News Who are the major beneficiaries of the Iraq struggle

[kat]

bleah, I'll edit my grammer and spelling tomorrow. g'night.

 

[vanesch]

I certainly don't agree..that "equally bad things happen" and I'm not sure that you can support statement in any manner except abstractly.

Ok, we agree here: things happening now are way worse than before :-)

I think..that to a great extent it matters who your average Iraqi is, and where they live. Some are certainly benefitting, whereas others are not. I'd like to see greater discussion on this instead of abstract thoughts without valid evidence to support them. Solid numbers...not derived from sites who's research in questionable.

Very difficult to do. It's a country which hasn't even a gouvernment with a constitution, there's fighting all over the place, you can be kidnapped at any moment, if you want to enroll for the police force, chances are you'll be blown apart and there are foreign armies running around. How are you going to have objective numbers on a number of "quality of life" parameters in these circumstances ?

However, you are not going to claim that the situation is less chaotic than it was before your invasion and that this chaos is now on the way of its third year. For your information, WWII lasted for 5 years. You're half way and the end isn't in sight. But if there is anything at the end of the tunnel, it will surely look like a theocracy, or a civil war, style ex Yougouslavia.
Also, purely macroeconomic numbers shouldn't tell you much, because 1) the sanctions being lifted, the flow of money will of course increase, and 2) there's a dark network of public money from the US and others flowing around, which will show up in these numbers, but which are not a measure of the average way of life of the Iraqis. Clearly the average security has seriously diminished for your average Iraqi. I'm claiming that within such a war situation, it is hard to have a "better" life which will compensate that lack of security.

Then..why doesn't the left step up to bat and start thinking about helping Iraqs instead of spouting useless rhetoric that isn't helping them at all?

Contrarily to what you may think, I'm not "the left". I think for the moment I'm much closer to what the Democrats seem to think (a bit late) than the Republicans, but I have no specific political color or affiliation with any political party. Where I live I have no voting right. So I'm not an agent spouting a party's propaganda.

I'm not proposing to help the Iraqis. In fact, I don't care much. The only point I'm making is that saying that your little war over there HELPED the Iraqis is bulls**t. It wasn't the main initial motivation, it was clearly (from the start) not going to work, and now it turns out that it doesn't work.

How about constructive demands on what needs to be done in iraq to make change. Please..if you're comment is "get out" then I'm calling you concern BS.

You got the world into this, now you clean it up. From before the war, *I DON'T CARE ABOUT THE IRAQIS*. I do not specifically want them to suffer, and if they'd need some help, I would be willing to do so, but I have no special intensions to take initiative for them. It was their country, it was up to them to do something, or not. Everybody their own problems.
However, when a snake oil salesman comes to tell me that we should all join him in going to bomb them for their own good, I'm claiming that that's a liar or an idiot or both. Claiming, after the fact, that it DID help them is even more snake oil.

I still believe life can be better for Iraqi's, in fact I believe life can be better throughout the middle east.

I also think that. And I think it is up to them to sort that out for themselves. Now, if for some things, they need a bit of help and ask for it, I think we should consider giving that, but that's all.

 

[alexandra]

... when this is all said and done, only the names in Iraq will have changed. With the possible exception that Bush has already started WWIII and we just don't know it yet, which admittedly would change more than just the names, I stand by that prediction...

Yep, Ivan - exactly as I see it. I'm not sure about WWIII, though (surely not! As Einstein predicted, after that all wars would be fought with sticks and stones? Surely *everyone* knows that - even those who exercise their immense power so very recklessly?). My prediction is more that there will be constant smaller-scale (but still devastating) regional conflicts all over the world... sort of like Orwell's '1984' scenario.

alex

 

[Burnsys]

Boeing's Profits Skyrocket, Outlook Raised
Wednesday, October 27, 2004
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,136770,00.html
"Our Integrated Defense Systems business again delivered strong revenue growth and outstanding profitability, and made significant progress on key programs," said CEO Harry Stonecipher

Lockheed profits take off
Friday, 25 October, 2002, 14:20 GMT 15:20 UK
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2361539.stm
"US defence giant Lockheed Martin has turned in sharply higher profits, crediting strong sales of fighter jet equipment. "

Profits up at Northrop Grumman
January 28, 2003
http://www.bizjournals.com/baltimore/stories/2003/01/27/daily10.html
"Together with the former TRW defense businesses, which completed one of their most impressive years ever, we are well positioned to benefit from increasing defense budgets and homeland security initiatives," Kresa said
---------------------------------------------------

As the Carlyle investors watched the World Trade towers go down, the group's prospects went up. In running what its own marketing literature spookily calls "a vast, interlocking, global network of businesses and investment professionals" that operates within the so-called iron triangle of industry, government, and the military, the Carlyle Group leaves itself open to any number of conflicts of interest and stunning ironies. For example, it is hard to ignore the fact that Osama bin Laden's family members, who renounced their son ten years ago, stood to gain financially from the war being waged against him until late October, when public criticism of the relationship forced them to liquidate their holdings in the firm. Or consider that U.S. president George W. Bush is in a position to make budgetary decisions that could pad his father's bank account. But for the Carlyle Group, walking that narrow line is the art of doing business at the murky intersection of Washington politics, national security, and private capital; mastering it has enabled the group to amass $12 billion in funds under management.

