DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Plane on January 04, 2008, 07:34:56 PM
-
Although use of women can be a sign of desperation, female suicide bombers also help extremist groups attract male recruits. Militants exploit the image of desperate women fighting because there aren't enough brave men, taunting would-be male suicide bombers into action, Hafiz said.
"Women," Hafiz said, "make great propaganda."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080104/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_female_bombers
-
War is a constant evolution of tactics. As some tactics prove successful, counter-measures are developed, leading to refinement or abandonment of the original tactic. I would think the suicide bomber developed as a refinement of the more traditional grenadier attack, and perhaps as counter-measures sapped the efficiency of the (male) suicide bomber, a refinement of the tactic, female bombers, became the obvious way to go.
These women are courageous warriors, fighting their battle with the only weapon they have, their bodies, and ready to sacrifice their own lives to bring death to the infidel invaders, their collaborators and the families of the collaborators. The obvious countermeasure is already being developed, female security guards, but even as we speak, I am sure the Resistance is working on its next big thing. They won't quit, and they know that they and those who come after them to die in their turn can outlast the invaders. One day they will be national heroes.
It's a terrible war with enormous costs in human suffering, but the U.S. started it and it must go on until the U.S. stops it.
-
I don't see how we could stop really .
We can return to the lesser interference like before 9-11 , but no less than that , and of course that was too much.
We could become isolationist again as we were in the years that led up to the first and second World Wars , but that seems like a loseing propasition.
I am not argueing that the suicide bombers have no courage , but they have little effectiveness, and they are certainly not a new development.
The KAmakazi produced many times the umber of willing suicides and equiped each one with an aircraft and a large bomb, this was about as effective as tat tactic can become , but it was still not enough.
-
Although use of women can be a sign of desperation, female suicide bombers also help extremist groups attract male recruits. Militants exploit the image of desperate women fighting because there aren't enough brave men, taunting would-be male suicide bombers into action, Hafiz said.
"Women," Hafiz said, "make great propaganda."
Women are probably forced to blow themselves up in a society where the woman is expendable. Why is it that people can't see that the middle east so damn backward in scope in some areas, that existence of human rights for women...... is just plane beyond ridiculous!
Women are more capable to rule and "give back" to a society....than any male ever will be.
Common sense and a sense of nurturance is the essence of most women in the world.
Clinton isn't that typical a female...but she might just DO.....Let's see!
My God!
-
We could become isolationist again as we were in the years that led up to the first and second World Wars , but that seems like a loseing propasition.
Not that I'm necessarily disagreeing with you Plane, but why?
-
WWI was utterly useless to the US, and had the US refused to have gotten involved, the two sides would have beaten themselves into a draw. The US troops provided the margin of victory for the French and English, and also allowed JP Morgan to recuperate the money he had unwisely lent the Brits.
WWII was a direct result of WWI's vindictive Treaty of Versailles.
Korea could have been avoided, and Vietnam was a decade-long exercise in useless folly.
Iraq I was avoidable, and Iraq II was doubly so.
-
The World wars gave the oppurtunity to redraw the maps and reset the clocks , but how was this done?
Was it better done the second time?
Can such a reshuffle be done without a war first?
-
hmm
any bets
if alot of women get these previously male jobs
the females will connect the dots and think these guys are a-holes and start bombing them since they notice they got nothing to lose to begin with
no education
no jobs
honored in words ONLY
can`t wear anything comfortable
and now told ,not asked to die .
doesn`t help that the backward decline was a voluntary act decided by men.
-
Was it better done the second time?
Can such a reshuffle be done without a war first?
=======================================
Which countries do you think need their boundaries redrawn, and why?
WWII was about undoing what Hitler did.
The USSR divided itself into 15 republics with very minor violence, compared to either WW.
I hardly think that Kosovo independence merits another war.
-
<<I don't see how we could stop really .>>
That's - - literally and figuratively - - an unbelievable statement, plane.
It reminds me of a story I learned years ago during my unsuccessful efforts to become a Buddhist. The Buddha in his travels through the forest hears the sound of a man screaming, wailing and sobbing. Soon he finds the man, both his arms wrapped round the trunk of a tree and clinging to it as if his life depended on it.
"What is the problem, my friend? Why the distress?"
"This tree won't let go of me!"
I see how the U.S. could stop. Any rational human being can see how the U.S. could stop. There is no mystery to it. Somewhere in your New Testament there is a saying, "Sufficient unto the day . . . " It's (for a false religion) a surprisingly wise saying. It's the key to your apparent dilemma.
-
Was it better done the second time?
Can such a reshuffle be done without a war first?
=======================================
Which countries do you think need their boundaries redrawn, and why?
WWII was about undoing what Hitler did.
The USSR divided itself into 15 republics with very minor violence, compared to either WW.
I hardly think that Kosovo independence merits another war.
I think the answers to my questions are Yes and Yes.
The outcome of WWII did set up the irn curtain problem , bu didn't make another war inevitable in Europe.
Europe is busyly remakeing itself into the United States of Europe , if thy want to remain prosperous and relivant they need to succeed, but there isn't a Ceaser whpping them into the corrall this time. What Napolion and Hitler really wanted to do , can indeed be done wthout smashing the place up first.
You are right about the Russian breakup ,the level of violence doesn'tcompare with WWI or II nor the usual Russian internal war level either.
Russia misses the USSR , but if they get over that and join the USE bth entities will be better of .
-
<<I don't see how we could stop really .>>
That's - - literally and figuratively - - an unbelievable statement, plane.
It reminds me of a story I learned years ago during my unsuccessful efforts to become a Buddhist. The Buddha in his travels through the forest hears the sound of a man screaming, wailing and sobbing. Soon he finds the man, both his arms wrapped round the trunk of a tree and clinging to it as if his life depended on it.
"What is the problem, my friend? Why the distress?"
"This tree won't let go of me!"
I see how the U.S. could stop. Any rational human being can see how the U.S. could stop. There is no mystery to it. Somewhere in your New Testament there is a saying, "Sufficient unto the day . . . " It's (for a false religion) a surprisingly wise saying. It's the key to your apparent dilemma.
Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof , does not seem to me to be a call to inaction.
Try to imagine a US as isolationist as it was in the run up to the World Wars . he resulting collapse of world economies ad world wide starvation would cause a war pretty quick. We are not just involved we are supporting habituated dependants even in places where we are hated.
The Palestinians are hugging that tree too.
Everyone is.
The difference is that the Palestinians or the Al Quad will not suffer a genocide if they just give up and start making a honest living.
If the US trys to be aloof from the problems of the rest of the world , this not only betrays the spirit of Woodrow Wilson and John Kennedy , it invites the formation of forces that cause world war.
-
The difference is that the Palestinians or the Al Quad will not suffer a genocide if they just give up and start making a honest living.
===============================================================Al Qaeda is not a race of people, and therefore, it cannot suffer a genocide, just as Halliburton, the Klan, or Skull and Bones cannot suffer a genocide.
What sort of productive activity do you have in mind for the Palestinians? Street sweepers, servants, cheap labor for the Israelis? They have no money for capital investment, they are not permitted to leave the WB and Gaza. It is like a pitbull you keep penned in your yard: if you were to train him to program computers, you might not like what he would do with the income, so you keep him penned up and kick him every so often for being so vicious.
-
The difference is that the Palestinians or the Al Quad will not suffer a genocide if they just give up and start making a honest living.
===============================================================Al Qaeda is not a race of people, and therefore, it cannot suffer a genocide, just as Halliburton, the Klan, or Skull and Bones cannot suffer a genocide.
What sort of productive activity do you have in mind for the Palestinians? Street sweepers, servants, cheap labor for the Israelis? They have no money for capital investment, they are not permitted to leave the WB and Gaza. It is like a pitbull you keep penned in your yard: if you were to train him to program computers, you might not like what he would do with the income, so you keep him penned up and kick him every so often for being so vicious.
Palestinians had a lot of jobs in Israel before the Indefada , they have been replaced by Turks.
I don't suppose there were a lot of Virginians working in Washington during the civil war?
-
<<Try to imagine a US as isolationist as it was in the run up to the World Wars . he resulting collapse of world economies ad world wide starvation would cause a war pretty quick. >>
That statement in itself is EXACTLY what "Sufficient unto the day" applies to. Refusing to deal with the problems of today and instead postulating all kinds of horrific speculation about what might happen in the future. When the "collapse of world economies" and "world-wide starvation" and the future war caused "pretty quick" happen - - IF they ever do - - then that is the time to deal with them. It is very hard to see how any of them are going to be prevented by the U.S. hanging onto Iraq for dear life and fighting an endless three-cornered war between Sunnis, Shiites and Haliburt . . , oops, I mean U.S., troops. It is very hard to see how any of them are going to be prevented by supporting Israeli oppression and continuing military occupation of the West Bank.
<<The Palestinians are hugging that tree too.
<<Everyone is.>>
Geeze, good thing the Palestinians aren't marching off a cliff into the ocean. Since when do "the Palestinians" show the U.S. how to conduct U.S. foreign policy?
<<The difference is that the Palestinians or the Al Quad will not suffer a genocide if they just give up and start making a honest living.>>
Neither will the U.S. suffer a genocide if it just gets out of Iraq and leaves the Iraqis to sort out their problems or not; all that will happen is they will have to pay for Iraqi oil to Iraqis on freely negotiated terms not dictated from the barrel of a gun; as to what the Palestinians will suffer if they "just give up and start to make an honest living" - - and I hope you will never say that to a Palestinian who is struggling desperately every single day under present Israeli military occupation to feed his or her family - - they do not have to suffer genocide to justify their struggle, what they are living through under the Israeli occupation is justification enough.
<<If the US trys to be aloof from the problems of the rest of the world , this not only betrays the spirit of Woodrow Wilson and John Kennedy . . . >>
Woodrow Wilson and John Kennedy told you to invade Iraq and support the occupation of the West Bank? They were colonialists? What if they were wrong? What if they never said that? What if they were dealing with a different world than today's world?
IMHO, it makes a lot more sense today to deal with the problems of today on their own merits, to the best of our own abilities, rather than trying to commune with the spirits of John Kennedy or Woodrow Wilson and try to figure out what they have to say about it. Just a little practical advice from a very practical person.
<< . . . it invites the formation of forces that cause world war.>>
Oh, that again. Right. Don't fix today's problem today, because bad things might then happen tomorrow.
Remember, plane: Sufficient unto the day (today) is the evil thereof.
Fix today's problem today. When tomorrow's problem arrives, deal with it. With all due respect to your prognosticating abilities, I just don't think you or anyone else knows for sure that world war, world starvation, etc. will follow if you pull out of Iraq and let the Iraqis sort out their own problems or cut off Israeli support and let them and the Palestinians sort things out for themselves. Your leaders ("Iraq is full of WMD; we can't wait any longer!") can't even seem to predict the present with any reassuring degree of accuracy, I would not place any faith at all in their predictions for the future. The fact is that nobody knows what will happen if the U.S. pulls out of Iraq and none of the predictions of dire and calamitous effects look like anything more than hysterical fear-mongering, called up out of desperation by failed politicians to continue their ruinous and disastrous policies without having to admit error and failure.
-
Fix today's problem today. When tomorrow's problem arrives, deal with it.
True, I am not a qualified Prophet.
But I don't paint the windshield of my car ad drive by looking at where I am out the side .
The USA is not colonial and is not cheating anyone for oil, accepting this speculation might suit you , but am skeptical that there is any profit to be had that way.
How sweet will the deal have to be , in order to recoup the investment in reasonable time?
As far as I know ,there is nothing at all presently or planned to keep China and Japan from outbidding us for every drop of Iraqi oil.
-
As far as I know ,there is nothing at all presently or planned to keep China and Japan from outbidding us for every drop of Iraqi oil.
====================================================
This statement reveals a rather abysmal knowledge of how oil is sold. The US does not bid on oil from any other country. Oil companies, not national governments, do this, and they do not ship all their purchases to one or two customers, they ship it to all their customers at the highest price the market will bear.
The greater the demand, the higher the price.
