# Who are the major beneficiaries of the Iraq struggle

• News
Who are the major beneficiaries of the Iraq "struggle"

Since France lost out on $650 billion worth of business with Iraq due to the US invasion and occupation. I would like to know who stands to benefit now? I will start with the easy one. Haliburton$10.8 billion a of 12/9/2004

http://www.truthout.org/mm_01/5.120904A-1.pdf [Broken]

Last edited by a moderator:

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Skyhunter said:
I would like to know who stands to benefit now?

I think this one is easy: OBL !

TRCSF
You're both right. The only people gaining anything are war profiteers and terrorists.

The major beneficiaries? Capitalists, of course. The losers? All the rest of us. Cheers:-)

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
alexandra said:
The major beneficiaries? Capitalists, of course.

That was maybe the IDEA in the beginning, but I think it turned sour, no ? Except for some US companies getting US public money, who's getting something OUT of this (predictable) disaster as "value creation" ??

vanesch said:
That was maybe the IDEA in the beginning, but I think it turned sour, no ? Except for some US companies getting US public money, who's getting something OUT of this (predictable) disaster as "value creation" ??
Don't know, vanesch. Enlighten me (I'm now drunk - have been for weeks!)

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
I would think that whoever comes to power in Iraq stands to benefit. Depending on who those people are, the Kurds probably stand to benefit. Colin Powell might not have resigned if not for the war, so Condi Rice probably benefited. Defense contractors benefit from every war, so that isn't exactly news.

And of course, if you believe the Army ads, the soldiers who return with valuable life experiences stand to benefit, as they can now get any job they want in the civilian sector.

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
alexandra said:
The major beneficiaries? Capitalists, of course. The losers? All the rest of us. Cheers:-)

It's interesting that you say that, since the contractors who have profited did so by receiving taxpayer money. A pure capitalist system wouldn't even have taxes, and it certainly wouldn't have publicly funded companies.

edward
He who will benifit the most will be he who eventually gets the oil.

loseyourname said:
It's interesting that you say that, since the contractors who have profited did so by receiving taxpayer money. A pure capitalist system wouldn't even have taxes, and it certainly wouldn't have publicly funded companies.
But loseyourname, this is one of the main points I try to make throughout most of my posts: this version of capitalism that exists is not pure (and it is difficult to see that a 'pure' capitalist system would ever be allowed to exist) - the fact is, capitalist ideology and capitalist practice are two very different things. Because in practice the economic/political system is set up to serve the interests of the already-rich and powerful, public moneys will always be used to subsidise the profits of these people. Do you see any moves towards the 'pure capitalism' you speak of?

Gold Member
alexandra said:
But loseyourname, this is one of the main points I try to make throughout most of my posts: this version of capitalism that exists is not pure (and it is difficult to see that a 'pure' capitalist system would ever be allowed to exist) - the fact is, capitalist ideology and capitalist practice are two very different things. Because in practice the economic/political system is set up to serve the interests of the already-rich and powerful, public moneys will always be used to subsidise the profits of these people. Do you see any moves towards the 'pure capitalism' you speak of?

How many companies in the US are publicly funded? I don't personally know of any nationalized companies in the US but i might be wrong. I know companies exist that are subsidized... but there usually subsidized because the companies can't exist without them (airliners for example).

Note: Therse a huge difference between funded and employed by.

loseyourname said:
I would think that whoever comes to power in Iraq stands to benefit. Depending on who those people are, the Kurds probably stand to benefit. Colin Powell might not have resigned if not for the war, so Condi Rice probably benefited. Defense contractors benefit from every war, so that isn't exactly news.

And of course, if you believe the Army ads, the soldiers who return with valuable life experiences stand to benefit, as they can now get any job they want in the civilian sector.
I agree with the ideas you express in your first paragraph (the most important being that whoever is favoured as being an acceptable local ruling elite in Iraq will benefit). I'd add to your list that construction companies would also benefit (a great way to keep the economy turning: destroy infrastructure so that money can go into the coffers of companies that 'rebuild' it - ah, clever ol' capitalism).

I think your second paragraph was a touch cynical? I dread to imagine the lives of the soldiers who return to the US maimed. The other night I made myself watch the DVD "Born on the Fourth of July" - it gives a good personal viewpoint of how it feels to survive such wars but then have to live the rest of one's life in a wheelchair. For those who have not yet seen the movie, I would highly recommend it given the current state of affairs and the fact that many soldiers are now returning 'damaged' in various ways.