 

[vanesch]

Boeing's Profits Skyrocket, Outlook Raised

Lockheed profits take off

Profits up at Northrop Grumman

As the Carlyle investors.

Sure. However, the question is: did they profit from anything else than US taxpayer's money ? Did they get anything out of the war itself that they wouldn't have gotten if they simply RECEIVED the money from Washington in an enveloppe ?
What I mean is: was there value creation in Iraq for them, or was this just a spending channel of the US administration ?

EDIT: to formulate it more clearly (and a bit cynically):
If this was the desired effect of the war, couldn't the same effect be obtained by just GIVING the money to these companies, and take the stuff they care to produce for it and grind it to small pieces ?

 

[BobG]

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 don't 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.

What would make you consider Al Jazeera a biased view?

Being listed with the BBC is particularly appropriate, since most of the staff of Al Jazeera started out as "BBC Arabic Television". Unfortunately, part of the funding for the BBC's Arabic network was provided by Saudi Arabia and they became unwilling to fund a network that often criticized Saudi government (a documentary on Saudi executions proved the final straw).

Fortunately for Middle East viewers, the core of people who made up BBC Arabic Television received funding from Qatr's emir and other more moderate governments that believed an uncensored media would provide more long term benefits than short term disadvantages. When Al Jazeera was started in 1996, it was the only Arabic television station that could dare to stand up to non-democratic governments in Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, and others (including criticism of the Emir of Qatr, although arguably milder than other Middle Eastern governments - at least argued in frustration by other Middle Eastern governments that would like to see Al Jazeera shut down completely).

I'm not sure of the wisdom of airing Bin Laden's tapes, but there's a reason Al Jazeera was chosen as the station to release the tapes to. It was the only non-government, uncensored station that could provide 'anti-establishment' messages to the audience Al-Qaeda was seeking - just as CNN was one of the only networks that would provide Hussein a link to an American audience (interview with Peter Arnett, Persian Gulf War I) and just as the BBC and Reuters used to provide the IRA a conduit to its audience (IRA messages claiming responsibility for various bombings). All are the disadvantages of a free press that go with the greater good of having a free press in the first place.

Here's wikipedia's article on Al Jazeera, as well.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Don't know. But what does that matter for the victims ?

It means no more victims. How can you be so dense?

 

[vanesch]

It means no more victims. How can you be so dense?

No more victims by those people. And by others ? Terrorists for instance (who weren't doing there thing before in Iraq) ? Local warlords ? Ethnic cleansing that will follow once the civil war will be at full speed between the Kurds, the Sunnites and the Shiites ?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

No more victims by those people. And by others ? Terrorists for instance (who weren't doing there thing before in Iraq) ? Local warlords ? Ethnic cleansing that will follow once the civil war will be at full speed between the Kurds, the Sunnites and the Shiites ?

This is mostly conjecture. And there wasn't a whole lot of terrorist activity in Iraq under Saddam because he imprisoned, tortured, and/or executed all dissidents.
My real point was though that the incidents in Abu Ghraib by American soldiers do not show that things are worse in Iraq. We could technically say that conditions in Abu Ghraib are actually better then they were under Saddam. I don't want to give those [particular] soldiers any sort of credit though.

 

[vanesch]

This is mostly conjecture. And there wasn't a whole lot of terrorist activity in Iraq under Saddam because he imprisoned, tortured, and/or executed all dissidents.

The part on the civil war is still conjecture (give it a year or two more...). But the other part is not. If you didn't get involved in criticising Saddam, you could lead a relatively quiet life and you could walk over the street without having fear of being kidnapped or shot or blown apart. Hell, if you were ambitious you joined the Baath party and things even got better for you. Now, no matter how slimy and low you are willing to become, you're in danger everywhere in Iraq.

My real point was though that the incidents in Abu Ghraib by American soldiers do not show that things are worse in Iraq. We could technically say that conditions in Abu Ghraib are actually better then they were under Saddam. I don't want to give those [particular] soldiers any sort of credit though.

Yes, that's probably technically true. I just spouted some rethoric to counter the other rethoric of officials of Saddam dragging out women and children and raping them. I'm sure it happened. But how systematically ?