I doubt that Fred Thompson would be the best expert in explaining international commerce in oil to anyone. He;s not an economist, he's a frigging actor.
-
I doubt that Fred Thompson would be the best expert in explaining international commerce in oil to anyone. He;s not an economist, he's a frigging actor.
Actually, Fred Thompson is an attorney with degrees in philosophy and political science (as well as his JD) that also acts on television.
-
Actually, Fred Thompson is an attorney with degrees in philosophy and political science (as well as his JD) that also acts on television.
======================================
So is he capable of explaining oil pricing to the public?
He hasn't revealed any brilliance in any speech I have heard. He does have an impressive voice, though.
-
So is he capable of explaining oil pricing to the public?
And a Spanish teacher is more qualified than someone who has spent time in Congressional committees studying the subject?
-
And a Spanish teacher is more qualified than someone who has spent time in Congressional committees studying the subject?
(a) how do you know that Thompson has spent any time in any Congressional committee studying anything? I do not doubt that he had some aides study issues and brief him on them, but I question your assumption that all elected leaders by definition and studious experts of any sort. Thompson has never been noted for being a particular energetic individual at anything, other than, perhaps, acting. But he is quite tall and has a nice voice, as I have stated. Also, he is too close to being bald to be elected president. It would appear that he has little chance of even getting the nomination.
He seems to me to be the least qualified of all the serious candidates of either party. He does not seem to be able to organize a staff, or give an effective speech. One would expect at least superior oratorial skills from a trained actor. His near baldness is not a factor in my lack of enthusiasm for him, but it does seem to matter a lot to the public. A large percentage men of presidential age are bald, and yet, only Eisenhower, the war hero,and Lyndon Johnson, who ascended to the presidency after JFK's assassination, have managed to be both bald and president. We have had two bald Adamses, a balding McKinley, Ike and LBJ. I can't think of any others.
Adlai Stevenson could have been a great president, had he not been follicularly challenged.
(b) Where was it that I said I was more qualified than Thompson? I do know that there won't ever be a situation where China or India will deprive the US of oil imports because it has been "outbid", because that is not how oil economics work.
The US does not bid for oil imports with other countries. Various parts of Iraq, ie Kurdistan, have been making deals with private companies without getting the national government (such as it is) involved at all.
Although I am not running for office, this does not mean that it is impossible for me, or you, or pretty much anyone, to know more than any given member of government. We all seem to know that corn is not a viable substitute for imported petroleum, for example, and many politicians deny this.
-
(a) how do you know that Thompson has spent any time in any Congressional committee studying anything?
He was a member of the Senate Finance Committee which deals with trade issues.
Thompson has never been noted for being a particular energetic individual at anything, other than, perhaps, acting.
Do you have any source for this other than your prejudice?
Various parts of Iraq, ie Kurdistan, have been making deals with private companies without getting the national government (such as it is) involved at all.
Private deals are bidding situations as well. If another entity approaches them with enough money, you think that the private companies have some way to enforce that their lower prices will win the business?
-
Various parts of Iraq, ie Kurdistan, have been making deals with private companies without getting the national government (such as it is) involved at all.
Private deals are bidding situations as well. If another entity approaches them with enough money, you think that the private companies have some way to enforce that their lower prices will win the business?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did I say anything to the contrary?
I said that Thompson seemed lazy because it took him ages to get intyo the race, and once in, he has exasperated many professional advisors who have abandoned him in despair. His speeches are unmonumental, which suggests that (a) he cannot personally write uplifting speeches, and (b) he cannot recognize an uplifting speech written by an aide, either. Everyone was expecting him to be the next Ronald Reagan, but he has not attained the stature of the next Paul Tsongas.
I have no prejudice against him at all. I rather like his character on TV. But I don't think he is cut out to be president, and I don't expect he ever will be one, either.
I have served in an infinity of committees. Membership on a committee, I assure you, does not mean doodly-squat.
-
<<True, I am not a qualified Prophet.
<<But I don't paint the windshield of my car ad drive by looking at where I am out the side .>>
You're trying to talk out of both sides of your mouth at the same time and it's not working. Your first sentence was right on the mark. You are NOT a qualified prophet.
Your second sentence was just crazy - - both the traffic in front of you and the traffic at your side represent the present moment. To deal with the present moment you should be aware of all aspects of it, front, sides and back. I am not advocating blacking out the windshield when I speak of dealing with today's problems today. I say deal with today's problems today - - look out ALL your windows, or at least be aware of what's happening in front, beside you and behind. What you in effect are doing is looking out the front and/or the sides and/or the back, seeing death and destruction through one or more windows - - and yet refusing to take the obvious steps to avoid the carnage because "tomorrow" would be "a whole lot worse" if you did.
You are therefore a classic illustration of the man who willfully refuses to accept that "Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof." You are not content to deal effectively with the problems of today because you insist (on grounds of pure fear and pure speculation) on dealing - - in priority to today's problems - - with the imaginary problems of tomorrow which may or may not ever arrive. It was exactly to guys like you that the maxim "Sufficient unto the day" was directed.
<<The USA is not colonial . . . >>
Come off it. They invade another country 6,000 miles away on phony pretexts, establish their largest "embassy" in the whole world in this country of only 23 million people and build about 40 permanent bases there, but they aren't colonial? Who are you kidding?
<< . . . and is not cheating anyone for oil>>
Cheating? They're STEALING it. Openly. They won't leave until there is a hydrocarbons law giving foreigners the right to own the nation's oil resources.
<< accepting this speculation might suit you , but am skeptical that there is any profit to be had that way.>>
What about bank robbery? You think there's any profit to be had in bank robbery or are you "skeptical" about that too?
<<How sweet will the deal have to be , in order to recoup the investment in reasonable time?>>
Why don't you figure out what a 50% interest in the world's second largest proven oil reserves is worth? That "sweet" enough for you?
<<As far as I know ,there is nothing at all presently or planned to keep China and Japan from outbidding us for every drop of Iraqi oil.>>
God-damn right there isn't. And if the U.S. oil industry (Halliburton, et al.)gets 50% of the net profit on every dollar bid, how bad is that for them?
-
God-damn right there isn't. And if the U.S. oil industry (Halliburton, et al.)gets 50% of the net profit on every dollar bid, how bad is that for them?
That would be fantastic!
Too bad it s a fantasy.
-
Did I say anything to the contrary?
I said that Thompson seemed lazy because it took him ages to get intyo the race, and once in, he has exasperated many professional advisors who have abandoned him in despair. His speeches are unmonumental, which suggests that (a) he cannot personally write uplifting speeches, and (b) he cannot recognize an uplifting speech written by an aide, either. Everyone was expecting him to be the next Ronald Reagan, but he has not attained the stature of the next Paul Tsongas.
I have no prejudice against him at all. I rather like his character on TV. But I don't think he is cut out to be president, and I don't expect he ever will be one, either.
I have served in an infinity of committees. Membership on a committee, I assure you, does not mean doodly-squat.
Well said, XO
You've hit that nail on the head.
-
<<That [Halliburton and the other players getting half of the profit from every dollar bid by China and Japan for Iraqi oil] would be fantastic!>>
Sure it would, if your last name were Bush or Cheney.
<<Too bad it s a fantasy.>>
Some fantasy. To the families of the 4,000 U.S. dead, to the 25,000 U.S. wounded and their families, to the families of 150,000 dead Iraqis, it's too bad it's NOT a fantasy.
-
<<That [Halliburton and the other players getting half of the profit from every dollar bid by China and Japan for Iraqi oil] would be fantastic!>>
Sure it would, if your last name were Bush or Cheney.
<<Too bad it s a fantasy.>>
Some fantasy. To the families of the 4,000 U.S. dead, to the 25,000 U.S. wounded and their families, to the families of 150,000 dead Iraqis, it's too bad it's NOT a fantasy.
You seem very sure , are you a qualified prophet?
-
Although use of women can be a sign of desperation, female suicide bombers also help extremist groups attract male recruits. Militants exploit the image of desperate women fighting because there aren't enough brave men, taunting would-be male suicide bombers into action, Hafiz said.
"Women," Hafiz said, "make great propaganda."
Women are probably forced to blow themselves up in a society where the woman is expendable. Why is it that people can't see that the middle east so damn backward in scope in some areas, that existence of human rights for women...... is just plane beyond ridiculous!
Women are more capable to rule and "give back" to a society....than any male ever will be.
Common sense and a sense of nurturance is the essence of most women in the world.
Clinton isn't that typical a female...but she might just DO.....Let's see!
My God!
Cynthia, I do not disagree that women can make good leaders, however, there are notable examples that women leaders can be the most ruthless on the planet, ala Golda Meir and Indira Gandhi. This is one reason I advocate that a woman CAN be a good President, even in the arena of national defense.
-
The difference is that the Palestinians or the Al Quad will not suffer a genocide if they just give up and start making a honest living.
===============================================================Al Qaeda is not a race of people, and therefore, it cannot suffer a genocide, just as Halliburton, the Klan, or Skull and Bones cannot suffer a genocide.
What sort of productive activity do you have in mind for the Palestinians? Street sweepers, servants, cheap labor for the Israelis? They have no money for capital investment, they are not permitted to leave the WB and Gaza. It is like a pitbull you keep penned in your yard: if you were to train him to program computers, you might not like what he would do with the income, so you keep him penned up and kick him every so often for being so vicious.
Why couldn't the rich "robber barons of the Middle East", aka the Saudis, etc., help "their brothers" in Palestine in this arena?
-
Well, yes, Professor, there have been women leaders who have failed...but how many women leaders in general compared tomen?
Not enough to do a complete and thorough comparison.
I do believe that a woman can lead. I happen to think that Condi Rice is more than capable if in the right position at the right time...not gunna happen...but she has a hell of a lot more skill and knowledge than many male presidents of the past. imo.
She's an example of a bright, and very strong-willed female. She has NO DESIRE to run for prez...of course.
Hillary has had that desire for a long, long time.
Perhaps she will make a good leader....perhaps not.
What makes a perfect president is the question I would love to ask this board.
Cindy
-
Actually, I do not believe either Golda Meir or Indira Gandhi were failures, quite the opposite really.
In my view, I fail to see any justifiable reason why women cannot be as good (or poor) leaders as men. A problem is that our political system makes it more difficult for them to get into those positions. It seems, as a culture, we tend to subject girls to negative conditioning early on as is evidenced by poor self-confidence in girls even at an early age. As a father of a daughter, this concerns me greatly.
-
YEs, Professor...as it should concern you greatly.
Look at history.
Why is it that a man has had more successes than a woman?
It boils down to how the young child was encouraged and taught by family members, especially the father.
Keep up your interaction in that positive and encouraging manner with your daughter, and you have tackled part of the battle.
-
YEs, Professor...as it should concern you greatly.
Look at history.
Why is it that a man has had more successes than a woman?
It boils down to how the young child was encouraged and taught by family members, especially the father.
Keep up your interaction in that positive and encouraging manner with your daughter, and you have tackled part of the battle.
I posted earler about Hillary and her emotional moment, stating that she struck a chord which resonated with almost all women.
I watched her today on Tim with Two Faces, and she clearly came across strong, stronger than Tim might have wanted, in spite of the fact that he was there to demote Barack by promoting a fierce and coherent, if not a soundly choreographed, Hillary.
The skirmishs she had with Tim today at times were energetic, but it always seemed to end up with Hillary easily leading in the dance, and Tim stone-faced and compliant, all too willing to cave to Hillary's gilded interruptions. It all seemed predicated to have Hillary as tough and then caring and now tough and caring.
You have to hand it to her.
Watching it this morning, I spoke thus, but was quickly attacked by all females in the room, who now seem to be almost fervent in their adoration of Hillary. I can tell you they were completely unable to listen to the slightest iota of negativity regarding Hillary.
I think we may have all miscalculated on the single "woman" factor, and the women in America now see poised to vent the sum total of all ''woman" resentment against the Great White Authoritarian image. Hillary has, whether through the front or the side door, commandeered a direct tap into that ocean.
Those Clintons are superb tacticians, and Hillary is flawless in their implementation.
