iraq report is in, let the spinn beginFollow

Yeah, but I'm having fun with it.Taunting Gbaji over a word he misused is more fruitful than trying to get him to admit to any activity or aspect of the war which might put his party into a less than favorable light.

Literally.

Just out of curiosity, do you think the war in Afghanistan was wrong, or illegal? Or that it was comparable to the one in Iraq?

I don't think that's true.

It's better today than it was under the Talibans. They were a fUcked-up and medieval regime, completely unatural, funded by Pakistan, who took power by force and kept it that way in the most brutal and barabric way possible. And were recognised as a legitimate government by 3 other states in the world.

It might not be much better everywhere, but in Kabul and other some other areas girls go to school and people don't get stoned for having too short a beard. It's at least a bit better in quite a few places.



I don't think that's true either. They lost a great base from which to openly operate from. A base the size of a European country. Of course, they're still on the border, but it's not as cosy for them as it once was.

As for the legal side, there was at least a solid basis, even it wasn't totaly uncontroversial. The Talibans were aiding and harboring known terrorists, refused to hand them over, and allowed them to pursue their activities from their territory.

I agree with some of the rest of what you say, though, but I really don't think both conflicts are that similar.

I guess my main point is that I struggle to see how the wholesale slaughter of human-beings whose only crime was to be living in the invaded coutries, and who were unfortunate enough to get in the way of the military machine that rolled over them, has done anything at all to further the stated purpose of bringing OBL to justice and/or reducing the threat of global extremism.



The taliban were everything you say, and more. Sadly, their influence is very much alive and kicking. Afghanistan is only going to get worse, for everyone involved. Sad but true.



True. They did. Luckily for them tho, they found that Iraq was made availiable for them to practice their techniques. With the added bonus of having real life Americans to shoot and bomb. And now that they have honed their skills, you may have noticed a sharp increase of suicide bombs and the like being used back in Afghanistan against the forces there. With I might repeat, the growing support of many afghanis who have waited in vain for the promises made by the likes of Blair and Bush to become reality.

The similarity between the two conflicts, is that the civilian populations are the ones who have suffered for the the sole reason that they happened to be unfortunate enough to have been born there.

And of course that, as I mentioned above, that many folk in the western world are happily making a giant pile of cash out of the whole mess.

Capitalism at its best?

So much for the hope and enlightenment that the 21st century was supposed to bring....

Well, that's kinda the point, isn't it? There's no way to provide definitive proof, or cites of any kind. I though that was inherently obvious from the argument I proposed. I'm comparing what did happen to what would have happened. Obviously, this is my opinion. Equally obviously, since I don't actually have a time machine with which to go back and examine a timeline in which we kept our soldiers in Afghanistan instead of moving into Iraq, I can't provide any proof of this. which btw was why Joph's insistence on taking my use of the word "literally" um... literally was a bit silly, but whatever.


It's called inductive logic. It's the process that allows one to postulate such "might have been" cases (or even forward looking "might be" cases). You examine what did happen. You assess the actions of those involved. You look at the results. Then, based on that information you extrapolate what might have happened if things had been done differently. It's the same kind of argument someone is making when they say something like "Hitler could have won WW2 if he'd just finished off Britain before invading the USSR". You have no way of knowing this for sure, but you can look at the facts that were known and the things that did happen and make a pretty decent guess.


Same deal here. Someone presented the proposition that the decision to invade Iraq was all about lining Halliburton's pockets with cash. I countered that Halliburton would have been much better off financially if we'd stayed in Afghanistan instead. As support for that counter position, I've presented some pretty basic logical reasoning:


The first is that companies want to make as much profit while spending the least amount of money. This should be pretty obvious. If my company has operating expenses of 10 billion dollars in the process of making 100 million in profit (ie: earnings of $10,100,000 and total expenses of $10,000,000), I'm making 100 million dollars, which is good. However, if I can earn $1,100,000 and have expenses of 1 million dollars, I end up with exactly the same total profit, but have much lower expenses (1/10th as much in fact). This is better because the ratio of net profit to gross earnings is higher. Thus, I can manage changes to operating costs and/or revenue loss much better.

