|
Top 10 U.S. blunders in Iraq (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| TrueToTheCrew |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
tyr this on for thought.
I've said all along that Iraq was not just a kick in the groin to Islamic facism across the globe. It is also a strategic (read big picture,long term) goal for the stabilization of a region that, wherein it's oil revenues will inevitably decline (20-25 yrs.), and with it, it's economy. Sadam Hussein (god love'em) was not going to be part of that strategy if the Sauds and Kuwaitis and the Jordanians and the Iranians and the Americans had anything to say about it.
Most of the house of Saud, more importantly, wanted the cess pool to their north stabilized because they are facing an internal crisis of Islamic facism within their own. Just look at the last few weeks in Saudi Arabia. They too are dealing with monster that wants extremist reform. They want nothing more than stabilization throughout their oil incline, plateau, and ultimately decline. Iraq was going to do nothing but feed that monster for the duration of Sadam's wicked life, then pass it down to his spawn. An idea that just cannot be trusted in the "strategic" sense. There is a lot more to this than meets the eye. This conflict was multifaceted.
So when you make some careless, myopic, ill-informed statement that resembles something like "Amerikkka's warring for their oil"
you will be right and wrong. Right in a sense that Iraq's oil reserves cannot be ignored not just by George Dubya, but for the sake of the entire world. The same world that has been buying Iraqi oil at OPEC prices just like Dubya has for the last half century. Wrong in a sense that OPEC's oil WILL dwindle sooner than you might think, and in the long term, it won't matter any more because we got more oil waiting for us. Hell we only import from OPEC 15% of the oil used in this country and it will probably stay that way.
In other words the 15% of the imported oil we buy from OPEC we pay and will continue to pay the same as everyone else, with Sadam or without Sadam and Iraq will be here long after this administration is gone. |
Big Picture, Long term goals????
Its none of the US's business. Yes for long term this will benefit the western world but it is none of anyone's business what went on in Iraq unless we are talking war crimes, genocide etc,etc. Even if there was good reason, it should of been under United Nations not some crack head red neck.
Too bad for the US that their country does not have rich oil deposits. Did you know that Canada exports 80% of their oil south of the border. If i had anything to do with it, not one drop would leave here. That oil rightfully belongs to the people of canada and not big corporations who seek big profits. We have enough oil here to be able to pay a lot less than what we do. Now our idiot prime minister is selling off the last 20% of Petro-Can to make it private.
******.
I understand your patriotic duty to stand by your president, but just understand how ignorant you sound. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by arctic
Perhaps not from where you’re sitting - but I see a number of serious problems with it. |
Perhaps I interpreted his comments a bit differently than you. I didn't read them to mean blind support for whoever the commander-in-chief of the moment is. I read it more to say that he supports Bush as his commander-in-chief and I believe every individual has the right to their own opinions. As for his other points, I see absolutely nothing wrong with them.;)
| quote: | | Firstly, there's the unequivocal support of 'my commander in chief'. |
Again, I simply didn't interpret the statement as "unequivocal support" as that would imply blind followership, which I am staunchly against, as it would imply a diminuation of the individual. I support Bush and I make no qualms about it. Do I think he is without fault? No. Do I think he's done a good job given the circumstances surrounding his presidency? Absolutely. Do I think I'm going to get 10 flaming messages following my post? Yes, but I don't really care what 10 random "cyber-personalities" think of my opinions.:D :p |
|
|
| Shakka |
Better late than never(too bad), considering they didn't have armored Humvees when the war started last year. Pretty sad that you can get a bulletproof Maybach but the armored Humvees came out later. Then again, I'd bet that the Maybach can't withstand the same firepower!
| quote: | U.S. Command Requires More Armored Humvees for Iraq, Army Says
By Tony Capaccio
June 2 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Central Command may request
``several thousand'' more heavily armored Humvee transports for
Iraq operations to help minimize growing casualties from snipers
and roadside bombs, according to Army and Pentagon officials.
The extra vehicles would be in addition to the roughly 4,400
so-called ``Up-Armored'' Humvees the Army already deemed necessary,
Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Richard Myers told the House
Armed Services Committee May 21.
