The Great Iraq Swindle

[Hemi-Cuda]

good read for a slow Sunday

only problem is that the more i read, the more i get pissed off. the entire Bush administration has to be the most corrupt government in a 1st world country that i've ever seen in my lifetime

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

good read for a slow Sunday

only problem is that the more i read, the more i get pissed off. the entire Bush administration has to be the most corrupt government in a 1st world country that i've ever seen in my lifetime

forgotten the last liberal government already have we?

Guess what theres bad contractors in Canada too, but if the US government didn't throw money around hand over fist in Iraq who would even go there to put up ty buildings?? no one.

[Juventus3]

Originally Posted by Dan02

forgotten the last liberal government already have we?

Guess what theres bad contractors in Canada too, but if the US government didn't throw money around hand over fist in Iraq who would even go there to put up ty buildings?? no one.

I'm no fan of the grits either...But a bit of illegal sponsorships don't even hold a candle to the actions of this bush admin. They've absolutely become the laughing stock of the world. How the American people voted him in a second time is something I, nor anyone, will ever understand. I need to stop.

[MarchHare]

forgotten the last liberal government already have we?

After reading Hemi-Cuda's post, I was going to make a sarcastic comment about Chretien's Liberal government being more corrupt, but I thought better of it. I mean, how can you possibly compare illegally misappropriating about $2 million from the budget to starting a war without just cause that will have cost our American neighbours trillions of dollars and thousands of lives?

I should be shocked that some conservative posters on this forum could be so myopic, but unfortunately, I don't find Dan02's post surprising in the least.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Dan02

forgotten the last liberal government already have we?

Guess what theres bad contractors in Canada too, but if the US government didn't throw money around hand over fist in Iraq who would even go there to put up ty buildings?? no one.

I don't think you even read the article. The issue was handing out contracts based on favoritism and to the wrong people - not for lack of possible suppliers of the service.

Not to mention that the Liberals have absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Corruption is corruption regardless of who is doing it.

The undisputed master of milking the system is KBR, the former Halliburton subsidiary...In perhaps the ultimate example of military capitalism, KBR reportedly ran convoys of empty trucks back and forth across the insurgent-laden desert, pointlessly risking the lives of soldiers and drivers so the company could charge the taxpayer for its phantom deliveries. Truckers for KBR, knowing full well that the trips were bull, derisively referred to their cargo as "sailboat fuel."

This isn't bad contracting, this is criminal.

[flylock shox]

Originally Posted by Dan02

forgotten the last liberal government already have we?

Guess what theres bad contractors in Canada too, but if the US government didn't throw money around hand over fist in Iraq who would even go there to put up ty buildings?? no one.

The last liberal government didn't lie to the world and kill tens of thousands of innocent people in the process, and only then follow it up with insider contracting. And the buildings being put up? Who knocked them down in the first place? More importantly, why did they knock them down?

There's no doubt the liberals were corrupt (it's an inevitable consequence of long-standing and unrivalled political power) but the nature and scale of corruption in the Bush administration is far, far beyond anything Chretien and co. wrought.

[Dan02]

wholly overreaction to a bad joke. Guess its my fault cause i couldn't get the usual smiley faces to work. got some sort of forum error message.

Theres plenty of blame to go around in Iraq and not all of it lands on the feet of Bush and the Republicans either. But the fact remains. If they weren't throwing money around like it was monopoly money who would be doing the "rebuilding" in Iraq? Yes a system like that sets itself up for corruption. FYI theres alot of junk construction going on in Calgary right now. Was working on a couple houses a few months back which had to be rebuilt the framers did such a lousy job then skipped town. Seem familiar?

Do you really think that things would be going much differently if the Democrats were in charge right now? The money might be swindled by different people. Its not like the Democrats are the morally upstanding party in the states while the Republicans are the scum of the universe like some posters seem to believe.

We can argue the merits of the US going to war in the first place. Personally i had no opinion either way, but i think its pretty obvious that the US is needed there now more then ever but suddenly its become the popular thing to do to bash on bush and the war and what really annoys me are the flip floppers.

and FYI MarchHare i have never voted conservative in my life but i guess that blows a hole in your whole conservatives are the only ones who think that they US should be in Iraq right now eh?

I guess i read that article and see a article about a bunch of shady contracts/contractors not a about mismanagement of the war, not to say it hasn't been mismanaged. It seems some people here think that Bush or his immediate advisors should have personal knowledge of every dollar that gets spent. the fact is people are corrupt. Thats capitalism, don't like it? The alternative has been tried and has proven to be even more full of corruption.

[MarchHare]

and FYI MarchHare i have never voted conservative in my life but i guess that blows a hole in your whole conservatives are the only ones who think that they US should be in Iraq right now eh?

I made note to use a small-c when I wrote the word "conservative", so as not to specifically denote the Conservative Party.

It seems some people here think that Bush or his immediate advisors should have personal knowledge of every dollar that gets spent.

That was the precise standard to which many posters on this forum held Paul Martin during the Sponsorship Scandal. Even though he wasn't personally involved and it was being run our of the PM's office by Chretien and a small group of associates, opponents to the Liberals here claimed Martin, as Finance Minister (NOT the Auditor General, mind you), should have known how every dollar from the budget was spent.

