News Who are the major beneficiaries of the Iraq struggle

[Pengwuino]

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!

 

[Pengwuino]

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]

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.

 

[vanesch]

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.

 

[Pengwuino]

They won't like freedom to muslims? Am I going to run into one of those "Muslims don't 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 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.

 

[vanesch]

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!).

Hey, Saddam even had babies for breakfast I've heard

And considering raping of women and children, that's indeed finished. US marines prefer young men in prisons :-)

 

[Pengwuino]

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 :-)

Oh so I guess its inevitable that I'm going to have to argue that in fact, Muslim people do enjoy walking around without the fear of being shot by the government. I guess I need to read up on why muslims love being tortured and hate the idea of freedom adn doing what they want.

and BTW, I'm not French.

I only said you were from France

 

[Pengwuino]

Hey, Saddam even had babies for breakfast I've heard

And considering raping of women and children, that's indeed finished. US marines prefer young men in prisons :-)

Sure you want to call our Marines rapists?

 

[vanesch]

Sure you want to call our Marines rapists?

The pictures went around the globe!

 

[Pengwuino]

The pictures went around the globe!

Well let's see em. I live on Mars mind you.

 

[vanesch]

Oh so I guess its inevitable that I'm going to have to argue that in fact, Muslim people do enjoy walking around without the fear of being shot by the government. I guess I need to read up on why muslims love being tortured and hate the idea of freedom adn doing what they want.

No, but you can hardly argue that now you can "enjoy walking around in Iraq without the fear of being shot", can you ?
You will say: yes but it is not (often) the US troops who shoot. Doesn't matter. Chances are higher NOW to be shot, captured etc... to your average Iraqi than it was under Saddam. Doesn't matter where the bullets come from. So you DIDN'T bring him that peace of mind.

 

[vanesch]

Well let's see em. I live on Mars mind you.

Abu Graib tells you something ?

I know, I know, that's a low shot. But those Iraqi officials dragging out women and so on are on the same level.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Abu Graib tells you something ?

I know, I know, that's a low shot. But those Iraqi officials dragging out women and so on are on the same level.

These people were court marshalled and punished. What happened to the people who worked for Saddam?

 

[kat]

Abu Graib tells you something ?

Oh yes, of course it does..to any honest man or woman...it tells them that despite some problems that certainly need to be adressed and attended to..including assurance and initiatives taken to prevent these issues from occurring again...Conditions in Abu Graib have greatly improved since the Americans came along.

 

[TRCSF]

Oh yes, of course it does..to any honest man or woman...it tells them that despite some problems that certainly need to be adressed and attended to..including assurance and initiatives taken to prevent these issues from occurring again...Conditions in Abu Graib have greatly improved since the Americans came along.

What Abu Ghraib tells to any honest man or woman is that there are still torture chambers and rape rooms in Iraq and they're being run by the U.S. instead of Uday and Qusay.

The only assurances taken to make sure it won't happen again is a ban on digital cameras.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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

Aside from those who profit from the war financially, it seems to me that if anyone else benefits, it remains to be seen just who that may be. Two years ago I predicted that 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.


...and I'm not saying that Iraq couldn't be fixed, its just that our cowboy president and his posse of oil-persons [can't leave out Condi and her personally named oil tanker], have, as they might say down in Texas, screwed the pooch.

 

[kat]

What Abu Ghraib tells to any honest man or woman is that there are still torture chambers and rape rooms in Iraq and they're being run by the U.S. instead of Uday and Qusay.

The only assurances taken to make sure it won't happen again is a ban on digital cameras.

More talking points from the left..thanks for proving the propaganda is still alive and kicking!

 

[vanesch]

These people were court marshalled and punished. What happened to the people who worked for Saddam?

Don't know. But what does that matter for the victims ?
The point was: the "Iraqi people" were said to be the major beneficiaries of this conflict, and bad things under the Iraqi regime (which I do not defend, or deny) happened to them. Well, now, equally bad things happen to them. Whether those perpetrating them are "to be judged", "labeled terrorists" etc... doesn't matter: it HAPPENS. If my brother gets blown up when he's applying for the police force, if my sister's house gets bombed, if I don't have electicity, my cousin gets raped in a prison etc... then these bad things are happening to me. If this was the fault of a suicide bomber, a collateral damage, some necessary takeout of utilities, and some misbehaviour that will get punished, doesn't matter. It happened all right. So I AM NOT A BENEFICIARY ! Ok, intentions (or so I'm told) are much better now than they were before. But I'm absolutely not convinced that life got better for your average Iraqi.

If all that mattered are good intensions, then you could even claim that Saddam also had good intensions with his people, but only, he HAD to do nasty things, in order for him to stay in power and do good to his people on the long term. They say that the way to hell is paved with good intentions.
And concerning good intentions, it becomes more and more clear that the intentions DIDN'T HAVE MUCH TO DO WITH THE IRAQIS EITHER.

The only thing I still believe is that due to a total ignorance about politics in the ME, some people with their own agenda (business, personal gain, strategic interests, political manoeuvering etc...) were maybe convinced that as 1) good bogus reasons and 2) nice side effect, life would be nicer for Iraqis too.

 

[TRCSF]

More talking points from the left..thanks for proving the propaganda is still alive and kicking!

The photographs clearly show rape, torture, and murder.

If it were unsubstantiated rumors, you'd have a point. But since the photographs clearly show it you've got no point.

No, the only talking points are the ones saying that it was only a "frat prank," and that it was only a few "bad apples."

Like I said, to any honest man or woman that's crystal clear. If you think otherwise you're either dishonest or you're just fooling yourself.

 

[kat]

Don't know. But what does that matter for the victims ?
The point was: the "Iraqi people" were said to be the major beneficiaries of this conflict, and bad things under the Iraqi regime (which I do not defend, or deny) happened to them. Well, now, equally bad things happen to them. Whether those perpetrating them are "to be judged", "labeled terrorists" etc... doesn't matter: it HAPPENS.

Well...having victims at all...is regretable and..I believe that there are/were things that could be done to lessen bad things that happen. 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.

If my brother gets blown up when he's applying for the police force, if my sister's house gets bombed, if I don't have electicity, my cousin gets raped in a prison etc... then these bad things are happening to me. If this was the fault of a suicide bomber, a collateral damage, some necessary takeout of utilities, and some misbehaviour that will get punished, doesn't matter. It happened all right. So I AM NOT A BENEFICIARY ! Ok, intentions (or so I'm told) are much better now than they were before. But I'm absolutely not convinced that life got better for your average Iraqi.

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. Unfortunately I don't think it's possible to do as nobody want's to believe anything other then what they've set their minds to already here.

If all that mattered are good intensions, then you could even claim that Saddam also had good intensions with his people, but only, he HAD to do nasty things, in order for him to stay in power and do good to his people on the long term. They say that the way to hell is paved with good intentions.
And concerning good intentions, it becomes more and more clear that the intentions DIDN'T HAVE MUCH TO DO WITH THE IRAQIS EITHER.

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? 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.

The only thing I still believe is that due to a total ignorance about politics in the ME, some people with their own agenda (business, personal gain, strategic interests, political manoeuvering etc...) were maybe convinced that as 1) good bogus reasons and 2) nice side effect, life would be nicer for Iraqis too.

I still believe life can be better for Iraqi's, in fact I believe life can be better throughout the middle east. I strongly believe that is through democracy, an end to tyrancy...when will the left that is supposed to stand for human rights start demanding them in the middle east instead of practicing it's soft racism and spouting on and on about their culture not being fit for democracy..a basic human right as noted by the U.N. human rights charter?

 

[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.