``The Army has received additional requests from CENTCOM that
outlines possible additional requirements for more Up-Armored
Humvees,'' Army spokesman Major Gary Tallman said. ``So far we are
talking about 50 additional Humvees and we are standing by to
respond as required.''
The Army last year accelerated the purchase and fielding of
more heavily armored Humvees from AM General Corp., which builds
the basic vehicle, and Armor Holdings Inc.'s O'Gara-Hess &
Eisenhardt subsidiary, which applies the armor.
The Army's requirement has grown to 4,400 Up-Armored Humvees
today from 235 in August 2003 as Iraq's insurgency intensifies and
road-side attacks using improvised explosives increase. There are
4,420 fortified Humvees in Iraq today, Tallman said.
The Humvees can stop armor-piercing 7.62-millimeter rounds,
provide overhead protection from the blasts of 155-millimeter
shells exploding overhead and withstand a 12-pound mine detonation
under the front axle, O'Gara-Hess officials told the trade journal
Defense Week.
``The requirement for Up-Armored Humvees is likely to continue
to grow,'' Myers said in his testimony. ``We have indications,
while they're not a formal requirement yet, it could grow by
several more thousand and we're paying attention to that because
that will dictate how we facilitize the plants and so forth so we
can continue to produce the Up-Armored Humvee.''
Troop Protection
In response to the almost daily deaths of U.S. soldiers in
Iraq from roadside bombs or snipers, the House of Representatives
last month passed a $422 billion bill that adds about $1.2 billion
for equipment in fiscal 2005 to better protect troops, including
$700 million for heavily armored Humvees.
A companion Senate bill that has not yet passed adds $900
million for vehicle armor.
Myers's number ``may be accurate but we are still assessing
the requirements we are receiving,'' Tallman said.
Robert Mecredy, president of Armor Holding's Phoenix, Arizona-
based Aerospace and Defense Group, did not immediately return phone
calls or e-mails seeking comment.
Ramping Up
O'Gara-Hess, now installing armor on 300 vehicles a month at
its plant in Fairfield, Ohio, has told the Army and industry
analysts that it can refit as many as 450 a month by October,
according to Tallman and a May 11 research note from Friedman
Billings Ramsey & Co. analyst Michael Hoffman.
Hoffman rates Jacksonville, Florida-based Armor Holdings
``outperform'' on the strength of existing orders for Humvees.
Armor Holdings' shares fell 5 cents to $38.70 at 10:27 a.m. in
New York Stock Exchange composite trading after touching an all-
time high of $40.35. The shares have almost tripled in the past
year as demand for Armor's vehicles increased in parallel with the
rising insurgency in Iraq.
Armor yesterday raised its second-quarter profit forecast to
as much as 75 cents a share from its previous forecast of as much
as 65 cents, primarily because of the accelerated production of Up-
Armored Humvees. The company had net income of $4.61 million, or 17
cents a share, in the same quarter a year earlier.
For the year, Armor's sales are expected to more than double
to $820.5 million, from $365.2 million in 2003, according to the
average forecast of four analysts surveyed by Thomson Financial.
The company also owns Simula Inc., of Phoenix, which makes
ceramic plates used in the Army's bulletproof vests. The Defense
Logistics Agency has placed $13.7 million in accelerated orders
this year for plate deliveries through December, according to
agency figures. |
Sorry--no link to post, I pulled it straight off the Bloomberg newswire. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
Yeah, but the point is that the Halliburton contract (and many other contracts) were decided on and approved by US congress, but then paid for with Iraqi money (from the DFI fund - which does not exist for that purpose) and without independent auditing. $3.9 billion of contracts were handed out by the CPA before any independent auditing occurred, and even after this point the auditing and reporting techniques have been sub-par. The IMAB (the body responsible for conducting these audits) has only really been functional for the past few months, and even then has fairly limited powers. Things are improving now, but it doesn't change the fact that many of these wheelings and dealings over the past 12 months have been done without any of the transparency necessary, you would think, to absolve any suspisions we might have about the allocation of funds by the CPA and other coalition-led bodies. (I linked to this site in the other topic, but it's definitely worth a read: http://www.iraqrevenuewatch.org .)