I still read her emotional piphany as congruently expressed. But now I think she tapped into herself with an admirably cold and nerveless acumen, paying perfect attention to the timeliness of it all. Amazing. I hope it is attributable to a skillful multi-tasking and not a serpentine sociopathic suspension.
-
"But now I think she tapped into herself with an admirably cold and nerveless acumen, paying perfect attention to the timeliness of it all. Amazing. I hope it is attributable to a skillful multi-tasking and not a serpentine sociopathic suspension."
Yellow, although I find Clinton to be more of the latter, she is skilled in political 'timeliness' indeed, as are many male counterpart politicians.
I find Hillary to be more male than most men, but in my mind she is still a "first"...and if she's going to be our first president, we will just have to give her her due, and her day in the higher court.
Wow, what a statement! Good post.
-
Well, yes, Professor, there have been women leaders who have failed...but how many women leaders in general compared tomen?
Actually, prior to the 19th & 20th centuries, female leaders were common.
-
......and look at the state of the world today?
Polution, crime, war after war...... ::)
-
......and look at the state of the world today?
Are you trying to imply the middle ages were some sort of pastoral paradise?
-
<<You seem very sure [about the real reasons for the war and whose benefit it was staged for] are you a qualified prophet?>>
God forbid! I'm just a guy who tries to keep track of the facts, knows a little bit about how the world really runs, and tries to formulate a theory that explains those facts in the light of that knowledge. I post my theory and listen carefully to its detractors. So far nobody's been able to provide any logical argument against the theory, and most competing theories, especially those based on the supposed innate goodness and beneficence of the United States of America are rather easily shown up as horseshit. Yeah, I'm pretty sure about my theory here, and the more we debate it, the less reason I have to doubt it. Nobody's laid a glove on it to date.
-
......and look at the state of the world today?
Are you trying to imply the middle ages were some sort of pastoral paradise?
Actually, prior to the 19th & 20th centuries, female leaders were common.
..... compared to the past two centuries which according to you were "male ruled" sort of speak, it has taken man no time at all to mess this world up in terms of pollution alone....and it has only taken 200 years.
-
<<You seem very sure [about the real reasons for the war and whose benefit it was staged for] are you a qualified prophet?>>
God forbid! I'm just a guy who tries to keep track of the facts, knows a little bit about how the world really runs, and tries to formulate a theory that explains those facts in the light of that knowledge. I post my theory and listen carefully to its detractors. So far nobody's been able to provide any logical argument against the theory, and most competing theories, especially those based on the supposed innate goodness and beneficence of the United States of America are rather easily shown up as horseshit. Yeah, I'm pretty sure about my theory here, and the more we debate it, the less reason I have to doubt it. Nobody's laid a glove on it to date.
So where is the evidence that the US is entirely driven by aggrandisment?
-
Not sure why gender needs to be an issue. Either she is right for the job, and if enough people believe she is, then she will be president.
Saying she should be elected because she is female lends credence to those who say she shouldn't be elected because she is female.
Identity politics is a two edged sword.
-
<<So where is the evidence that the US is entirely driven by aggrandisment?>>
Who ever said it was driven entirely by aggrandizement?
-
<<So where is the evidence that the US is entirely driven by aggrandisment?>>
Who ever said it was driven entirely by aggrandizement?
More than 50%?
-
More than 50% is a given. The interesting question is, more than 66 2/3 %?
-
More than 50% is a given. The interesting question is, more than 66 2/3 %?
Now we can argue!
If there were a 50% voteing block for aggrandisement , you could win a presidency with it .
So why arn't any canadates running on an imperialist ticket?
-
<<So why arn't any canadates running on an imperialist ticket?>>
Because the imperialists are too dishonest to admit they're imperialists. Hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue. In a nation of hypocrites (church-going, God-fearing etc.) NOBODY can admit to being an imperialist, a fascist or a militarist. All must pay tribute (lip-service) to virtue. It's hilarious that although the country is virtually defined by its militarism, imperialism and contempt for law, all public debate is couched in the most moralistic of terms. Not even the Democrats will say this war is about oil - - it's a "mistake," or it's been "mismanaged," etc. etc. There's no doubt about the long-term intentions, but the permanent (ooops! excuse me, I meant the "enduring") bases are never mentioned at all. The world's largest American embassy, for a country of only 23 million people is also never mentioned. Imperialism is a dirty word, so dirty that it's actually a taboo word. Bush & Co. won't even mention it, not even in denial.
-
<<So why arn't any canadates running on an imperialist ticket?>>
Because the imperialists are too dishonest to admit they're imperialists. Hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue. In a nation of hypocrites (church-going, God-fearing etc.) NOBODY can admit to being an imperialist, a fascist or a militarist. All must pay tribute (lip-service) to virtue. It's hilarious that although the country is virtually defined by its militarism, imperialism and contempt for law, all public debate is couched in the most moralistic of terms. Not even the Democrats will say this war is about oil - - it's a "mistake," or it's been "mismanaged," etc. etc. There's no doubt about the long-term intentions, but the permanent (ooops! excuse me, I meant the "enduring") bases are never mentioned at all. The world's largest American embassy, for a country of only 23 million people is also never mentioned. Imperialism is a dirty word, so dirty that it's actually a taboo word. Bush & Co. won't even mention it, not even in denial.
Also perhaps it just isn't about oil .
WE have been around on this , there is no profit motive , where there is no profit.
-
There's obviously a profit motive. The original draft hydrocarbons law gave foreigners the right to purchase up to 90% of the oil reserves. Obviously that 90% was a bargaining chip, but it's entirely possible that the puppet government will "bargain down" to 50% and finalize it. (Under Saddam, the Iraqis got 100% and no equity could be sold off to foreigners. The profits on oil sales remained 100% to the Iraqi nation in perpetuity. Even if Saddam and his cronies personally stole 50% of the revenues for themselves - - probably an impossibility - - that would still leave 50% to the Iraqis.)
If you want to argue that there is no profit to be derived from owning 50% or 10% or even 1% of the world's second largest proven oil reserves, don't waste your breath on me. Get your self a ticket to Kuwait and try to convince the Emir of the logic of your theory - - once you show him what a barren and profitless nuisance it all is, maybe he'll sign over some of his wells to you. Maybe he'll sign them all over to you.
-
There's obviously a profit motive. The original draft hydrocarbons law gave foreigners the right to purchase up to 90% of the oil reserves. Obviously that 90% was a bargaining chip, but it's entirely possible that the puppet government will "bargain down" to 50% and finalize it. (Under Saddam, the Iraqis got 100% and no equity could be sold off to foreigners. The profits on oil sales remained 100% to the Iraqi nation in perpetuity. Even if Saddam and his cronies personally stole 50% of the revenues for themselves - - probably an impossibility - - that would still leave 50% to the Iraqis.)
If you want to argue that there is no profit to be derived from owning 50% or 10% or even 1% of the world's second largest proven oil reserves, don't waste your breath on me. Get your self a ticket to Kuwait and try to convince the Emir of the logic of your theory - - once you show him what a barren and profitless nuisance it all is, maybe he'll sign over some of his wells to you. Maybe he'll sign them all over to you.
That's a lot of Obviously .
It is obviously true that under Saddam Iraqis made 100% since Saddam himself was getting most of himself and he was Iraqi.
Who do you think is writing the Hydrocarbon bill anyway?
After all of those representatives got together from being elected from all over Iraq , what would make them listen to any outsider?
You are obviously projecting your thoughts onto fictitious conspirers. Because there is obviousl no profi tobe had that couldn't be got otherwise.
-
<<Who do you think is writing the Hydrocarbon bill anyway?>>
You're kidding me, right?
<<After all of those representatives got together from being elected from all over Iraq , what would make them listen to any outsider?>>
I dunno. Because the outsider's guns decide who runs and who doesn't, who winds up in the torture chambers now and who doesn't? Ever hear of a fellow named Mao and something he said about the barrel of a gun?
<<Because there is obviousl no profi tobe had that couldn't be got otherwise.>>
Well let's look at that, shall we? Under Saddam, the foreigners (U.S. & British) were completely cut out of the loop. Now they stand to make 50% or more of every dollar's profit made on the sale of Iraqi oil. "No profit to be made" may be a nice mantra for those who want to fool the world into thinking of Amerikkka as an altruistic nation, but in fact nobody is fooled. If there were really no profit to be made from the ownership of Middle Eastern oil wells, the Emir of Kuwait would give them away for the asking. Try asking.
-
<<So why arn't any canadates running on an imperialist ticket?>>
Because the imperialists are too dishonest to admit they're imperialists. Hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue. In a nation of hypocrites (church-going, God-fearing etc.) NOBODY can admit to being an imperialist, a fascist or a militarist. All must pay tribute (lip-service) to virtue. It's hilarious that although the country is virtually defined by its militarism, imperialism and contempt for law, all public debate is couched in the most moralistic of terms. Not even the Democrats will say this war is about oil - - it's a "mistake," or it's been "mismanaged," etc. etc. There's no doubt about the long-term intentions, but the permanent (ooops! excuse me, I meant the "enduring") bases are never mentioned at all. The world's largest American embassy, for a country of only 23 million people is also never mentioned. Imperialism is a dirty word, so dirty that it's actually a taboo word. Bush & Co. won't even mention it, not even in denial.
Also perhaps it just isn't about oil .
WE have been around on this , there is no profit motive , where there is no profit.
Imperialism isn't just about profit. But to say the United States is not (and has not been for roughly five decades) an empire is simply to deny the blatant truth.
Mike is correct in that politicians and others pay lip service to "democracy," but in the world we don't fight for democracy, freedom, or any of those catch phrases that the American public eats with a spoon. We fight for ideology, projection of power, natural resources, and to aid the modern version of "colonies."
-
Nope.
Shaken and stirred, imperialism is about PROJECTING POWER. All these other issues follow.
-
<<Shaken and stirred, imperialism is about PROJECTING POWER. All these other issues follow.>>
Nobody "projects power" unless there's something in it for him. Bush might just be pathological enough to wish to project power for the sake of projecting power, just so he can strut around in a flight suit under a "Mission Accomplished" banner, but he's only one man. His supporters and backers, the men and women who really run the country, wouldn't allow him to invade Dogpatch if they didn't see obscenely large profits flowing into their coffers from it.
-
The primary purpose behind carrier task forces is to PROJECT POWER, so that is why we have so many of these. I do not expect that to change. Even if we withdraw from many overseas commitments, it is still an excellent to way to "show the flag".
-
The primary purpose behind carrier task forces is to PROJECT POWER, so that is why we have so many of these. I do not expect that to change. Even if we withdraw from many overseas commitments, it is still an excellen to way to "show the flag".
To improve the world's opinion of the United States, the lowest ever, it might be best to remove the all our flags as well.
Out of sight, out of mind. Let them all have time to heal from our imperialism.
-
<<Shaken and stirred, imperialism is about PROJECTING POWER. All these other issues follow.>>
Nobody "projects power" unless there's something in it for him.
Oh I agree completely. And obviously there have been major profits made, anyone who says otherwise is simply looking the other way.
Let's look at Halliburton's 5 year stocks on the NYSE:
(http://chart.finance.yahoo.com/c/5y/h/hal)
Not half bad, huh? The 52-week change was 23.35%. That's far better than the market average, that's for damn sure.
The privatisation of Iraq's economy by the Provisional Government mirrored the same "shock therapy" that Chile went through. The effects were similar as well. Iraq became a place for foreign companies to come in and take what they wanted, without paying a nickel in taxes to the Iraqi people. Their workers were immune from any legal standards set by the Iraqi Government (making Iraqi-owned businesses non-competetive).
Bechtel, a private engineering firm, had revenues that jumped quite nicely with their Iraq contracts from 2003 to 2006:
(http://168.75.124.117/assets/images/Overview/Revenue1.jpg)
A 25.7% jump in revenues. Sweet!
Iraq provided a chance to experiment with the free market as well. Blackwater introduced the free market military. A military that, while expensive, also lacked any real accountability - a good thing for any empire that wants to try and preserve an image of "freedom," "liberty," and "democracy."
