, eh?

And then there is the little matter of billions Halliburton will be paying out in asbestos litigation, but only if BushCo can't get the "tort reform" legislation passed first. Nothing to question intentions about there, huh?

[Defenders of All Things Duhbya putting hands over ears]
Naa Naa Naa Naa. I can't hear you! Naa Naa Naa Naa. Our Fearless and Perfect Leader Is Infallible! Naa Naa Naa Naa.
posted by nofundy at 5:07 AM on March 31, 2003