well there is plenty of money to be made even if we don't steal their oil.
http://www.corpwatch.org/issues/PID.jsp?articleid=6008
http://www.corpwatch.org/issues/PID.jsp?articleid=6008
Debate between Iraqi man vs Little Girl
- Thread starter epicstruggle
- Start date
The question is, did Halliburton get the contracts because its former CEO is the vice president, or was Cheney chosen to run as vice president because he was the CEO of a successful international company that has proven itself to be worthy of major defense contracts? I don't think there is overwhelming proof one way or the other, and you could easily argue it from both sides. Until someone finds out that a single penny has been paid to Cheney as a direct result of Halliburton winning this contract, it doesn't bother me one bit. Someone has to do the work, and AFAIC Halliburton is as good as anyone. And as long as they're doing the work, I don't have a problem with them making a profit from it. I don't think any business would do what they're doing as a charity, and it's not like the government is just giving the company money, they're still earning it. The money would be spent whether it was Halliburton, Chevron Texaco, or Bob's Tent Rentals putting up the tents.
JMO
Wow, such a morasse. I am fond of seeking clear statements being made, and I think that is being hindered in some places in here. Unlike my usual posts, I do not have access to sufficient facts to make definitive conclusions, since we are discussing things in all the full splendor and complexity of the political, military, and diplomatic landscape. What I can do is present some thoughts that occur to me, and why I think they are important...feel free to disagree, and I'm confident there are many valid reasons for doing so, but I'm primarily trying to share my thoughts, not defend them.
First, my emotional outlook. My primary regret in leaving the military was that it seemed at the time that there was the possibility that I might be called upon to act to defend my country (this was after the USS Cole and tensions in the middle east were rising). This regret is not because I relish the idea of taking life, but because it remains very important to me to live up to my ideals, and what I looked forward to was placing my actions, my training, and my life on the line for supporting some things I think are very important...the simplest word some of these things is "freedom", but fully articulating what it is would make this post even more long winded.
This does not make me a "Hawk", and I suspect some of you may be surprised by the outlook of some of those who fight...joining the military does not require a love of war.
What I think is being mixed together in the discussion is on one hand the idea that perfect action is the only action that we can ever take, and on the other that an action that in the final analysis is justified is completely justified in all facets.
I wish I was there as part of this action in Iraq. Not because I view it as a perfect act, not because I'm sure it is the only way to have resolved the issue, but because I believe that it is the type of action I could have died attempting with a clean conscience. That last is a question I was lucky enough to never have to answer "no" to and still act, as I would have had to to the limits of my conscience because of the oaths I swore.
My belief of the above does not mean I don't view many of the criticisms levelled at the Bush administration as valid. My problem with some of the peace protestors, such as the woman in the recording at the start of the thread, is that they view their ideals as the whole of the issue regarding this war, and ignore the reality that people are dying and suffering in the meantime.
I think the illusion that is common is that inaction is different than action...what it often is in a world with interests and agendas other than your own (as an individual or nation) is allowing someone else's actions to occur.
I think the primary action of taking out Saddam Hussein by force is an unavoidable and correct action, but that is simply because I don't see another way available in a reasonable time frame, and I think the man in that recording is of the same mind, even knowing that his relatives may be killed in the process.
There are a host of other actions that have occurred, however, that many of those supporting the war seem to tend to ignore. I think some of them have been driven to this stance because of the natural polarization that occurs when people dispute something they feel strongly about.
We've made a complete disaster of our foreign policy. That is my opinion, perhaps not the most qualified
, but it is what I believe nonetheless. I think this very regrettable, potentially disasterous in the future in terms of promoting the simple ideal of freedom worldwide as the pereception moving forward will be that what we are promoting is our will, which makes it that much easier to oppose for the political expediency of whomever has a conflicting interest. The problem is, that given the track record for behavior we establish, those who propose that are not necessarily wrong.