So, no...there were people who made fortunes in Iraq. Chances are that you'll never meet any of them and they represent a tiny percentage of the population of the United States, let alone the world. Just like California though, there was more there than just gold (or oil as the case may be) to make a fortune on.
Iraq is just another in the list to be added to Iran, Indonesia, Brazil, Chile, Korea, Vietnam, Greece, etc. I would not underestimate ideology playing a huge role in our imperialist adventures. It has nothing to do with liberty or democracy, but free markets and the neoliberal version of corporatism.
-
The primary purpose behind carrier task forces is to PROJECT POWER, so that is why we have so many of these. I do not expect that to change. Even if we withdraw from many overseas commitments, it is still an excellen to way to "show the flag".
To improve the world's opinion of the United States, the lowest ever, it might be best to remove the all our flags as well.
Out of sight, out of mind. Let them all have time to heal from our imperialism.
Sorry, quite the opposite. Show the flag and let it be known, over time, in a positive vein.
-
I think that the Carlisle Group (which Olebush administers with other oligarchs) is private, and their profits are therefore a secret. But I bet that they did better than Halliburton or Bechtel by a goodly margin. They also invest in weapons, which the US govt. has been using up quite rapidly of late.
It's not that the oligarchy wants the US to be an imperial power, the main thing is that they profit from the process, and there is little question that this is happening.
-
<<Shaken and stirred, imperialism is about PROJECTING POWER. All these other issues follow.>>
Nobody "projects power" unless there's something in it for him.
Oh I agree completely. And obviously there have been major profits made, anyone who says otherwise is simply looking the other way.
Let's look at Halliburton's 5 year stocks on the NYSE:
(http://chart.finance.yahoo.com/c/5y/h/hal)
Not half bad, huh? The 52-week change was 23.35%. That's far better than the market average, that's for damn sure.
The privatisation of Iraq's economy by the Provisional Government mirrored the same "shock therapy" that Chile went through. The effects were similar as well. Iraq became a place for foreign companies to come in and take what they wanted, without paying a nickel in taxes to the Iraqi people. Their workers were immune from any legal standards set by the Iraqi Government (making Iraqi-owned businesses non-competetive).
Bechtel, a private engineering firm, had revenues that jumped quite nicely with their Iraq contracts from 2003 to 2006:
(http://168.75.124.117/assets/images/Overview/Revenue1.jpg)
A 25.7% jump in revenues. Sweet!
Iraq provided a chance to experiment with the free market as well. Blackwater introduced the free market military. A military that, while expensive, also lacked any real accountability - a good thing for any empire that wants to try and preserve an image of "freedom," "liberty," and "democracy."
So, no...there were people who made fortunes in Iraq. Chances are that you'll never meet any of them and they represent a tiny percentage of the population of the United States, let alone the world. Just like California though, there was more there than just gold (or oil as the case may be) to make a fortune on.
Iraq is just another in the list to be added to Iran, Indonesia, Brazil, Chile, Korea, Vietnam, Greece, etc. I would not underestimate ideology playing a huge role in our imperialist adventures. It has nothing to do with liberty or democracy, but free markets and the neoliberal version of corporatism.
Does Haliburton or Betchell hve more than 5% of their resorces in Iraq?
Has either one of them actually made a profit there?
Ideology is indeed closer to the reason , our attitude is what it was that made elections necessacery .
-
<<The primary purpose behind carrier task forces is to PROJECT POWER, so that is why we have so many of these. . . . Even if we withdraw from many overseas commitments, it is still an excellent to way to "show the flag".>>
I don't get it, Professor. Are you saying that power is projected for the sake of projecting power? That the flag is shown for the sake of showing the flag? No ulterior reason beyond that?
-
<<The primary purpose behind carrier task forces is to PROJECT POWER, so that is why we have so many of these. . . . Even if we withdraw from many overseas commitments, it is still an excellent to way to "show the flag".>>
I don't get it, Professor. Are you saying that power is projected for the sake of projecting power? That the flag is shown for the sake of showing the flag? No ulterior reason beyond that?
My ship had "show the flag" as a mission several times.
The primary point was to pull into port looking good and being friendly.
Secondarily it was good for recruitment and retention to have the sailors take liberty in nice places.
I highly reccomend Mombasa Kenya , not right now , after the civil unrest calms down ad they are back to their normal friendliness.
-
<<Does Haliburton or Betchell hve more than 5% of their resorces in Iraq?
<<Has either one of them actually made a profit there?>>
All the better for them if the enormous profits they have been realizing required the deployment of only 5% of their resources. I don't know about you, but if I could figure out a way to make a 23.35% positive change in my 52-week income by deploying only 5% of my resources, I'd fuckin jump at it.
But with all due respect, plane, you're barking up the wrong tree. Landmark profits are clearly demonstrated for the two prime contractors of the invasion. The only meaningful question you should be asking is, Is there any factor, OTHER than the invasion of Iraq, which could realistically account for the enormous profit increase over that particular time frame?
-
<<Does Haliburton or Betchell hve more than 5% of their resorces in Iraq?
<<Has either one of them actually made a profit there?>>
All the better for them if the enormous profits they have been realizing required the deployment of only 5% of their resources. I don't know about you, but if I could figure out a way to make a 23.35% positive change in my 52-week income by deploying only 5% of my resources, I'd fuckin jump at it.
But with all due respect, plane, you're barking up the wrong tree. Landmark profits are clearly demonstrated for the two prime contractors of the invasion. The only meaningful question you should be asking is, Is there any factor, OTHER than the invasion of Iraq, which could realistically account for the enormous profit increase over that particular time frame?
Is there any factor, OTHER than the invasion of Iraq, which could realistically account for the enormous profit increase over that particular time frame?
Yes ,the good economy that the other 95% of their resorces are involved in.
I have seen her evidence that Halliburton has made a profit, not evidence that they made that profit in Iraq.
-
<<I highly reccomend Mombasa Kenya , not right now , after the civil unrest calms down ad they are back to their normal friendliness.>>
How long was your ship in Mombasa and how much of that time was shore leave for you? What was the longest continuous period of time that you were allowed to be away from the ship during shore leave? Did you encounter any anti-Americanism in Mombasa? Why was Mombasa so highly recommended, i.e., what did it have that the other ports did not? And what other ports did you partcularly like?
In Alfred Hitchcock's Fireside Book of Suspense there's a short story set in the 1930s called The Idol. An English tourist steps off a cruise ship in Mozambique to buy some souvenirs in the town, purchases an odd little idol, intervenes in a spat between an absolutely gorgeous local girl and some thugs, winds up getting chased by the thugs over the roof-tops , is rescued by the girl, fucks her brains out [reading between the lines,] in a temporary hide-out, kills some bad guys in hand-to-hand (the girl got one of them by throwing a knife into his back from across the room) and the next morning is recognized in the street, a little rougher for wear, with the adoring girl clinging to him like moss, by a party of English tourists who were combing the streets for him. He shakes hands with the girl and thanks her, straightens his tie and returns to the ship with the other English tourists, with his little idol still wrapped up in brown paper. Anything like that ever happen to you in Mombasa?
-
Does Haliburton or Betchell hve more than 5% of their resorces in Iraq?
Has either one of them actually made a profit there?
Ideology is indeed closer to the reason , our attitude is what it was that made elections necessacery .
Have either of them made a profit in Iraq? Are you asking, seriously?
"Iraq has been good," was the quote made when Halliburton announced their highest quarterly earnings ever in October 2006 ($611 million). It coincided with what was then the bloodiest month for both American soldiers and Iraqi civilians.
Halliburton has made $20 billion in revenues from Iraq alone, which has comprised a great deal of their profits since 2003.
You think they are losing money on these contracts? You think Bechtel is over there spending more than they can recover? You clearly have a low opinion of their contract negotiators and their ability to fleece this war for all it is worth.
The answer to your questions is a that yes, both companies have done very well in Iraq. Bechtel pulled out in 2006. They'll be back.
-
<<I highly reccomend Mombasa Kenya , not right now , after the civil unrest calms down ad they are back to their normal friendliness.>>
How long was your ship in Mombasa and how much of that time was shore leave for you? What was the longest continuous period of time that you were allowed to be away from the ship during shore leave? Did you encounter any anti-Americanism in Mombasa? Why was Mombasa so highly recommended, i.e., what did it have that the other ports did not? And what other ports did you particularly like?
In Alfred Hitchcock's Fireside Book of Suspense there's a short story set in the 1930s called The Idol. An English tourist steps off a cruise ship in Mozambique to buy some souvenirs in the town, purchases an odd little idol, intervenes in a spat between an absolutely gorgeous local girl and some thugs, winds up getting chased by the thugs over the roof-tops , is rescued by the girl, fucks her brains out [reading between the lines,] in a temporary hide-out, kills some bad guys in hand-to-hand and the next morning is recognized in the street, a little rougher for wear, with the adoring girl clinging to him like moss, by a party of English tourists who were combing the streets for him. He shakes hands with the girl and thanks her, straightens his tie and goes right back to the ship with the other English tourists and his little idol still wrapped up in brown paper. Anything like that ever happen to you in Mombasa?
I was in Mombasa for two weeks , I got drunk for the first time in my life on Tusker Beer , which is unpredictable in strength.I met British guy who worked in S.Africa and vacationed in Kenya , he wasn't Hitchcockesque, much, but told me how he missed his hometown here he would cheer for some team he called "Pompy" I still haven't figured out what sport he was referring to. Of course I didn't intend to get drunk and I haven't been since then. Lucky the "Pompy " fan could find my way for me elese I mght still be there.
On another day I met a group of Indians who invited me in to their compound where I had some really bland food and talked with an American who was there on some mission that the HariChrishna had sent him on.
I met a local guy and discussed his hopes of working his way to the US , he had a good start , he as hired by the US to paint a few voids in our ship. I wish I had kept up with him , but I have lost correspondence with him in the shuffle .
A lot of my crewmates bought wood carvings, they traded for clothes and cassettes when they ran low on money , I didn't like the carvings and I was bemused as every locker and closet available was stacked with carvings like chordwood. I was much less bemused when we got back to Charleston and it turned out that those cheap carvings were very popular and no longer cheap at all.
Taking a tour of Tzavo park was very exhausting and exciting, our guide was so eager to please that when a lion was spotted in a little corpse of trees he got out of the van and threw sticks into he bush to flush her out , we wanted a picture of a lioness but not a picture of a lioness eating our driver so we asked him to quit that.
I never ran into any Anti-Americanism in Kenya , small amount in Djibouti but not serious , even in Sudan I had no problem finding friendly faces. Much later tho I bought a book titled "A Primate's Memoir" and the author mentons one of the hotells I stayed in on Tzavo park contemporary to my being there, and he accused them of serving tainted meat. Perhaps hey didn't really love me?
Mombasa is one of the healthyest citys in Africa , with large supplys of clean water from nearby Mzima Springs. They are geared up to acomadate tourists and make good business of it . Djbouti is beautifull but harsh , Sudan is not always open and welcoming to Americans I was lucky to be there during a thawing period. I didn't visit much elese in Africa.
I would also reccomend Malaga Span ,Halifax Canada, San Juan Puerto Rico and rideing the railroad in Italy, I haven't traveled much since I left the Navy. But ifI get the chane to travel again these are the places I would like to return to.
I also had a good time in the southern Carribbian o an Island called Monserat , but it has since burned down.
"http://www.amazon.com/Primates-Memoir-Neuroscientists-Unconventional-Baboons/dp/0743202414"
-
So Bechtel's 25.7% rise in revenues and Halliburton's 23.5% rise in (I think it was stock prices) are allj just explained by the fact that the economy was very good over that time. And how exactly is the "good economy" responsible for them outperforming the market ? Apparently the "good economy" didn't benefit the others to the same extent that it did Halliburton and Bechtel. And what a coincidence that BOTH Halliburton AND Bechtel, the principal contractors of the invasion, should be the ones outperforming the market.