[Five-hole]

Great article. Hopefully it doesn't fall on deaf ears.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by Dan02

wholly overreaction to a bad joke. Guess its my fault cause i couldn't get the usual smiley faces to work. got some sort of forum error message.

Theres plenty of blame to go around in Iraq and not all of it lands on the feet of Bush and the Republicans either. But the fact remains. If they weren't throwing money around like it was monopoly money who would be doing the "rebuilding" in Iraq? Yes a system like that sets itself up for corruption. FYI theres alot of junk construction going on in Calgary right now. Was working on a couple houses a few months back which had to be rebuilt the framers did such a lousy job then skipped town. Seem familiar?

except that the Bush administration WILLINGLY ignores and condones such acts, and even reprimands those who try to expose the frauds

A few weeks before the Iraq War started, Greenhouse was asked to sign off on the contract to restore Iraqi oil. The deal, she noticed, was suspicious on a number of fronts. For one thing, the company that had designed the project, KBR, was the same company that was being awarded the contract -- a highly unusual and improper situation. For another, the corps wanted to award a massive "emergency" contract to KBR with no competition for up to five years, which Greenhouse thought was crazy. Who ever heard of a five-year emergency? After auditing the deal, the Pentagon found that KBR had overcharged the government $61 million for fuel. "The abuse related to contracts awarded to KBR," Greenhouse testified before the Senate, "represents the most blatant and improper contract abuse I have witnessed during the course of my professional career."

And how did her superiors in the Pentagon respond to the wrongdoing highlighted by their own chief procurement officer? First they gave KBR a waiver for the overbilling, blaming the problem on an Iraqi subcontractor. Then they dealt with Greenhouse by demoting her and cutting her salary, citing a negative performance review. The retaliation sent a clear message to any would-be whistle-blowers. "It puts a chill on you," Greenhouse says. "People are scared stiff."

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Dan02

...but i think its pretty obvious that the US is needed there now more then ever...

Wrong. Someone is needed but it's not the US. The US needs to suck it up and ask for help from the UN peacekeeping force, who would do a much better job of restoring peace to the area.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Wrong. Someone is needed but it's not the US. The US needs to suck it up and ask for help from the UN peacekeeping force, who would do a much better job of restoring peace to the area.

I doubt it. Not if peacekeepers had to deal with the exact same violence.

There are too many countries who back down from that. Just look at Afghanistan...how many countries have actually taken a frontline role? Most of Europe is sitting on their arse.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Azure

I doubt it. Not if peacekeepers had to deal with the exact same violence.

There are too many countries who back down from that. Just look at Afghanistan...how many countries have actually taken a frontline role? Most of Europe is sitting on their arse.

But if the violence escalates when the US puts more troops in, what do you think will happen when they pull out?

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Azure

I doubt it. Not if peacekeepers had to deal with the exact same violence.

There are too many countries who back down from that. Just look at Afghanistan...how many countries have actually taken a frontline role? Most of Europe is sitting on their arse.

WTF does Europe have to do with this? This isn't a European problem. Westerners are part of the bigger issue. This is a problem for Middle Eastern nations to deal with. They must provide the solution. Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Syria are the coutries that should be providing a good chunk of the bodies and equipment in the peacekeeping effort. It's their neighborhood, and they have a much better grip on things than we in the west do. Other nations that should take an active role in diffusing this region are Pakistan and Indonesia, who are the largest muslim countries outside of the Middle East. Western nations can only continue to be a catalyst to the problems there. Once things start to cool down, maybe there will be room for our involvement again, but it is best of the west got out of Dodge and let things settle down.

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

except that the Bush administration WILLINGLY ignores and condones such acts, and even reprimands those who try to expose the frauds

This may entirely be true, however, the evidence presented as to the demotion was rather circumstancial. I am not saying it isn't true, I am just saying a coincidence with regards to 1 event is hardly enough to convince me this was the sole reason for the demotion. Its entirely possible that this was the event which caused her demotion, as it is possible there were other factors.

Comon people we know how biased the media is in both directions(fox etc. to the right and cnn etc. to the left), why are most right leaning articles written off as propoganda while most left leaning articles are the gospel truth??? have we forgotten how to see through the bias of these articles and understand that the story is only being told from one POV?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by FireFly

But if the violence escalates when the US puts more troops in, what do you think will happen when they pull out?

It could die down....considering there would be no more American targets. Or it could just get worse.

Thats not the point though. The UN doesn't have the guts to station troops in a war-torn country...and Iraq would be the last place on earth any of the countries involved in the UN peacekeeping mission would put their troops.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Azure

It could die down....considering there would be no more American targets. Or it could just get worse.

Thats not the point though. The UN doesn't have the guts to station troops in a war-torn country...and Iraq would be the last place on earth any of the countries involved in the UN peacekeeping mission would put their troops.

You should google 'UNIFIL'.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

You should google 'UNIFIL'.

Oh right. Lebanon. I guess they forgot about Dafur, Rwanda....

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Azure

Oh right. Lebanon. I guess they forgot about Dafur, Rwanda....

Angola, Mozambique, Congo, Sierra Leone, Liberia...

[Dion]

Originally Posted by FireFly

But if the violence escalates when the US puts more troops in, what do you think will happen when they pull out?

There's a civil war going on in Iraq. It won't make a difference if the US is there or not. Basicly it's become another Vietnam - a war the Americans won't win.

Better to cut your losses and start a gradual withdrawal of troops from the region.