Pengwuino said:
How many companies in the US are publicly funded? I don't personally know of any nationalized companies in the US but i might be wrong. I know companies exist that are subsidized... but there usually subsidized because the companies can't exist without them (airliners for example).

Note: Therse a huge difference between funded and employed by.
I don't know about the number of companies in the US that are publicly funded, Pengwuino. But I do know that there is much indirect funding of privately-owned companies - especially when you are looking at a company like Halliburton, whose Iraqi profits come entirely as a result of the Iraq conflict. The Iraq conflict (and thus, indirectly, Halliburton's profits) was subsidised by your taxes.

Gold Member
alexandra said:
I don't know about the number of companies in the US that are publicly funded, Pengwuino. But I do know that there is much indirect funding of privately-owned companies - especially when you are looking at a company like Halliburton, whose Iraqi profits come entirely as a result of the Iraq conflict. The Iraq conflict (and thus, indirectly, Halliburton's profits) was subsidised by your taxes.

Like I said, theres a huge difference between a contract and a subsidy. I honestly dont care that Halliburton is making a profit. Someone HAD to make a profit. Someone had to do the job. Hell, with most public works projects in modern world history, some company had to have made a profit in one way or another because they were either suppliers or contracted workers. The real things we are suppose to logically worry about is companies who are subsidized (that is, given money with nothing expected in return) that make large profits. I can personally only think of the airline industries because they are just naturally an unprofitable enterprise. The only reason they are subsidized is because if airline travel stopped, it'd collapse the economy.

As you said, the real world economies are not pure capitalism and no one really wants them to be pure capitalism. As I pointed out, one reason is because some vital industries just cannot compete in a pure market economy. For example, solar power companies. They just cannot compete in the market on their own, no way, no how (yet). They have to survive off government subsidies. This allows us to benefit from solar energy where it otherwise would fall victim to a market economy.

A google search result: "The Center for Public Integrity: Investigative Journalism in the Public Interest" website: http://www.public-i.org/wow/

It has just the information we need to answer some of the questions raised in this thread. Have a look at the webpage showing all the contractors operating in Iraq: http://www.public-i.org/wow/bio.aspx?act=pro&fil=IQ . It shows the name of the contractors, the value of the contracts, and the government agency subcontracting it. You can also click on each company's name to find out more details about the individual companies. Whew - heaps of information there...

One example (it drew my attention because of the 5.2 billion dollar value) is Parsons Corp.

Last edited by a moderator:
Gold Member
Ok no, you really do not understand this...

Theres a difference between a CONTRACT and a SUBSIDY. If a government is going to do/build something, they will more then likely hire a company to do it. They give contracts out to build things. If the government wants a new court house, they hire some company like Bell Tec (Forget how its spelled). If they want a new FBI building, they hire a company. If you want to build a sewage system in Iraq, they hire a company. Someone is going to profit because someone has to do the work around there. Its very very simple.

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Pengwuino said:
If you want to build a sewage system in Iraq, they hire a company. Someone is going to profit because someone has to do the work around there. Its very very simple.

Yes but here the system was different you see. In a slightly simplified version, Bush wanted to give a lot of money to Halliburton. Because he couldn't apparently just decide to give it for free, he had to go and _destroy_ a country, just to be able to write out a contract to rebuild it and give it to Halliburton. It would have been cheaper for everyone if he just GAVE the money to them ; a country wouldn't have to get bombed over it, soldiers wouldn't have to be sent and die. So why couldn't he just write out a contract to Halliburton to reconstruct, I don't know, the country of Ariq on a planet of Betelgeuse. Would have been much cheaper for everybody...

The Smoking Man
vanesch said:
Yes but here the system was different you see. In a slightly simplified version, Bush wanted to give a lot of money to Halliburton. Because he couldn't apparently just decide to give it for free, he had to go and _destroy_ a country, just to be able to write out a contract to rebuild it and give it to Halliburton. It would have been cheaper for everyone if he just GAVE the money to them ; a country wouldn't have to get bombed over it, soldiers wouldn't have to be sent and die. So why couldn't he just write out a contract to Halliburton to reconstruct, I don't know, the country of Ariq on a planet of Betelgeuse. Would have been much cheaper for everybody...
Oh, come now. They would have billed you for an improbability drive too and you know it.