Ha, ha, ha, thanks for the "explanation," plane, but it just won't wash. Think I'll stick with the original explanation after all - - the astonishing and market-beating performance of the two leading contractors of the invasion during the invasion period was in fact due to their profits on the invasion, NOT on the "good economy" which for some unknown reason and by some unknown mechanism would have singled out (according to your theory) both of these companies for extraordinary benefits far over the market average.
-
Does Haliburton or Betchell hve more than 5% of their resorces in Iraq?
Has either one of them actually made a profit there?
Ideology is indeed closer to the reason , our attitude is what it was that made elections necessacery .
Have either of them made a profit in Iraq? Are you asking, seriously?
"Iraq has been good," was the quote made when Halliburton announced their highest quarterly earnings ever in October 2006 ($611 million). It coincided with what was then the bloodiest month for both American soldiers and Iraqi civilians.
Halliburton has made $20 billion in revenues from Iraq alone, which has comprised a great deal of their profits since 2003.
You think they are losing money on these contracts? You think Bechtel is over there spending more than they can recover? You clearly have a low opinion of their contract negotiators and their ability to fleece this war for all it is worth.
The answer to your questions is a that yes, both companies have done very well in Iraq. Bechtel pulled out in 2006. They'll be back.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1559574
I gotta admit I am surprised that there is indeed a profit being made. I was getting the wrong impression somehow.
I have been looking at it , I was wrong bout the 5% guess I made , it amounts to something like 15% of the company.
-
So Bechtel's 25.7% rise in revenues and Halliburton's 23.5% rise in (I think it was stock prices) are allj just explained by the fact that the economy was very good over that time. And how exactly is the "good economy" responsible for them outperforming the market ? Apparently the "good economy" didn't benefit the others to the same extent that it did Halliburton and Bechtel. And what a coincidence that BOTH Halliburton AND Bechtel, the principal contractors of the invasion, should be the ones outperforming the market.
Ha, ha, ha, thanks for the "explanation," plane, but it just won't wash. Think I'll stick with the original explanation after all - - the astonishing and market-beating performance of the two leading contractors of the invasion during the invasion period was in fact due to their profits on the invasion, NOT on the "good economy" which for some unknown reason and by some unknown mechanism would have singled out (according to your theory) both of these companies for extraordinary benefits far over the market average.
Wern't there lots of companys doing just as well , but not involved in Iraq at all?
-
Thanks, plane, that was really interesting. I've always wanted to visit Mombasa but now I'd be scared to go there.
-
<<Wern't there lots of companys doing just as well , but not involved in Iraq at all?>>
Sure, but if they were beating the market average, they couldn't explain it as "the good economy." The AVERAGE companies were all beneficiaries of the good economy, the market-beaters had to have an explanation for why they were beating the average.
I'd never argue that it was impossible to do as well as Bechtel and Halliburton without being involved in Iraq, but it's a legitimate question to ask WHY they are (in a "good economy") beating the market average by so much, and if no other reason but Iraq presents itself, then the logical conclusion is that they made a shitload in Iraq.
In any event, JS has made this whole conversation sort of academic. $20 billion is one heck of a lot of profits for anyone, and that is just one Iraq war contractor we are speaking of. If anyone made $20 billion for any company you work for, your bosses would probably want to give the guy the Nobel Prize. Somebody just made Halliburton $20 billion, and all it cost were the lives of 4,000 ignorant hillbillies, 150,000 ragheads and $500 billion U.S. dollars, none of it belonging to Halliburton. Could any deal be sweeter? And you wanna know if there's any profit to be made in this business? Come on, get real.
-
<<Wern't there lots of companys doing just as well , but not involved in Iraq at all?>>
Sure, but if they were beating the market average, they couldn't explain it as "the good economy." The AVERAGE companies were all beneficiaries of the good economy, the market-beaters had to have an explanation for why they were beating the average.
I'd never argue that it was impossible to do as well as Bechtel and Halliburton without being involved in Iraq, but it's a legitimate question to ask WHY they are (in a "good economy") beating the market average by so much, and if no other reason but Iraq presents itself, then the logical conclusion is that they made a shitload in Iraq.
In any event, JS has made this whole conversation sort of academic. $20 billion is one heck of a lot of profits for anyone, and that is just one Iraq war contractor we are speaking of. If anyone made $20 billion for any company you work for, your bosses would probably want to give the guy the Nobel Prize. Somebody just made Halliburton $20 billion, and all it cost were the lives of 4,000 ignorant hillbillies, 150,000 ragheads and $500 billion U.S. dollars, none of it belonging to Halliburton. Could any deal be sweeter? And you wanna know if there's any profit to be made in this business? Come on, get real.
It is a pleasant surprise to me.
I thought we were haveing too much troubble to expect profit.
-
the market-beaters had to have an explanation for why they were beating the average.
An average implies that some do better than average and some do worse. Beating the average just means that you were in the roughly 50% of the companies that beat the average.
-
<<An average implies that some do better than average and some do worse. Beating the average just means that you were in the roughly 50% of the companies that beat the average.>>
Correct. But beating the average by a wide margin (as was the case with Bechtel and Halliburton) indicates that you were in a much smaller cohort of above-average performers. It's not around 50% any more and depending on the width of the margin, it could be the top 1% or 2%.
-
<<It is a pleasant surprise to me.
<<I thought we were haveing too much troubble to expect profit.>>
WE? Does this imply that you are holding shares in Halliburton? Even if you are, do you really expect much of the profits will be passed off to you as dividends? Don't worry, the directors of the company are waaay too smart for that. You'll get what's left over, if anything, after the profits are dispensed as expenses, higher salaries and perks, payments for "services" to corporations you never heard of and in which you DON'T hold any shares, etc.
I don't think you fully understand the beauty of the scheme - - YOU, as the dumb-schmuck Amerikkkan citizen, bear ALL of the costs of the venture: the 4,000 dead hillbillies, the half-trillion in government costs, the interest on the money borrowed to make up those costs, etc. The PROFITS of the venture accrue to a corporation called Halliburton and to a privately-held corporation called Bechtel and to some other corporations,all of which are largely owned by Amerikkka's billionaire class. That profit that you are so jubilant about is theirs, not yours.
-
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=9248
Bechtel Fails Reconstruction of Iraq's Schools
by Karim El-Gawhary, Special to CorpWatch
December 2nd, 2003
In Iraq, school administrators are struggling to keep their classroom doors open and their students educated, in the face of many obstacles unleashed by the occupation of the country. Looting has become commonplace, while lack of supplies and the decay of basic infrastructure make teaching a challenge.
Into this situation steps Bechtel Corporation, the San Francisco-based engineering and construction giant. In April Bechtel was awarded a contract by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) for the reconstruction of Iraq's primary and secondary schools, as part of a deal worth up to $1.03 billion to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure. But the question remains whether Bechtel, like the US army, is part of the solution or part of the problem.
Bend it Like Bechtel
Headmaster Abdel-Razzaq Ali's school is located in a predominantly Shi'ite quarter in a poor area of Baghdad. More than 1,500 students attend the Anbariyn School in two shifts: boys in the morning, girls in the afternoon. Looting has never been a problem at his school. But Abdel-Razzaq has his share of problems in the new Iraq. "The parents are constantly complaining to me, but who can I complain to?" he wonders. He is particularly skeptical about the refurbishment plans for the school, which are being carried out by Bechtel Corporation.
The Anbariyn School is one of 1,500 schools being refurbished by Bechtel using American funds. Within the framework of its reconstruction program, Bechtel has subcontracted work to 65 Iraqi companies. The project is referred to on its Web site as "a truly humanitarian effort". "Of all the things we're doing here, this one really touches individuals - students, parents, teachers, and entire communities - in a very personal way," Thor Christiansen, manager of the Iraqi School Program, is quoted as saying. Abdel-Razzaq, however, shakes his head in response. "If they had given the money to us directly," he explained, "we would have done a far better job."
At the start of the program Abdel-Razzaq received a visit from a representative of the Iraqi company, Adnan Mussawi, which Bechtel subcontracted to carry out the work. The headmaster was asked to sign a declaration that the work had been completed, which he refused to do until the work had actually been done. Twenty days later, the walls were painted, the rusty doors painted over, new electric cables laid, and some of the sanitary facilities replaced. However, the real problem with the toilets -- namely the sewage pipes -- were left untouched. So Abdel-Razzaq is sure that next winter once more, there will be a lake of sewage in the bathrooms.
Most of the cheap plastic cisterns are already broken. Even a broken banister that resulted in one child falling one floor down - was not considered to be part of Bechtel's renovation plan. So the director ordered to weld it again, paying the work out of his own pocket. The work on the school, according to Abdel-Razzaq, was completed without a single person from the Bechtel corporation appraising the work. "Why do we need Bechtel? They have done absolutely nothing," he said.
Lack of Oversight
Dr Nabil Khudair Abbas, from the planning center at the Ministry for Education which is responsible for a quarter of Baghdad's schools, confirmed Abdel-Razzaq's sentiments. He meets with representatives of the Bechtel Corporation on a weekly basis, and presents his complaints with regard to its school reconstruction program. The program is anything but transparent, he tells them, and none of the work is checked. Nobody in the Ministry of Education knows exactly how much the US has given Bechtel to implement the program, nor the details of the work to be carried out in individual schools.
"The impression we often get at the meetings is that Bechtel is more powerful than the army," he said. Bechtel representatives, however, want no more complaints from Dr Abbas. The program is a gift from the US taxpayers, and has been approved by Congress, they say. "No matter what we do, the Iraqis will never be on the losing end," a Bechtel representative told him. His grievances -- the fact that of the 750 schools which are included in his mandate, 20 were destroyed during the war and 170 were looted because the occupation forces failed to provide adequate security -- do not in the least interest Bechtel.
For Abdel-Razzaq, the old school bell symbolizes all that is wrong with the Bechtel program. The big, old, fully functioning bell was removed and replaced by a small, highly polished silver version. "Do you want to hear it?" asks Abdel-Razzaq, and presses the button. The clapper hits the bell, which croaks in response. This is a new bell for a new Iraq, says the headmaster. "Do you seriously believe I can summon 1,500 students to class with this?" But the clever headmaster came up with a special solution. After the recess, a child from each class walks over the school yard, gathering its classmates - enthusiastically swinging a little bell in its hand.
Teaching Under Occupation
Unlike Abdel-Razzaq, Khadija Ali Medshwal is worried about the security situation at her school. The Naguib Pasha Primary School in Baghdad is adjacent to several foreign embassies as well as the homes of several members of the Interim Governing Council (IGC). All are targets for attacks "against the occupation". She is also concerned about the safety of the children at the school.
Kidnapping the offspring of wealthy parents has been the norm since the end of the war. If this were not enough, she says, US soldiers regularly turn up unannounced at the school -- like today -- and the children can then study a special American military maneuver. Lieutenant Corban Sawyer marches ahead while one of his armed soldiers covers his back. When Lieutenant Corban Sawyer enters the principal's office, his rearguard takes up his post at the door, automatic weapon resting on his knee, eyes suspiciously on the potentially hostile school yard.
Lieutenant Sawyer says he feels good about helping the neighborhood get back on its feet, even though he is actually responsible for military "intelligence gathering". His job for today: inventory. He asks the head if she needs anything for the school. Khadija hands over a list with a smile and asks if perhaps barbed wire can be added to the top of the wall. She also allows the officer to take her photograph; "for our files", explains Lieutenant Sawyer, leaving the school accompanied by his corporals, though not before expressing his astonishment at the friendliness exhibited by the Iraqi people.
This friendliness, however, is short-lived. As soon as the officer leaves the office, Khadija's smile quickly fades. "I hate it when they turn up unannounced," she explains. "The first time they came here, they went from classroom to classroom with guns dangling over their shoulders, asking the terrified children whom they loved more, Saddam Hussein or George Bush." The school principal expects little from the Americans. The list of provisions for the school, she says -- tables, chairs and a television set -- she has given to the Americans at least a dozen times. At first she used to write a new list for each visit, now she simply copies the old one. "There is no point, nothing happens anyway," she explains.
Karim El-Gawhary is an Egyptian journalist who regularly reports from Iraq.