I really think that, if we had gotten rid of the sanctions, and slowly let Iraq play a role again, things would have softened. Exactly like in Lybia. And without creating a hornet's nest of terrorists and a big propaganda campaign for OBL. Given the fact that Iraq was already a secular regime, it was much easier to go from there to a more enlightened state than from the theocracy/civil war in the makings, and its "domino effect" would have been way more effective.

I really don't think that the Iraqi people are "beneficiaries" of the war. There was an infinitesimal chance (the one Bush was hoping for), just after the invasion: if they would have cheered at the US troops, that would have been great (and Chirac would have eaten his hat). But it was clear that that was not going to happen. They still have a second chance, by setting up an enlightened Constitution. I think it is not going to happen either. So they are now in a quantum state which is a superposition of Iran and Yougouslavia.

 

[Skyhunter]

Like I said, there's a huge difference between a contract and a subsidy. I honestly don't care that Halliburton is making a profit. Someone HAD to make a profit. Someone had to do the job.

Why do they have to make a profit?

Why don't they sacrifice their profit for the greater good in support of the war?

Our soldiers are sacrificing their lives.

Couldn't Halliburton sacrifice their profit?

 

[Skyhunter]

The oppressed people of Iraq.

What was all this talk about facts.

 

[Skyhunter]

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

You're kidding right?

 

[Skyhunter]

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!

Where is your ounce of proof and authority?

If they are so much better off now, why has the death rate in Iraq increased by 100,000 a year?

 

[Skyhunter]

Iran seems to be happy with the way the Iraq "struggle" is going.

August 30, 2005

THE MOST telling reaction to the draft Iraqi constitution has come not from Crawford, Texas, but from Tehran. There, the head of Iran's Guardian Council hailed the document. ''After years of struggle," Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati said, ''an Islamic state has come to power." That is a more accurate description of the potential of the document than President Bush provided Sunday in praising its ''far-reaching protections for human freedoms." As much as the Bush administration wants the Iraqi people to adopt a constitution and take over the fight against the insurgents, US officials must have misgivings about a document that Iran welcomes.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2005/08/30/unsettled_in_iraq/

 

[2CentsWorth]

...I can personally only think of the airline industries because they are just naturally an unprofitable enterprise.

It is obvious you are not majoring in economics.

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

Oh ye with short memory, this was discussed and evidence was provided that showed Halliburton to be unethical, if by no other fact than the fines they've had to pay. Debunked conspiracy my arse (the failed starter was a message from God).

Hmm, a mad man running a dictatorship bent on regional domination while surpressing all political dissent in his country... sounds like!

Bush?

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!

Your claims have authority and proof? It would be nice to see you read at all, and quit regurgitating what people "in the country are saying," because their opinions are just as uninformed.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Hmm, a mad man running a dictatorship bent on regional domination while surpressing all political dissent in his country... sounds like!

Bush?

Sorry but I don't see Sheehan and the like rotting in concentartion camps waiting to be executed.

 

[Skyhunter]

Sorry but I don't see Sheehan and the like rotting in concentartion camps waiting to be executed.

No, just thrown out of tax payer financed town hall meetings for having the wrong bumper sticker.

Having to sign an oath of loyalty in order to join in a discussion about your social security.

No concentration camps yet, but hell he just got started, at least give him enough time to declare marshall law first.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

No, just thrown out of tax payer financed town hall meetings for having the wrong bumper sticker.

Yeah I suppose the fed must have passed around a memo to town halls saying they shouldn't let Sheehan in.

 

[Skyhunter]

Yeah I suppose the fed must have passed around a memo to town halls saying they shouldn't let Sheehan in.

I wasn't talking about Cindy but I understand your confusion.

DENVER (AP) - The Secret Service says it is investigating the claims of three people who claim they were removed from President Bush's town hall meeting on Social Security last week after being singled out because of a bumper sticker on their car.

The three said they had obtained tickets through the office of Rep. Bob Beauprez, R-Colo., had passed through security and were preparing to take their seats when they were approached by what they thought was a Secret Service agent who asked them to leave.

One woman, Karen Bauer, 38, a marketing coordinator from Denver, said Monday the agent put his hand on her elbow and steered her away from her seat and toward an exit.

"The Secret Service had nothing to do with that," said Lon Garner, special agent in charge of the Secret Service office in Denver. "We are very sensitive to the First Amendment and general assembly rights as protected by the Constitution."

The three who were removed, along with their attorney, Dan Recht, met with Garner on Monday. Recht said he may file a lawsuit based on the group's alleged violation of their First Amendment rights.

Garner said the group appeared confused as to who asked them to leave and declined to release further details, citing an ongoing investigation

It wasn't the SS, but it is illegal to impersonate a SS agent, however no charges were filed. I think there is a civil case right now.

 

[Skyhunter]

Here are some others who have little to complain about with the war.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/08/30/business/pay.php