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
The Smoking Man said:
Oh, come now. They would have billed you for an improbability drive too and you know it.

True but that could be an important asset for future presidential elections :tongue2:

Gold Member
vanesch said:
Yes but here the system was different you see. In a slightly simplified version, Bush wanted to give a lot of money to Halliburton. Because he couldn't apparently just decide to give it for free, he had to go and _destroy_ a country, just to be able to write out a contract to rebuild it and give it to Halliburton. It would have been cheaper for everyone if he just GAVE the money to them ; a country wouldn't have to get bombed over it, soldiers wouldn't have to be sent and die. So why couldn't he just write out a contract to Halliburton to reconstruct, I don't know, the country of Ariq on a planet of Betelgeuse. Would have been much cheaper for everybody...

Well now your tredding on un-proven conspiracy theories. Halliburton has done many major contracts for the US government before and other companies recieved larger contracts in Iraq. This conspiracy theory has been thoroughly de-bunked. Searched the forums, im way too pissed right now to start this crap up again (My car's starter just failed I think).

ray b
edward said:
He who will benifit the most will be he who eventually gets the oil.

judgeing by current oil prices,
that are the result of IRAQ's oil being keap off the market
resulting in shortages and current spike in gas pump prices
I would say the OIL CORPs are by far the biggest winners in this war
:grumpy:
along with the other oil producing countrys

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
alexandra said:
I'd add to your list that construction companies would also benefit (a great way to keep the economy turning: destroy infrastructure so that money can go into the coffers of companies that 'rebuild' it - ah, clever ol' capitalism).

It's the same principle in operation with the planned obsolescence of most consumer goods.

I think your second paragraph was a touch cynical?

Sardonic is the word. I laugh at life; I do not loath it.

I dread to imagine the lives of the soldiers who return to the US maimed. The other night I made myself watch the DVD "Born on the Fourth of July" - it gives a good personal viewpoint of how it feels to survive such wars but then have to live the rest of one's life in a wheelchair.

It wasn't as good as Platoon. I've never seen Heaven and Earth.

Mentor
The oppressed people of Iraq.

The Smoking Man
russ_watters said:
The oppressed people of Iraq.
Any time-frame on delivery?

Gold Member
The Smoking Man said:
Any time-frame on delivery?

When was the UN planning on delivering it?

Oh right, they weren't.

Dayle Record
This is an article from the NY Times, about B. Greenhouse, who is barely holding on to her contract negotiation job, with the government, after criticizing the no-bid contracts given to Halliburton, and KB&R. Attempts have been made to demote her after her testimony before congress, her 20 year performance was just fine, until she complained about preferential, in fact illegal bid proceedings, that I know resulted in the gouging of the American taxpayer.

This is is one entity that has made huge profits on the Iraq war.

The Smoking Man
Pengwuino said:
When was the UN planning on delivering it?

Oh right, they weren't.
So Pengwuino, have you read the Charter of the UN?

You are aware that they are an organization created in part by the USA for the need for wars aren't you? So what was it you expected an organization created specifically to keep the peace in the world to do?

Now as far as your claim to wanting to deliver freedom to the people of Iraq, what does any of this have to do with the reasons given to the UN or to your own Congress to authorize the special circumstances for invading an independent nation.

It was never the intent of the USA to 'deliver this' to the people of Iraq.

It certainly has not been the result.

Last edited:
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
The Smoking Man said:
Any time-frame on delivery?

Wrong address, wrong pizza, and the pizza is cold.

The Smoking Man
vanesch said:
Wrong address, wrong pizza, and the pizza is cold.
Thank GOD for 30 minutes or free.

Gold Member
Dayle Record said:
This is an article from the NY Times, about B. Greenhouse, who is barely holding on to her contract negotiation job, with the government, after criticizing the no-bid contracts given to Halliburton, and KB&R. Attempts have been made to demote her after her testimony before congress, her 20 year performance was just fine, until she complained about preferential, in fact illegal bid proceedings, that I know resulted in the gouging of the American taxpayer.

This is is one entity that has made huge profits on the Iraq war.