-
<<Lieutenant Sawyer says he feels good about helping the neighborhood get back on its feet, even though he is actually responsible for military "intelligence gathering". His job for today: inventory. He asks the head if she needs anything for the school. Khadija hands over a list with a smile and asks if perhaps barbed wire can be added to the top of the wall. She also allows the officer to take her photograph; "for our files", explains Lieutenant Sawyer, leaving the school accompanied by his corporals, though not before expressing his astonishment at the friendliness exhibited by the Iraqi people.
<<This friendliness, however, is short-lived. As soon as the officer leaves the office, Khadija's smile quickly fades. "I hate it when they turn up unannounced," she explains. "The first time they came here, they went from classroom to classroom with guns dangling over their shoulders, asking the terrified children whom they loved more, Saddam Hussein or George Bush." The school principal expects little from the Americans. The list of provisions for the school, she says -- tables, chairs and a television set -- she has given to the Americans at least a dozen times. At first she used to write a new list for each visit, now she simply copies the old one. "There is no point, nothing happens anyway," she explains.>>
It's hilarious. I wouldn't say "nothing happens," though. Lots happens. In the "good news" blogs and media, Lt.Sawyer has probably been portrayed dozens of times beside the smiling Khadija, "proof" that the occupation is "working," that Amerikkkans are "doing good" in Iraq, "fixing the schools," "building the civil society" and similar bullshit. I bet this very school appeared somewhere in one of Michael Yon's blogs.
-
<<The primary purpose behind carrier task forces is to PROJECT POWER, so that is why we have so many of these. . . . Even if we withdraw from many overseas commitments, it is still an excellent to way to "show the flag".>>
I don't get it, Professor. Are you saying that power is projected for the sake of projecting power? That the flag is shown for the sake of showing the flag? No ulterior reason beyond that?
In a military sense, a carrier allows you to project power beyond any land-based resources. Only a carrier can truly do this. Even an Aegis carrier task force cannot project power like this. It has to do with reality and perception. As far as perception, a Carrier is HUGE, I mean, HUGE. Have you ever been on one? I have. Many times. The scale is daunting. So, a carrier "coming into port" or even being offshore produces an emotional response, namely a sense of RAW POWER. A Cruiser, even as large and sophisticated as an Aegis cruiser is, simply does not command this level of respect. In a military sense, a carrier's military resources are simply awe-inspiring. No,w carriers even carry a wide range of anti-ship missiles. Plus, they can PROJECT power outward in a roughly omnidirectional sense due to the range of their fighters and now they even offer refueling capabilities via smaller refuelers so carrier-based aircraft can be refueled almost indefinitely. So, if you look at the physical location on a map of a carrier, you can essentially draw a rough circle of, say, 400 miles around it and POWER can be projected at that distance, if not beyond, even in the middle of the ocean with no land-based assets available. There is no current means available that can PROJECT POWER like this. Of course, carriers require entire task forces of 6-15 vessels of varying types, including that all-important Aegis cruiser, and so they are very expensive to operate, which is why nations such as France and even Great Britain do not operate many and I do not believe Canada does at all. Did you know that the US Navy consumes more oil than ANY of the other services and almost ALL OF THEM combined?
-
<<I highly reccomend Mombasa Kenya , not right now , after the civil unrest calms down ad they are back to their normal friendliness.>>
How long was your ship in Mombasa and how much of that time was shore leave for you? What was the longest continuous period of time that you were allowed to be away from the ship during shore leave? Did you encounter any anti-Americanism in Mombasa? Why was Mombasa so highly recommended, i.e., what did it have that the other ports did not? And what other ports did you partcularly like?
In Alfred Hitchcock's Fireside Book of Suspense there's a short story set in the 1930s called The Idol. An English tourist steps off a cruise ship in Mozambique to buy some souvenirs in the town, purchases an odd little idol, intervenes in a spat between an absolutely gorgeous local girl and some thugs, winds up getting chased by the thugs over the roof-tops , is rescued by the girl, fucks her brains out [reading between the lines,] in a temporary hide-out, kills some bad guys in hand-to-hand (the girl got one of them by throwing a knife into his back from across the room) and the next morning is recognized in the street, a little rougher for wear, with the adoring girl clinging to him like moss, by a party of English tourists who were combing the streets for him. He shakes hands with the girl and thanks her, straightens his tie and returns to the ship with the other English tourists, with his little idol still wrapped up in brown paper. Anything like that ever happen to you in Mombasa?
Are you saying there is SOMETHING wrong with this? ;)
-
I'm saying that it was one of the greatest short stories I've ever read in my life. Another one was Margery Sharp's The Second Step, in the same anthology, and another one was Leiningen Versus the Ants, from Esquire Magazine.
-
Professor, I GET IT that the aircraft carrier projects power (until it's sunk, and then it projects futility.) But I don't think you answered my question, which was, What is the point of projecting power? Who benefits from the projection and how exactly do they benefit?
The question was rhetorical anyway. I was really arguing that the point of projecting power in the Middle East is to intimidate the locals, so they wouldn't resist American demands to horn in on their oil profits by getting concessions either wholly owned or on favourable partnering terms.
-
Professor, I GET IT that the aircraft carrier projects power (until it's sunk, and then it projects futility.) But I don't think you answered my question, which was, What is the point of projecting power? Who benefits from the projection and how exactly do they benefit?
The question was rhetorical anyway. I was really arguing that the point of projecting power in the Middle East is to intimidate the locals, so they wouldn't resist American demands to horn in on their oil profits by getting concessions either wholly owned or on favourable partnering terms.
I might phrase it differently, namely that a primary purpose of carriers is to PROJECT POWER such that the receivers of that impression are duly impressed by what the carrier just MIGHT do. It's a principle as old as the Roman Empire and before. After all, you can "show the flag" by having a small frigate come into port, waving The Flag but dies it have the same effect as a carrier? Naw...call you what you wish, power, intimidation, etc., but it can be effective.
As is delienated in this thread, economic interests and cultural and....well, a wide range of interests can follow this "waving the flag".So what? Cause and effect, I might argue.
-
<<It is a pleasant surprise to me.
<<I thought we were haveing too much troubble to expect profit.>>
WE? Does this imply that you are holding shares in Halliburton? Even if you are, do you really expect much of the profits will be passed off to you as dividends? Don't worry, the directors of the company are waaay too smart for that. You'll get what's left over, if anything, after the profits are dispensed as expenses, higher salaries and perks, payments for "services" to corporations you never heard of and in which you DON'T hold any shares, etc.
I don't think you fully understand the beauty of the scheme - - YOU, as the dumb-schmuck Amerikkkan citizen, bear ALL of the costs of the venture: the 4,000 dead hillbillies, the half-trillion in government costs, the interest on the money borrowed to make up those costs, etc. The PROFITS of the venture accrue to a corporation called Halliburton and to a privately-held corporation called Bechtel and to some other corporations,all of which are largely owned by Amerikkka's billionaire class. That profit that you are so jubilant about is theirs, not yours.
Well said.
There is no tinkle down effect from this. Even if there were, I don't see how anyone in good conscience would be pleased about it. This Milton Friedman style dystopia Does not exist in the presence of freedom (and you'll note that it never has throughout its dark history of implementation!). It requires complete destruction, regime change, forced dismantling of publicly-owned holdings, and a complete fire sale of the country to foreign corporations. No one elected Bremer to do this. Iraqis did not vote for his favorable corporate laws. Iraqis did not vote for him to dismantle their state aparatus. He did so with the authority of a tyrant, no less as forcefully as Saddam Hussein. He had political prisoners in Abu Ghraib just like his predecessor; being tortured just like his predecessor.
That was no accident. It was a refined process beginning in Korea, improved in Iran, improved in Indonesia, improved in Brazil, terribly implemented in Vietnam, improved in Chile, improved in Argentina & Uruguay...and on it went. This country, the United States, has refined this Imperial process of free-market pillaging. When the debts hit, and you better believe they will, we'll be long gone and the Iraqis will have to pay through - you guessed it - public funds. Welcome to U.S. Imperialism Iraq, you're going to get raped a few more times, financially and some physically. It is going to be a bumpy ride of soaring inflation, high unemployment, a massive debt crisis, and decades of massive loans that you'll have to pay back to - us!
If you're lucky, you'll be like Chile and they'll dub you an "economic miracle" while you enjoy 45% of your population below the poverty line. You'll have one of the world's most unequal economic populations in the world where the top 1% own 83% of the nation's wealth. That's if you're lucky and avoid complete financial collapse and total economic ruin. The good news is that like Chile, you have a resource people want - oil (Chile had copper). So you may reach that exalted status of right-wing "economic miracle" of massive inequality and nearly half the population living in poverty. One can only hope! Of course you'll need to spend a great deal of money on the national police, torture facilities, and combatting "subversives" (that would be anyone who doesn't believe in total free-market "freedom"). And you'll need to remove the pesky freedom of the press and absolutely no right to assemble. But first things first - no rights to strike, and give employers carte blanche to fire anyone without cause.
-
Here's an interesting document (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB71/doc15.pdf) where President Nixon openly comments on having the U.S. installed military junta in Brazil help rig the elections in Uruguay - which became the world's most intense police state (i.e. the highest political prisoners per capita) as well as having the most open relationship with CIA trainers in torture. Mitrione, a former FBI agent, became infamous for his "hands-on" teaching style where he would kidnap homeless persons and demonstrate torture techniques for his eager to learn Uruguyan state police students.
Our position is supported by Brazil, which is afterall the key to the future. The Brazilians helped rig the Uruguyan election.
-
I knew a lot of bad shit about Dan Mitrione, but this kidnapping homeless people for the police students to practice their torture on hits a new low for me.
I remember the caption under Mitrione's photo, run in the Chicago Seed after his kidnapping and assassination by Tupamaro guerrillas, with a hand-drawn Fearless Fosdick-style bullet hole in the middle of his forehead, "R.I.P. Dan Mitrione - You Will Encounter Nothing New in Hell."
Some of the hellish things Amerikkka has done can really haunt me, and this is one of them. What gets me is how they get away with it. Even the worst, most fascist-inclined citizens, would probably be repulsed by such an act, but they deal with it in a way that the Germans deal with the crimes of the Nazi era - - they refuse to think about it, if they are forced to think about it, they refuse to believe in it - - where is the proof? as if Mitrione, the Nazi war criminals or anyone else would leave signed confessions or invite in documentary film-makers to record the whole proceedings. The secret of fascism: they won't take responsibility. It didn't happen and if it did, it was "an aberration." God, it's depressing.
-
Or if it did...it was "in national interest."
The Cold War was used as an excuse for the United States to act severely repressive and very authoritarian.
-
Projecting power and showing the flag.
The individual equivalent of this would be to bulk up on steroids and be able to walk down any street anywhere, with one's enormous schlong, swaying menacingly back and forth.
Showing the flag seems related to the guys who bolt huge fake testicles to the trailer hitches of the F-150's.
That is what it looks like to many people in other countries.
I am opposed to any more carrier 'battle groups' for that reason. It only gives the clowns in the military-industrial complex and the right wing militarists more reasons to intimidate the rest of the planet.
If we didn't need the extra carrier in the 1980's when the USSR was a threat, why would we need it now, when we have no potential enemies sailing about?
-
Ah, but WE DO have numerous threats as in a re-emerging Russia, an emerging China a mystery in Iran and so on.
Why not look at it this way? What we do is remove many of our overseas bases in countries like Saudi Arabia and we substitute carriers?
As far a being macho, it is unfortunately necessary to remind people that America is there for not only punitive measures but for help as well.
-
Ah, but WE DO have numerous threats as in a re-emerging Russia, an emerging China a mystery in Iran and so on.
Why not look at it this way? What we do is remove many of our overseas bases in countries like Saudi Arabia and we substitute carriers?
As fas a being macho, it is unfortunatley necessary to remind people that America is there for not only punitive measures but for help as well.
We have bases in numerous countries. We also have a military presence in many more.
The problem with being macho and using aircraft carriers is that it only has value in specific situations, namely when you're facing a tiny force and the pure awe of a carrier task force is going to make them back down.