So, I don't know about you, but when I learn that Cheney is involved in obtaining a single-source contract for his former company (of which, I believe, he is still a shareholder and paid a salary?) worth billions, which is then paid for using misappropriated funds taken from an Iraqi humanitarian fund, then forgive me while I don my tin-foil hat and ask for an explanation and greater transparency of government. To be honest, even if this is just conspiracy-mongering without basis, then Cheney and his puppets in the CPA only have themselves to blame - open government goes a long, long way guys! ;) |
Thanks for hte link. It provides some interesting information that I hadn't known before. However, one disappointing thing I took note of is that the organization doesn't appear a non-partisan organization. Since it's an institution founded by George Soros, I can only assume that it's findings might not be presented in the most objective manner. This of course doesn't invalidate its findings, but merely something to take into consideration. As for the $3.9 billion figure, I'm not certain of your exact source, but one should take note that the development fund includes US money appropriated for Iraqi reconstruction as well. The actual amount, according to the BBC, that was spent on Iraqi reconstruction before the IAMB had time to get up and running was $1.5 billion.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3293425.stm
The US however, proposed international monitoring and the resolution was only adopted a month after the war on May 22, 2003. Therefore, there is naturally going to be a period of time whereby one must continue with reconstruction before all the necessary checks and balances are in place. An American conspiracy to 'steal' Iraqi money in this fashion is unconvincing at best particularly since there was certainly a lot of international scrutiny at this time, and simply put, the rewards are rather meager.
At any rate, I stated before that I would reserve criticism about the contract process, since I'm hardly expert enough to provide insightful criticism, until the GAO issued its report revealing the findings of its investigation:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlate...4028534,00.html
However, there is an interesting story in the news today about new allegations:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS...rton/index.html
However, once again I'm not entirely certain how much of it is being politicized and how much of it deserves an actual look see. But you are correct, the white house does have itself to blame for whatever suspicions there may be by being so secretive. |
|
|
| Shakka |
I'm not going to get in the middle of your discussion, but I will say that Cheney sold all of his Halliburton holdings prior to taking office. As far as still receiving a salary, my understanding is that he still receives income that was part of a pre-existing contract he had with the company when he was CEO. The tactic of throwing as much as possible at the wall and seeing how much sticks is getting old. Here's something interesting that I received today--it was published by the DoD on June 1.
| quote: |
Media reports claim that a sole-source contract awarded to Halliburton to restore the Iraqi oil sector was “coordinated” through Vice President Cheney’s office. The Vice President was formerly chairman of Halliburton.
The reports are wrong. Here are the facts.
Background:
The reports quote an internal Pentagon email dated March 5, 2003, by an Army Corps of Engineer official who wrote:
“Accompanied OHRA leader to get release of declass[ification] and authority to execute RIO [Restore Iraqi Oil]. DepSecDef sent us to Under SecPolicy Fieth [sic] and gave him authority to approve both.
“Declass – Fieth [sic] approved, contingent on informing the WH [White House] tomorrow. We anticipate no issues since action has been coordinated with VP’s office.”
Explanation of the email: This e-mail (written in 2003 before the war started) referred to the need to declassify a U.S. government project to be ready to restore the Iraqi oil infrastructure following potential hostilities in Iraq, and to approve the execution of plans that the U.S. government had developed for this purpose. The project came to be known as Restore Iraqi Oil (RIO).
It was decided in March 2003 to declassify the project. By declassifying the project, teams could be ready to begin the restoration work as soon as possible, thus minimizing damage from sabotage or combat operations.
Myth: The Vice President’s office “coordinated” the contract.
Facts: The Vice President exercised no role or influence whatsoever in the Department’s decision to select Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR) for this work.
The only “coordination” with the Vice President’s office was that the office was informed the Defense Department was soon to make public the prior decision to award the contract to KBR. The Vice President was informed because of his former affiliation with the company.
Myth: The contract with Halliburton was approved by Douglas Feith, undersecretary of Defense for policy.
Facts: Mr. Feith was not the approval authority for awarding this contract. The approval authority was the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology. He approved a temporary sole-source contract to Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR), a Halliburton subsidiary.
The Office of Reconstruction (ORHA) was situated in the Department of Defense by Presidential Directive. That office was overseen for policy purposes by the Under Secretary for Policy. The Under Secretary had no contractual authority and took no contractual actions.