I doubt it is irretrievable, but I don't think the wisest course is to seek to correct something done wrong after simply not trying our best to do it well when it was in the process of being done, the more complex the action that has to be corrected, the less wise I think it is.
I really don't know how to properly articulate the dismay of the "sit down and shut up you smaller countries" mentalities that are prevalent in some comments. Those same countries would "sit down and shut up" to China by the same rationale...or are they automatically justified in their actions against the interests and wishes of weaker countries? Though I really tend to share the negative viewpoint of the political maneuverings of the leaders of some specific European countries (I'll give you two guesses), I happen to think the response we've given to that behavior is little better...and that little is purely because it is my best guess that the result as far as the future of the Iraqi people will be better, balanced against my worries about the long term effects on our actions and the actions of others in the future regarding some of those smaller countries we discount.
This is not to say I oppose the idea of the US acting alone in a considered fashion, but that in conjunction with being able to act alone, the particular attitude of response to other nations being displayed will and has caused more problems than necessary.
Another thing that dismays me is the mentality of praise for Bush acting as he has. It is easy to justify acting against Iraq to yourself. It is easy to give the order based on your political support at home...it's not like he sees to the carrying out of all his decisions by himself. It is not easy to negotiate a path to such action in the face of the interests of other countries and manage to be perceived as doing right, and it is the test of managing that type of difficult task that is important when you aren't the only one in the world with interests (which we aren't, believe it or not) in a world growing more and more ruled by politcal/economical interactions.
I see some make an issue of his honesty...well, honesty is a virtue, but it is not the only one. I think you can be an honest wise man, or an honest bully, and I see much of the latter mentality in my country as led by Bush. But this opinion is a matter of second guessing...what I take primary issue with is the words of praise for him that seem blind to me...finding fault with him does not mean I actively condemn him for this war we are in, and above you can find the reasons why.
As to further details of political and economic complexities domestically and abroad...anything is possible, but what I've stated is what I think is important about what is well established so far.
Hawk/Dove....I really hate such labels. I don't recall a "labelled" viewpoint yet that encompassed all I believed on an issue, and war is as complex an issue in the real world as there is.
It really is possible to support the war, yet recognize that wrongs might be and might have been done in the process. I think you should face up to and recognize those wrongs...not to spend all your time condemning those who decided on action, but to acknowledge and learn from them as mistakes to prevent in future, and hold yourself responsible for in the present. I also think that knowing what is wrong, you should not ignore what is right, such that in blindly avoiding such wrongs leads you to ignore the other wrongs that might result from that avoidance.
Wow, such a morasse. I am fond of seeking clear statements being made, and I think that is being hindered in some places in here. Unlike my usual posts, I do not have access to sufficient facts to make definitive conclusions, since we are discussing things in all the full splendor and complexity of the political, military, and diplomatic landscape. What I can do is present some thoughts that occur to me, and why I think they are important...feel free to disagree, and I'm confident there are many valid reasons for doing so, but I'm primarily trying to share my thoughts, not defend them.
First, my emotional outlook. My primary regret in leaving the military was that it seemed at the time that there was the possibility that I might be called upon to act to defend my country (this was after the USS Cole and tensions in the middle east were rising). This regret is not because I relish the idea of taking life, but because it remains very important to me to live up to my ideals, and what I looked forward to was placing my actions, my training, and my life on the line for supporting some things I think are very important...the simplest word some of these things is "freedom", but fully articulating what it is would make this post even more long winded.
This does not make me a "Hawk", and I suspect some of you may be surprised by the outlook of some of those who fight...joining the military does not require a love of war.
What I think is being mixed together in the discussion is on one hand the idea that perfect action is the only action that we can ever take, and on the other that an action that in the final analysis is justified is completely justified in all facets.
I wish I was there as part of this action in Iraq. Not because I view it as a perfect act, not because I'm sure it is the only way to have resolved the issue, but because I believe that it is the type of action I could have died attempting with a clean conscience. That last is a question I was lucky enough to never have to answer "no" to and still act, as I would have had to to the limits of my conscience because of the oaths I swore.