When it is an insurgency or guerilla war, the aircraft carrier and projection of power start to mean very little.
That's when the US goes to Dan Mitrione style - but in some countries (Vietnam, Iraq) it has little effect.
-
"That's when the US goes to Dan Mitrione style - but in some countries (Vietnam, Iraq) it has little effect."
I fail to see the problem here. If you go into a conflict like this, you must deciude:
1. I'm going to go in and kill everybody in sight, no holds barred and screw the political ramificaitons but no more guerillas (or anyone else for that matter). Okay, be SOMEHAT selective, but not much. If one person fro ma town shoots at you, you kill EVERYONE in the village.
2. I'm going to play around for 15 years and go nowhere (aka Vietnam)
3. I'm going to avoid it altogether.
Please select only one.
-
"That's when the US goes to Dan Mitrione style - but in some countries (Vietnam, Iraq) it has little effect."
I fail to see the problem here. If you go int oa conflict like this, you must deciude:
1. I'm going to go in and kill everybody in sight, no holds barred and screw the political ramificaitons but no more guerillas (or anyone else for that matter). Okay, be SOMEHAT selective, but not much. If one person fro ma town shoots at you, you kill EVERYONE i nthe village.
2. I'm going to play around for 15 years and go nowhere (aka Vietnam)
3. I'm going to avoid it altogether.
Please slect only one.
It is much more subtle than that though Prof. After all, you don't want to kill too much of your cheap labor pool! You just want them to be so afraid of disagreeing with you that they don't dare step out of line. In essence, you want a police state as Uruguay (or Chile, or Brazil, or Argentina) had.
The problem is that you're right. In a country like Iraq and Vietnam, the resistance is too strong. The people are not cooperative and they are too unified in their resistance movements for pure state terror to work properly. Quite frankly, we don't have the force to ensure order in Iraq. Vietnam was similar, only even more difficult to control.
The real similarity is in the outcome. If you asked someone in 1969 what a victory in Vietnam looked like - not many people could really describe it in detail. Ask someone what a military in Iraq looks like. What does it really look like?
-
I think this whole projection of power trip seems to be overlooking one salient point - - even if it works (which it didn't in Nam, where the U.S. had lots of carriers deployed,) it's only gonna work as long as you're not stepping on the toes of someone who can deploy more carriers than you can, or is rapidly moving towards that status. China alone, for example, is soon going to be able to produce more and better everything than the U.S.A., and that includes weapons systems and it certainly will include carriers. China with one other major ally will likely dwarf the U.S.A. Projecting power into the backyards of Russia, China or India may not be such a great idea when the power that you are projecting is overmatched by the power of the people you are projecting it on.
Billions of people have come to hate and loathe the U.S. and that hatred can and will ultimately translate into direct action if the U.S. continues on its present path. Right now, it might be able to get away with its usual shit - - although you have to wonder at the "power" of a nation of 300,000,000 held at bay by a small but determined nation of only 23 million. The one sure thing I know is that, whatever the actual power advantage the U.S. enjoys vis a vis the rest of the world, it is shrinking fairly rapidly. Not that the U.S. is losing its punch, but that its rivals are gaining theirs.
I think the old paradigm of "projecting power" needs to be re-thought. Not that that'll happen - - your system of lobbying and campaign financing virtually guarantees the elimination of honest, intelligent leadership in favour of total ass-holes. The incumbent being a perfect example, among many. One day you'll do exactly what Hitler did - - project some power onto the wrong people. Unite an unbeatable coalition against you. Convince the world that nothing but your total destruction can save the human race and/or the planet. Too bad I won't live to see that day.
-
Ah, but WE DO have numerous threats as in a re-emerging Russia, an emerging China a mystery in Iran and so on.
Why not look at it this way? What we do is remove many of our overseas bases in countries like Saudi Arabia and we substitute carriers?
As far a being macho, it is unfortunately necessary to remind people that America is there for not only punitive measures but for help as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Russia is no threat at all to the US, and neither is China, as long as we owe them billions and billions.
Iran and its speedboats and total lack of nuclear weapons is only useful for annoying Israel.
It is NOT necessary to "remind people that America is there for punitive measures".
Who the diddle are you going to help with a monster carrier battle group?
Didn't someone post here that a swarm of speedboats could defeat a huge Navy?
-
That person is incorrect. With proper procedures, no speed boats can make even a dent. You simply do not let them get lcose.
Regardless what you wuss liberals think is needed, me, a RATWING rightist, believes we need to exhibit strength, for several reasons. One of these is that it actually prevents others from even seriously thinking thet can get away with something.
I would then obviously argue for MORE carrier task forces, not less.
-
For the price of one ancient used French or British or Swedish destroyer, the Iranians could pretty much fill the Strait of Hormuz with thousands of zippy Islamic speedboats, had they a mind to. The results might be similar to the final scene of the film "Willard', except with speedboats instead of rats,and large ships in lieu of humans.
I think we need better diplomats and more creative thinkers than we need hugely expensive armaments.
I observe at this point that 9-11 could not have been prevented by any number of carrier defense groups.
Perhaps six competent security guards, appointed by a more clever version of National Security Advisor Rice, however, could have stopped 9-11 in its tracks. In this case, the solution was bewter intelligence, not more firepower.
It is said that to a man with a hammer, every problem resembles a nail. And yet, this is not true.
Your pleas for larger hammers deserve to be ignored, and I am hoping that the next administration will be so much smarter than the current one, which has been legendary in its stupidity, that better alternatives will be found.
I am opposed to the US conquering the world and standing upon its windpipe for moral reasons. However, this is also impossible for logistical reasons as well.
-
For the price of one ancient used French or British or Swedish destroyer, the Iranians could pretty much fill the Strait of Hormuz with thousands of zippy Islamic speedboats, had they a mind to. The results might be similar to the final scene of the film "Willard', except with speedboats instead of rats,and large ships in lieu of humans.
I think we need better diplomats and more creative thinkers than we need hugely expensive armaments.
I observe at this point that 9-11 could not have been prevented by any number of carrier defense groups.
Perhaps six competent security guards, appointed by a more clever version of National Security Advisor Rice, however, could have stopped 9-11 in its tracks. In this case, the solution was bewter intelligence, not more firepower.
It is said that to a man with a hammer, every problem resembles a nail. And yet, this is not true.
Your pleas for larger hammers deserve to be ignored, and I am hoping that the next administration will be so much smarter than the current one, which has been legendary in its stupidity, that better alternatives will be found.
I am opposed to the US conquering the world and standing upon its windpipe for moral reasons. However, this is also impossible for logistical reasons as well.
XO, never did I say I wanted to use them to intimidate per se. I want to show strength and hopefully not have to USE IT. "Walk softly and carry a big stick" might be my mantra.
-
For the price of one ancient used French or British or Swedish destroyer, the Iranians could pretty much fill the Strait of Hormuz with thousands of zippy Islamic speedboats, had they a mind to. The results might be similar to the final scene of the film "Willard', except with speedboats instead of rats,and large ships in lieu of humans.
I think we need better diplomats and more creative thinkers than we need hugely expensive armaments.
I observe at this point that 9-11 could not have been prevented by any number of carrier defense groups.
Perhaps six competent security guards, appointed by a more clever version of National Security Advisor Rice, however, could have stopped 9-11 in its tracks. In this case, the solution was bewter intelligence, not more firepower.
It is said that to a man with a hammer, every problem resembles a nail. And yet, this is not true.
Your pleas for larger hammers deserve to be ignored, and I am hoping that the next administration will be so much smarter than the current one, which has been legendary in its stupidity, that better alternatives will be found.
I am opposed to the US conquering the world and standing upon its windpipe for moral reasons. However, this is also impossible for logistical reasons as well.
XO, never did I say I wanted to use them to intimidte per se. I want to show strength and hopefully not have to USE IT. "Walk softly and carry a big stick" might be my mantra.
What does it matter? Naval armadas don't really frighten very many people any longer. They did a good job terrifying the Cuban construction workers and puzzled American medical students on Grenada, but they didn't have any effect on Iran or North Korea. Certainly the Iraqi insurgents could give a damn less. The Vietnamese didn't seem to care a whole lot either. They certainly didn't start waving white flags or drawing up surrender papers.
Our army and marines have lost nearly all of their lustre in Iraq. And we're talking here about sending the navy out to scare other nations - something practiced in pre-World War I times of the Great Empires. Obvious signs of a declining empire and none too soon.
-
<<An average implies that some do better than average and some do worse. Beating the average just means that you were in the roughly 50% of the companies that beat the average.>>
Correct. But beating the average by a wide margin (as was the case with Bechtel and Halliburton) indicates that you were in a much smaller cohort of above-average performers. It's not around 50% any more and depending on the width of the margin, it could be the top 1% or 2%.
Oh what percent do they fall into?
How do we know that there are not dozens of companys doing just as well?
-
<<It is a pleasant surprise to me.
<<I thought we were haveing too much troubble to expect profit.>>
WE? Does this imply that you are holding shares in Halliburton? Even if you are, do you really expect much of the profits will be passed off to you as dividends? Don't worry, the directors of the company are waaay too smart for that. You'll get what's left over, if anything, after the profits are dispensed as expenses, higher salaries and perks, payments for "services" to corporations you never heard of and in which you DON'T hold any shares, etc.
I don't think you fully understand the beauty of the scheme - - YOU, as the dumb-schmuck Amerikkkan citizen, bear ALL of the costs of the venture: the 4,000 dead hillbillies, the half-trillion in government costs, the interest on the money borrowed to make up those costs, etc. The PROFITS of the venture accrue to a corporation called Halliburton and to a privately-held corporation called Bechtel and to some other corporations,all of which are largely owned by Amerikkka's billionaire class. That profit that you are so jubilant about is theirs, not yours.
So oil was never needed for these "profits"?
Sounds as if all the companys you know are Enron in some measure.
-
<<So oil was never needed for these "profits"?>>
Oy, plane. Oil is the linch-pin of the whole scheme. It pays for everything. How else are the poor Iraqis gonna "repay" the enormous "debt" that they owe the American people for the "heroic efforts" of Halliburton, Bechtel, et al. to "reconstruct" their country?? And if by any chance the Iraqi people manage to beat off the Amerikkkan dragon and get to keep all their oil profits for their own account, you think that Halliburton or Bechtel is ever gonna pay back the U.S. any of their record contracting profits? Lotsa luck, my friend. The ultimate loser would be the Amerikkkan tax-payer in that case.
Naturally, victory in Iraq would be best for all concerned. Except for the Iraqis, of course. The puppet government would be repaying Iraq's "debt" to Amerikkka, ensuring that both Halliburton and the Amerikkkan taxpayer don't come up short, and in addition their hydrocarbons law would confer unprecedented windfall profits on the worthy corporation for decades to come.
-------------------------
<<Sounds as if all the companys you know are Enron in some measure.>>
I'm not even sure what that means. I certainly don't think all companies are dishonest and fraudulent, if that's what you mean. But plenty of them are. Halliburton, for example, since we seem to be discussing it at the momenr.
-
How else are the poor Iraqis gonna "repay" the enormous "debt" that they owe the American people for the "heroic efforts" of Halliburton, Bechtel, et al. to "reconstruct" their country??
They arn't going to.
How long did it take the Allies that owed "lend " and "lease" to the US to pay it back?
-
<<An average implies that some do better than average and some do worse. Beating the average just means that you were in the roughly 50% of the companies that beat the average.>>
Correct. But beating the average by a wide margin (as was the case with Bechtel and Halliburton) indicates that you were in a much smaller cohort of above-average performers. It's not around 50% any more and depending on the width of the margin, it could be the top 1% or 2%.
Oh what percent do they fall into?
How do we know that there are not dozens of companys doing just as well?
Oh there are:
CACI increased in value by as much as 60% since the invasion of Iraq for providing "private interrogators." Remember them in Abu Ghraib?
Titan provides translators in Iraq for hundreds of millions of dollars (not to mention a very lucrative Homeland Security contract). They also played a role in torture at Abu Ghraib, but more distressing is the fact that they have repeatedly provided false information to the U.S. military, not through misinformation, but through pure incompetence. They run no language skills tests for their employers beyond an extremely short interview process.