As the executive agent for the oil restoration work, the Army instructed KBH to be ready to start the work and continue until the U.S. government was able to hold an open competition (which it has since done).
Mr. Feith was the original classifying authority for the contingency plans the Department developed before the war for restoring Iraqi oil. That is why the Deputy Secretary referred the declassification action to Mr. Feith. |
|
|
|
| Shakka |
Had to do a little digging, but here you go. Article dated in March, 2001. What an --donating his options to charity!:rolleyes: :p
| quote: | Cheney Sold All Stock, Donated Options to Charity, Lawyer Says
2001-03-05 18:30 (New York)
Cheney Sold All Stock, Donated Options to Charity, Lawyer Says
Washington, March 5 (Bloomberg) -- Dick Cheney sold his
remaining stock holdings in Halliburton Co. before becoming vice
president and donated to charity his stock options, valued at
about $1.3 million at today's prices, Cheney's lawyer said today.
One beneficiary of the donations is the George Washington
University Medical Faculty Associates, a charity affiliated with
the hospital where Cheney was admitted today after complaining of
chest discomfort. That donation was earmarked for what was
described as ``the Richard B. Cheney Cardiac Institute.''
Before his inauguration, Cheney sold Halliburton stock valued
at about $7.8 million at the time, and kept those proceeds. Last
August, after his nomination, Cheney sold the bulk of his
Halliburton holdings for a profit of $18.5 million.
The charitable arrangements were completed on Jan. 18, two
days before Cheney was sworn in as vice president, ``to avoid a
conflict of interest, and even the appearance of a conflict of
interest,'' said Terrence O'Donnell, a partner with the Williams &
Connolly LLP law firm in Washington representing Cheney on his
financial holdings.
The law firm did not explain why the details of the
arrangement were withheld for a month and a half.
Cheney, who resigned as chairman of Halliburton last July to
run for vice president, came under criticism for possible
conflicts of interest that might arise from his investments,
particularly unvested stock options from Halliburton, the world's
largest oil services corporation.
Novel Problem
Those unvested stock options, which would not have been
exercisable when Cheney took office, posed a novel problem because
he couldn't sell or transfer them.
To quell the controversy, Cheney vowed to eliminate any
potential conflicts by making donations to charity, though he
declined to provide details until today. The details were released
to Bloomberg News at about 3 p.m., shortly before news broke about
Cheney's admission to George Washington University Hospital.
Under the terms of the arrangement, Cheney sold all his stock
and exercisable options -- keeping those proceeds for himself. He
also put the remaining options -- those then out of the money or
not yet exercisable -- into an account for three charities,
according the law firm.
Cheney's wife, Lynne Cheney, did the same, except for stakes
in two companies where she still sits on the boards.
The University of Wyoming, in the Cheneys' home state, will
get 40 percent of the money. The Cheneys earmarked 20 percent for
Capital Partners for Education, which helps low-income high school
students in the Washington area with their studies.
The remaining 40 percent of the proceeds will go to the
George Washington University Medical Faculty Associates to fund
``the Richard B. Cheney Cardiac Institute,'' the agreement stated.
Under-Water Options
The vice president's 433,333 donated Halliburton options
include 100,000 fully vested that allow him to buy shares for
$39.50 each. They are now worth $262,000 though they were out of
the money on Jan. 18 when Halliburton shares were $37.56.
Halliburton's shares rose 80 cents to $42.12 today.
Cheney also donated 100,000 shares with a strike price of
$54.50, putting them out of the money at current prices, although
they don't expire until 2007. The remaining Halliburton options,
with exercise prices ranging from $28.13 to $39.50, would be worth
$990,495 today, although they don't vest until next December or
December 2002.
``We feel that this not only meets the commitment that he
made, but it does it in a much more responsible way than simply
turning the options back into the companies,'' said O'Donnell.
The arrangement, which would distribute the proceeds to
charity after paying any taxes due, ends the Cheneys economic
relationship with all but two corporations, on whose boards Lynne
Cheney still sits: Reader's Digest Association Inc. and American
Express Co.'s mutual funds unit, American Express Funds.