And oddly enough... when Clinton did the exact same thing in the Balkins... no one said a word. Hmm... interesting.... :uhh: :uhh:

Gold Member
The Smoking Man said:
Now as far as your claim to wanting to deliver freedom to the people of Iraq, what does any of this have to do with the reasons given to the UN or to your own Congress to authorize the special circumstances for invading an independent nation.

It was never the intent of the USA to 'deliver this' to the people of Iraq.

It certainly has not been the result.

Hmm, a mad man running a dictatorship bent on regional domination while surpressing all political dissent in his country... sounds like something we might have said (or the Democrats might have said... but back when Clinton was around that is). It was surely the intent simply because they said it was the intent. You are not a mind reader, you cannot say what is going through the mind of US officials. Your claim is as baseless as mine except that my basis has an ounce of authority and proof to it while yours is simple opinion.

And maybe if you stopped reading the NY and LA times and started reading about what people who actually are in the country are saying, maybe (doubt it) would have a different opinion. It has already been proven that the country of Iraq is doing far better then it was under Saddam's regime. There are also no more innocent women and children being dragged out of their houses and raped and murdered by governemtn officials (although I'm sure you've never heard of such things!). But then again, I suppose as long as you have no idea what Iraq was like before the war and think that "good" is defined as the quality of government and life of a major western nations that have been under democracies for many centuries, it doesn't seem very good at all!

Gold Member
vanesch said:
Wrong address, wrong pizza, and the pizza is cold.

Coming from someone in France whose nation is historically known to arm terrorist nations and dictatorships....

The Smoking Man
Pengwuino said:
Hmm, a mad man running a dictatorship bent on regional domination while surpressing all political dissent in his country... sounds like something we might have said (or the Democrats might have said... but back when Clinton was around that is). It was surely the intent simply because they said it was the intent. You are not a mind reader, you cannot say what is going through the mind of US officials. Your claim is as baseless as mine except that my basis has an ounce of authority and proof to it while yours is simple opinion.

And maybe if you stopped reading the NY and LA times and started reading about what people who actually are in the country are saying, maybe (doubt it) would have a different opinion. It has already been proven that the country of Iraq is doing far better then it was under Saddam's regime. There are also no more innocent women and children being dragged out of their houses and raped and murdered by governemtn officials (although I'm sure you've never heard of such things!). But then again, I suppose as long as you have no idea what Iraq was like before the war and think that "good" is defined as the quality of government and life of a major western nations that have been under democracies for many centuries, it doesn't seem very good at all!
Well, maybe you should get into the Al Jazeera/Bin Laden mindset then.

It is a two way street.

Or are you content with the Bush view that 'Muslims don't like us because we are free' speech.

And if so, why are you trying to deliver freedon to muslims ... You KNOW they won't like it.

Oh, and maybe you missed it when I posted about having Fox news on when I write?

You see, that is the difference when it comes to me and you. I seem to be able, in this 'censored country', to watch the BBC, CNN, MSNBC, Al Jazeera, The Times etc. and I choose to do so so that I tend to get a balanced news report while you focus on things that give you confirmation of your position.

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Pengwuino said:
Coming from someone in France whose nation is historically known to arm terrorist nations and dictatorships....

Well, you guys also have a certain record in that business ;-) (Saddam, OBL,... 3/4 of Latin America, we're not going to dig that up, aren't we)

But the pizza you wanted to deliver to Iraq was "democracy and prosperity" ; first of all they didn't order it (a joker, Chalaby, placed the phone call), and when they opened the box it was in fact "disaster area, civil war and theocracy". It was to be delivered "between 6 weeks and 6 months" and it is still not there. I didn't find the analogy so bad :-)

and BTW, I'm not French.

Gold Member
They wont like freedom to muslims? Am I going to run into one of those "Muslims dont like freedom, they want to be told what to do" arguments again? I really got sick of those in another forum.

And haha, listing Al Jazera with the BBC and CNN makes me laugh :D But on a serious note, how exactly can you you think Al Jazeera is some sort of unbiased view? But of course, maybe israel is the cause of all evil. The important thing is not that you get a "balanced" report, but that you get a "factual" news report. When people lie and bring up conspiracy theories... its not really helpful to watch them as a news source. Sure you can say your "balanced", but what does that really mean? Naivety? The reason I dont listen to what say, the NY or LA times has to say is because they have already been shown to make up reports or use unreliable information. I personally would like to see my news from news sources that DONT make up their information or find someone who fits their bias.