Interestingly, Titan has violated international election laws and also contributed to a terrorist money laundering organization. Repeat business I suppose.
Halliburton KBR has repeatedly ripped off taxpayers, running empty convoys both to and from destinations with military escorts - risking the lives of soldiers and drivers - in order to bill the government and increase profits.
What is amazing is that people defend this bullshit. Privatising warfare pays well...for a small minority of people. Raping Iraq pays well...again for a very small minority of people. The public pays, both here in America and in Iraq.
-
<<How long did it take the Allies that owed "lend " and "lease" to the US to pay it back?>>
Interesting question. From Wikipedia, on Lend-Lease:
<<Large quantities of goods were in Britain or in transit when Washington suddenly and unexpectedly terminated Lend-Lease on September 2, 1945. Britain needed to retain some of this equipment in the immediate post war period. [Original agreement was that the "lent" equipment would be returned when no longer needed or destroyed. - MT] As a result the Anglo-American loan came about. Lend-lease items retained were sold to Britain at the knockdown price of about 10 cents on the dollar giving an initial value of ?1,075 million. Payment was to be stretched out over 50 years at 2% interest. [7] . The final payment of $83.3 million (?42.5 million) due on 31 December 2006 (repayment having been deferred on several occasions) was made on 29 December 2006, it being the last working day of the year. After this final payment Britain's Economic Secretary, Ed Balls, formally thanked the US for its wartime support.>>
Interesting though this little side-track might be, I think we're getting off your original contentions, which were that there was no profit to be had in muscling into an equity position in the Iraqi oil wells (a patently absurd contention!) and that Halliburton, Bechtel et al. did not profit enormously from this war, which is at least prima facie flatly contradicted by hard facts such as share prices and annual earnings reports quoted by JS. In answer to the apparent evidence of solid profits from the war, you could only point to the generally "good economy" which of course does not explain in the least how the favourable numbers managed to substantially out-perform the market averages. [Admittedly, I am taking JS at his word on this, there is no data I have seen that compares Halliburton or Bechtel figures with the comparable market averages for the same periods of time. But I consider JS a fairly reliable source.]
-
<<An average implies that some do better than average and some do worse. Beating the average just means that you were in the roughly 50% of the companies that beat the average.>>
Correct. But beating the average by a wide margin (as was the case with Bechtel and Halliburton) indicates that you were in a much smaller cohort of above-average performers. It's not around 50% any more and depending on the width of the margin, it could be the top 1% or 2%.
Oh what percent do they fall into?
How do we know that there are not dozens of companys doing just as well?
Oh there are:
CACI increased in value by as much as 60% since the invasion of Iraq for providing "private interrogators." Remember them in Abu Ghraib?
Titan provides translators in Iraq for hundreds of millions of dollars (not to mention a very lucrative Homeland Security contract). They also played a role in torture at Abu Ghraib, but more distressing is the fact that they have repeatedly provided false information to the U.S. military, not through misinformation, but through pure incompetence. They run no language skills tests for their employers beyond an extremely short interview process.
Interestingly, Titan has violated international election laws and also contributed to a terrorist money laundering organization. Repeat business I suppose.
Halliburton KBR has repeatedly ripped off taxpayers, running empty convoys both to and from destinations with military escorts - risking the lives of soldiers and drivers - in order to bill the government and increase profits.
What is amazing is that people defend this bullshit. Privatising warfare pays well...for a small minority of people. Raping Iraq pays well...again for a very small minority of people. The public pays, both here in America and in Iraq.
Lucrative government contracts?
I understand that , the Government very commonly pays more for a product or service than any privite concern would be willing to.
But are you not demonstrateing hereby that there is no profit being taken from Iraqs oil?
All of the profit that has been mentioned so far is from US tax money .No oil involved at all.
-
Lookit, Plane. The Iraq War has driven up the scarfcity of petroleum all over the world. This raises prices for all oil companies, since they are now making 12-20% on $3.30 a gallon instead of 12-20$ on $2.00 a gallon gasoline.
The profit is not just on Iraqi oil: it's on ALL OIL EVERYWHERE.
War and rumors of war cause shortages, because it jacks up futures contracts, and this in turn, jacks up all oil prices.
-
<<I understand that , the Government very commonly pays more for a product or service than any privite concern would be willing to.
<<But are you not demonstrateing hereby that there is no profit being taken from Iraqs oil?
<<All of the profit that has been mentioned so far is from US tax money .No oil involved at all.>>
As if Bechtel and Halliburton give a shit where their money comes from.
The oil is central to the whole scheme. The Iraqi puppet government will "repay" the "debt" to the U.S. through some kind of intergovernmental agreement. Where does the money come from to make the payments?
The hydrocarbons law (passage of which is one of the preconditions for U.S. withdrawal of troops) will permit foreigners to hold equity positions in Iraqi wells. Have you any idea of the gigantic profits that the Iraqi oil wells produce? Or were you under the impression that Saddam Hussein's wealth and his country's came from herding goats and trading camels?
-
<<I understand that , the Government very commonly pays more for a product or service than any privite concern would be willing to.
<<But are you not demonstrateing hereby that there is no profit being taken from Iraqs oil?
<<All of the profit that has been mentioned so far is from US tax money .No oil involved at all.>>
As if Bechtel and Halliburton give a shit where their money comes from.
The oil is central to the whole scheme. The Iraqi puppet government will "repay" the "debt" to the U.S. through some kind of intergovernmental agreement. Where does the money come from to make the payments?
The hydrocarbons law (passage of which is one of the preconditions for U.S. withdrawal of troops) will permit foreigners to hold equity positions in Iraqi wells. Have you any idea of the gigantic profits that the Iraqi oil wells produce? Or were you under the impression that Saddam Hussein's wealth and his country's came from herding goats and trading camels?
I was under the impression that only the friends of Saddam were allowed wealth during the Saddam regime. That repression and killing accompanied tremendous waste, and that Iraq was a miserable place for the past thirty years.
How did you get the impression that a hydrocarbon law was a precondition for US withdrawal? It does seem important , but it is being hashed out between Iraqis who are looking out for their own constituencies.
I have hear hat many Iraqis re hurt with the Kurdish authorits who have already made some oil sales , if I were one of them I would want oil sold sooner rather than later I think the Kurds have the right idea , waiting for perfection is a mistake , sell to the highest bidder as soon as possible and start rebuilding infrastructure.
Personally I don't worry whether American companies get a lot of this work or not , they should get some , but shouldn't need an advantage.
So far we haven't established a link between oil and American presence in Iraq but let me offer one, poor enemies are less of a problem than rich enemies . A friendly Iraq can grow wealth without causing us to worry. An Al Queda dominated Iraq would have to be invaded.
-
How did you get the impression that a hydrocarbon law was a precondition for US withdrawal? It does seem important , but it is being hashed out between Iraqis who are looking out for their own constituencies.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The US is hardly going to come out and say this publicly, but I am sure you will note that some sort of agreement will indeed be signed before the US withdraws. There is a very good reason why the US Embassy in Baghdad is larger than any other in the world, larger than the Vatican City, Surely you can't think this is a coincidence.
---------------------------------------------------
I have hear that many Iraqis re hurt with the Kurdish authorities who have already made some oil sales , if I were one of them I would want oil sold sooner rather than later I think the Kurds have the right idea , waiting for perfection is a mistake , sell to the highest bidder as soon as possible and start rebuilding infrastructure.
All that has happened is some exploration agreements have been made.
----------------------------------------------------
Personally I don't worry whether American companies get a lot of this work or not , they should get some , but shouldn't need an advantage.
So far we haven't established a link between oil and American presence in Iraq but let me offer one, poor enemies are less of a problem than rich enemies . A friendly Iraq can grow wealth without causing us to worry. An Al Queda dominated Iraq would have to be invaded.
Al Qaeda is not at all likely to dominate Iraq. It was nearly destroyed after the attack on Tora Bora in Afghanistan, but thanks to Juniorbush's silly invasion, they are now able to find some shelter in Iraq, where previously they had none.
-
<<How did you get the impression that a hydrocarbon law was a precondition for US withdrawal? >>
The Bush administration seems to have set out benchmarks for withdrawal which include the passage of a hydrocarbons law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_withdrawal_benchmarks
===========================================================
<<Personally I don't worry whether American companies get a lot of this work or not , they should get some , but shouldn't need an advantage.>>
Bechtel, Halliburton and the rest of them were apparently wise not to depend on you to protect their interests. They apparently sensed somehow that you wouldn't worry about them, and accordingly they lined up some more interested champions of their interests in the Bush White House, starting at the top. Frankly, I think they gauged the situation correctly. The huge increase in their share prices and annual profits speak for themselves.
=========================================================
<<So far we haven't established a link between oil and American presence in Iraq . . . >>
No? ROTFLMFAO. "WE" might not have established a link between oil and American presence in Iraq, but I and just about every other thinking, sentient human being on the planet seems to have made the connection without too much difficulty.
<<I was under the impression that only the friends of Saddam were allowed wealth during the Saddam regime. >>
Well then you were under a false impression. Iraq under the Ba'ath Party rule was able to provide free JK to university grad school education for all its students, including study abroad for university students, had one of the highest standards of living in the Arab world and also provided good-quality universal medical care. The Ba'ath Arab Socialist Party wasn't called "Socialist" for nothing.
<<That repression and killing accompanied tremendous waste, and that Iraq was a miserable place for the past thirty years.>>
Iraq's material problems only began with the Iran-Iraq War, which the U.S.A. encouraged Iraq to launch against its neighbour, the Islamic Republic,and kept going with assistance to Iraq for as long as the parties were able to participate. Following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, which the U.S. first indicated it would not oppose, the Iraqi Army was driven back into Iraq and the country was subjected to a U.S.-inspired embargo which killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. The misery can be laid squarely at the feet of the U.S. and Saddam's reliance upon their word, the repression was a feature of Middle Eastern rule under any U.S. satellite government, to which Iraq was no exception, and was hardly wasteful as only the enemies or perceived enemies of the regime fell victim to it and none of them was irreplaceable. Saddam ruled by torture and terror, as did every U.S. satrap then and now, but those of his citizens who avoided arousing the regime's suspicion (not an easy thing to accomplish) did not suffer any material deprivation before the Iran-Iraq War began.
-
Some articles have been posted in here, by some of the right-wing folks even, that indicate that Christians had a much better life under Saddam's regime than they do now. Iraq was a rare Muslim state where they were allowed to practice their religion freely, but many in one of the world's most ancient Christian churches have had to flee and others have been outright murdered. They aren't the only ones, many who belong to very small Muslim sects, or Zoroastrian spin-off sects have been severely persecuted after Saddam was removed from power. That was a benefit to the secular state.
There is always good and bad Plane. Saddam was a tyrant, of that there is no doubt, but we certainly did not magically transform the lives of all Iraqis into something better. We used his old political prison as our political prison for torture. We've had soldiers rape and murder Iraqis. Even worse, because soldiers can be prosecuted (and have been) - we've had contractors rape and murder Iraqis and Americans and thanks to Paul Bremer they cannot be prosecuted!
Imagine the Iraqi civilian who witnesses that? I wonder how he or she draws a contrast between a KBR contractor raping a girl and getting away with it and Saddam's rule. ???
-
<<Imagine the Iraqi civilian who witnesses that? I wonder how he or she draws a contrast between a KBR contractor raping a girl and getting away with it and Saddam's rule.>>
It's no mystery. Different people being tortured in the torture chambers, different bodies being dumped in the streets, but otherwise life was very much better under Saddam. Until the U.S. suckered them into invading Iran. Until the U.S. got the U.N. to embargo the country. Security and socialism - - nobody hungry, nobody uneducated, nobody without proper medical care. No religious persecution. Women free to dress as they pleased in public, alcohol, music and dancing in the nightclubs. Between Saddam and the U.S., that country was totally fucked top to bottom. They ruined it completely.
But I'm sure of one thing. In the long run, the Amerikkkans will go the way of the British and the Iraqis will go back to running the country. Their way.