The options donated include rights to buy stock in
Halliburton as well as Electronic Data Systems Corp. and Procter &
Gamble Co., two companies where Cheney was a board member,
according to the agreement.
Lynne Cheney contributed options in Anadarko Petroleum Corp.,
which bought a company where she was a board member, and Lockheed
Martin Corp., where she stepped down before her husband's
inauguration.
``The terms of the gift administration agreement leave the
Cheneys in a neutral position, so it creates no conflict of
interest,'' O'Donnell said. The vice president ``comes out exactly
the same on his taxes'' as if he never held the options, and the
same holds for Lynne Cheney. |
|
|
|
| Renegade |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
As for the $3.9 billion figure, I'm not certain of your exact source, but one should take note that the development fund includes US money appropriated for Iraqi reconstruction as well. The actual amount, according to the BBC, that was spent on Iraqi reconstruction before the IAMB had time to get up and running was $1.5 billion.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3293425.stm |
I got it from one of the pages on the IRW website, specifically:
http://www.iraqrevenuewatch.org/reports/041904.pdf
I'm not sure if that figure includes all spending or merely those chanelled through the DFI (as I understand it, not all revenues from oil-exports are chanelled through this account?).
| quote: | | The US however, proposed international monitoring and the resolution was only adopted a month after the war on May 22, 2003. Therefore, there is naturally going to be a period of time whereby one must continue with reconstruction before all the necessary checks and balances are in place. |
I understand that, but it still doesn't change the fact that the these original deals still were conducted without any transparency at all (you don't need an independent body to be transparent), that the CPA are still lacking specificity in their reporting and that they are being less than forthcoming about addressing either of these areas. Part of it has to do with the fact that the IAMB are still getting their act together, but part of the blame still lies with the secrecy and stuborness of the CPA.
| quote: | | An American conspiracy to 'steal' Iraqi money in this fashion is unconvincing at best particularly since there was certainly a lot of international scrutiny at this time, and simply put, the rewards are rather meager. |
Haha, yeah look I'm not trying to say that the Americans are trying to steal money from Iraq or anything, I'm just saying that questions about the way the funds have been used need to be scrutinised more closely. If there's nothing dodgy going on, then fine. At least we'd know for sure.
| quote: | At any rate, I stated before that I would reserve criticism about the contract process, since I'm hardly expert enough to provide insightful criticism, until the GAO issued its report revealing the findings of its investigation:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlate...4028534,00.html
However, there is an interesting story in the news today about new allegations:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS...rton/index.html
However, once again I'm not entirely certain how much of it is being politicized and how much of it deserves an actual look see. But you are correct, the white house does have itself to blame for whatever suspicions there may be by being so secretive. |
Yep I agree on all counts. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
I'm not going to get in the middle of your discussion, but I will say that Cheney sold all of his Halliburton holdings prior to taking office. As far as still receiving a salary, my understanding is that he still receives income that was part of a pre-existing contract he had with the company when he was CEO. The tactic of throwing as much as possible at the wall and seeing how much sticks is getting old. Here's something interesting that I received today--it was published by the DoD on June 1. |
Source of story?
I'm sorry, but I've gotta pull my initial "bull" feelings out on the matter. Call me partisan, I don't care, but this honestly reaps of cow dung.
| quote: | Media reports claim that a sole-source contract awarded to Halliburton to restore the Iraqi oil sector was “coordinated” through Vice President Cheney’s office. The Vice President was formerly chairman of Halliburton.
The reports are wrong. Here are the facts.
Background:
The reports quote an internal Pentagon email dated March 5, 2003, by an Army Corps of Engineer official who wrote:
“Accompanied OHRA leader to get release of declass[ification] and authority to execute RIO [Restore Iraqi Oil]. DepSecDef sent us to Under SecPolicy Fieth [sic] and gave him authority to approve both.
“Declass – Fieth [sic] approved, contingent on informing the WH [White House] tomorrow. We anticipate no issues since action has been coordinated with VP’s office.”
Explanation of the email: This e-mail (written in 2003 before the war started) referred to the need to declassify a U.S. government project to be ready to restore the Iraqi oil infrastructure following potential hostilities in Iraq, and to approve the execution of plans that the U.S. government had developed for this purpose. The project came to be known as Restore Iraqi Oil (RIO).