My belief of the above does not mean I don't view many of the criticisms levelled at the Bush administration as valid. My problem with some of the peace protestors, such as the woman in the recording at the start of the thread, is that they view their ideals as the whole of the issue regarding this war, and ignore the reality that people are dying and suffering in the meantime.
I think the illusion that is common is that inaction is different than action...what it often is in a world with interests and agendas other than your own (as an individual or nation) is allowing someone else's actions to occur.
I think the primary action of taking out Saddam Hussein by force is an unavoidable and correct action, but that is simply because I don't see another way available in a reasonable time frame, and I think the man in that recording is of the same mind, even knowing that his relatives may be killed in the process.
There are a host of other actions that have occurred, however, that many of those supporting the war seem to tend to ignore. I think some of them have been driven to this stance because of the natural polarization that occurs when people dispute something they feel strongly about.
We've made a complete disaster of our foreign policy. That is my opinion, perhaps not the most qualified
, but it is what I believe nonetheless. I think this very regrettable, potentially disasterous in the future in terms of promoting the simple ideal of freedom worldwide as the pereception moving forward will be that what we are promoting is our will, which makes it that much easier to oppose for the political expediency of whomever has a conflicting interest. The problem is, that given the track record for behavior we establish, those who propose that are not necessarily wrong.I doubt it is irretrievable, but I don't think the wisest course is to seek to correct something done wrong after simply not trying our best to do it well when it was in the process of being done, the more complex the action that has to be corrected, the less wise I think it is.
I really don't know how to properly articulate the dismay of the "sit down and shut up you smaller countries" mentalities that are prevalent in some comments. Those same countries would "sit down and shut up" to China by the same rationale...or are they automatically justified in their actions against the interests and wishes of weaker countries? Though I really tend to share the negative viewpoint of the political maneuverings of the leaders of some specific European countries (I'll give you two guesses), I happen to think the response we've given to that behavior is little better...and that little is purely because it is my best guess that the result as far as the future of the Iraqi people will be better, balanced against my worries about the long term effects on our actions and the actions of others in the future regarding some of those smaller countries we discount.
This is not to say I oppose the idea of the US acting alone in a considered fashion, but that in conjunction with being able to act alone, the particular attitude of response to other nations being displayed will and has caused more problems than necessary.
Another thing that dismays me is the mentality of praise for Bush acting as he has. It is easy to justify acting against Iraq to yourself. It is easy to give the order based on your political support at home...it's not like he sees to the carrying out of all his decisions by himself. It is not easy to negotiate a path to such action in the face of the interests of other countries and manage to be perceived as doing right, and it is the test of managing that type of difficult task that is important when you aren't the only one in the world with interests (which we aren't, believe it or not) in a world growing more and more ruled by politcal/economical interactions.
I see some make an issue of his honesty...well, honesty is a virtue, but it is not the only one. I think you can be an honest wise man, or an honest bully, and I see much of the latter mentality in my country as led by Bush. But this opinion is a matter of second guessing...what I take primary issue with is the words of praise for him that seem blind to me...finding fault with him does not mean I actively condemn him for this war we are in, and above you can find the reasons why.
As to further details of political and economic complexities domestically and abroad...anything is possible, but what I've stated is what I think is important about what is well established so far.
Hawk/Dove....I really hate such labels. I don't recall a "labelled" viewpoint yet that encompassed all I believed on an issue, and war is as complex an issue in the real world as there is.
It really is possible to support the war, yet recognize that wrongs might be and might have been done in the process. I think you should face up to and recognize those wrongs...not to spend all your time condemning those who decided on action, but to acknowledge and learn from them as mistakes to prevent in future, and hold yourself responsible for in the present. I also think that knowing what is wrong, you should not ignore what is right, such that in blindly avoiding such wrongs leads you to ignore the other wrongs that might result from that avoidance.