It was decided in March 2003 to declassify the project. By declassifying the project, teams could be ready to begin the restoration work as soon as possible, thus minimizing damage from sabotage or combat operations. |
No problems so far
| quote: | Myth: The Vice President’s office “coordinated” the contract.
Facts: The Vice President exercised no role or influence whatsoever in the Department’s decision to select Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR) for this work.
The only “coordination” with the Vice President’s office was that the office was informed the Defense Department was soon to make public the prior decision to award the contract to KBR. The Vice President was informed because of his former affiliation with the company. |
Okay, why risk the connection then? But I have troubles believing this was the only reason, esp. when the email author specifically stated of Feith:
"We anticipate no issues since action has been coordinated with VP’s office."
Define "coordination", please. Are you actually going to tell me that the definition of "coordination" entails merely "informing" the VP, just for the sake of his old connection with the company?
I call bull.
| quote: | Myth: The contract with Halliburton was approved by Douglas Feith, undersecretary of Defense for policy.
Facts: Mr. Feith was not the approval authority for awarding this contract. The approval authority was the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology. He approved a temporary sole-source contract to Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR), a Halliburton subsidiary.
The Office of Reconstruction (ORHA) was situated in the Department of Defense by Presidential Directive. That office was overseen for policy purposes by the Under Secretary for Policy. The Under Secretary had no contractual authority and took no contractual actions.
As the executive agent for the oil restoration work, the Army instructed KBH to be ready to start the work and continue until the U.S. government was able to hold an open competition (which it has since done).
Mr. Feith was the original classifying authority for the contingency plans the Department developed before the war for restoring Iraqi oil. That is why the Deputy Secretary referred the declassification action to Mr. Feith. |
Okay, I looked at the email myself here:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2004/030503.pdf
Yes, Mr. Feith declassified the contingency plans, but whoever the author is of this article left something out. Let's look again at the quote:
"Accompanied OHRA leader to get release of declass[ification] AND authority to execute RIO [Restore Iraqi Oil]. DepSecDef sent us to Under SecPolicy Fieth [sic] and gave him authority to approve both.
Not only did Feith have authority to declassify, but the Dep. Secretary of Defense gave him the authority to EXECUTE the plans for the RIO.
The author left out the rationale for Feith's "execution" of the plans. So what does "execution" entail?
I also anticipated the GAO report, and as it seems initially there was no illegial activity, though the Guardian article Occ supplied did state:
| quote: | | But the government often appeared to go beyond the rules when it ordered new work under older, existing contracts, the General Accounting Office said in its review of 25 reconstruction contracts |
.
Bush has the authority to order no-bid contracts under critical times like war, so I honestly don't know how anyone could be legally prosecuted for anything. I did find one portion of this following article interesting:
| quote: | On the other side of Capitol Hill, Rep. Henry Waxman, a California Democrat, wrote to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld suggesting he also helped steer Iraq oil work to Halliburton.
Waxman said the General Accounting Office, the audit arm of Congress, told him the oil work should have been obtained competitively. The Army knew this, Waxman said the GAO had told him. But, he wrote Rumsfeld, "your office overruled the Army and directed Army officials to issue the task order to Halliburton."
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle....storyID=5315193 |
But since they can pretty much overrule anything they want, what the hell could anyone do about it? Checks and balances anyone? |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Source of story?
|
Like I said, it was a daily DoD Talking Points bulletin from yesterday. I don't have a weblink, but if you want to PM me an email address, I'll gladly forward it on to you. |
|
|
| FuzzyGreen |
| quote: | Originally posted by Cyrus King
Are you serious?? this war wasnt for oil????
|
I don't believe the war was ever for oil, if it was why aren't we taking the oil now that we took over the country?
But even if it was for o.i.l. (Operation Iraqi Liberation) that is fine by me. Most wars in history were fought over obtaining natural resources and the US national security needs it. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
I got it from one of the pages on the IRW website, specifically:
http://www.iraqrevenuewatch.org/reports/041904.pdf
I'm not sure if that figure includes all spending or merely those chanelled through the DFI (as I understand it, not all revenues from oil-exports are chanelled through this account?).
|
I don't know, I was under the impression that all revenues are channeled through the account initially. But at any rate, my point was that the development fund is not solely constituted of Iraqi oil revenues. The $20 billion allocated from congress and donor money from other countries are deposited in the fund as well. Therefore, my guess is that the bbc calculated its figure of $1.5 billion spent of Iraqi oil revenues by determining how much iraqi oil revenues were in the fund before the IAMB was set up.
| quote: |
I understand that, but it still doesn't change the fact that the these original deals still were conducted without any transparency at all (you don't need an independent body to be transparent), that the CPA are still lacking specificity in their reporting and that they are being less than forthcoming about addressing either of these areas. Part of it has to do with the fact that the IAMB are still getting their act together, but part of the blame still lies with the secrecy and stuborness of the CPA.
|
So what's required of greater transparency? I was under the impression that everybody knew where the bids were going ... people were just upset over the fact that no-competition contracts were handed out. And that to me is simply a non-issue as per the findings of the GAO report, and what many former officials have stated regarding the issue:
Clinton Procurement Official Steven Kelman calls allegations that the government rewarded Halliburton "Somewhere between highly improbable and utterly absurd." "One would be hard-pressed to discover anyone with a working knowledge of how federal contracts are awarded - whether a career civil servant working on procurement or an independent academic expert - who doesn't regard these allegations as being somewhere between highly improbable and utterly absurd. ... Many people are also under the impression that contractors take the government to the cleaners. In fact, government keeps a watchful eye on contractor profits - and government work has low profit margins compared with the commercial work the same companies perform. ... As for the much-maligned Halliburton, a few days ago the company disclosed, as part of its third-quarter earnings report, operating income from its Iraq contracts of $34 million on revenue of $900 million - a return on sales of 3.7 percent, hardly the stuff of plunder."
(Steven Kelman, "No 'Cronyism' In Iraq," The Washington Post,11/6/03)
Clinton's Undersecretary Of Commerce Says Halliburton Allegations Overblown. "William Reinsch, president of the National Foreign Trade Council in Washington, is a Democrat who served under Clinton as undersecretary of commerce. He said he disagrees with most of the Bush administration's policies, but thinks the Halliburton controversy is overblown. 'Halliburton has a distinguished track record,' he said. 'They do business in some 120 countries. This is a group of people who know what they're doing in a difficult business. It's a particularly difficult business when people are shooting at you. ... I don't think we went to war because we thought it would help selected American companies.'"
(James Rosen, "Is Iraq's Reconstruction Rigged?" The [Raleigh] News & Observer, 10/5/03)
I never really thought of it as an issue when Bill Clinton awarded a no-bid, open ended contract to Haliburton to clean up the mess in the Balkans when they didn't have the LOGCAP contract, and I don't think of it as an issue now. |
|
|
| Massive84 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dj_Irish
With respect to the highly secular state that Iraq was while Saddam was in charge I would think the "kick in the groin to Islamic facism across the globe" would have been much more appropiate in Iran and not Iraq. The threat to Saudi Arabia coming from Iraq had nothing to do with Islam or even religion. It was Iraq trying to get control over more oil fields (remember Kuwait?). That's why the U.S. had troops stationed in Saudi Arabia. To help if Iraq decided to grab some land again.
The presence of a US army on the holy grounds in Sadui Arabia has been under much criticism from the people, not only in Saudi Arabia but all over the mid-east. The stability of the house of Saud is not something to count on anymore and the US needed a way to get out of Saudi Arabia without loosing it's military presence in the mid-east. Getting a US friendly regime in Iraq, for example, would obviously help out a lot in that respect. I'm not implying that this was the sole reason US went to war with Iraq but I do think it was one of them. Fighting terrorism was definetly not the reason since the war has only widened the recruitment base for anti-american terrorist groups. |
well you have a point, and even if USA did go to war for that reason, i seriosuly doubt it that iraq will accept US forces in their country, even if everything is established.
Remember a Pro USA regime does not mean a Pro USA Population, if the new (future) government allow such a thing, i really think there will be alot of riots and political murders and terrorist attacks etc.
Because lets face the facts at this moment, you go to iraq ask a civilian :do you want USA forces stationed here?" I think the answer will be 90% no. |
|
|
|
|