I think that's obvious, right? Anyone disagree?

The second point is that within that context, Afghanistan represents a better net profit to gross earnings ratio. That's because of the facts that I presented earlier. Afghanistan has very little industrial infrastructure. Thus, for a company that will be providing infrastructure related services they retain a greater percentage of every dollar spent by the government. If the government needs a bridge built, every single piece of material, every single piece of equipment used, and every single man hour will end up directly in the pocket of the company with the contract (Halliburton and it's subsidiaries in this case).

One of the bits that makes this more clear is the way Halliburton operates (and really all companies in that business). The parent company provides the top level services. It then farms that work out to subsidiaries that it owns. When it can, it even hires labor and materials and rents equipment from yet more subsidiaries that it owns. In Afghanistan, that means that it's going to be buying all of this stuff from itself and charging itself top dollar to provide it. All of which gets charged back to uncle Sam. In Iraq, there is industry. They can't charge the government a couple million dollars for a construction crane (which they rent from one of their subsidiaries, and ship through yet another subsidiary). Instead, they'll likely rent it from a local construction equipment dealer. They get profit from the first bit, but the rest passes to other businesses that they don't own.

This may seem like a minor thing, but it's absolutely *huge*. If it wasn't, then Halliburton wouldn't bother with all those subsidiary companies, right? If it was really more cost effective and/or more profitable to simply hire out for everything, they'd do that all the time. They don't for exactly the reason that by owning the subsidiaries, they get a pieces of profit margin at more levels of the pay flow.


Still following this?

Third bit: Because of those two bits of pretty well founded assumption, it would make no sense for Halliburton's need or desire for profit to be a primary reason for invading Iraq. Certainly, that does not rule out some influence involved. I think it's reasonable to assume that Halliburton was (and is) going to make money no matter where the US is operating). You could make an argument that they might want us to go into Iraq out of fear that Afghanistan would ramp down and they'd lose their source of revenue, but I really don't buy that. Sure. If we'd nailed OBL that might be reasonable. However, at the time the decision to invade Iraq was made, OBL was (and still is) on the loose. Additionally, at that time the US was still footing the bulk of the military operations in Afghanistan and there was no indication that there was any specific push for that to change. It was only after the US invaded Iraq that the UN took over in Afghanistan. There's every indication that had we not moved into Iraq, we could have (and likely would have) continued with a high presence in Afghanistan.


Fourth bit: The government is not a bottomless piggy back. Big businesses like Halliburton know this. This kinda ties back into point one. Knowing that funding, especially defense contract funding during active military operations, will always be heavily scrutinized, it makes vastly more sense to pursue a course of action in which you get the largest share of every dollar spent by the government. Take too much, and the gravy train ends. For this reason, it is in Halliburton's best interest to keep the government spending money on contracts with Halliburton that maximize the profit to government dollar spent ratio. And that clearly occurs via US military operations in Afghanistan, not in Iraq.


It is based on those bits of logic that I make my position. To me, this is a very sensible bit of reasoning. I do not rule out that Halliburton has some influence over the Bush administration. I do, however, reject the notion that the decision to invade Iraq was primarily motivated by the desire to put profits into Halliburton's hands. At that point, they had plenty of profit coming in (with much lower total overhead, and much greater ownership of the whole cost flow). The only way Halliburton makes "more profit" by us going into Iraq is if we assume that Iraq occurs without in any way impacting the amount of money they can get over time from Afghanistan. Now, we can assume that they believed this, but the facts of what did happen don't support that. I think it's reasonable to assume that if they had sufficient influence on US policy to make us go to war so that they could make more money, that they'd actually arrange to keep US forces at least at their current levels (and therefore need) in Afghanistan.

But they didn't. So if they couldn't do that, they either didn't want to keep them there (which makes no sense given the earlier assumption that their net profit ratio is better there), or they didn't have that much influence over the decision to invade Iraq.


And thus, my conclusion. Sure. It's speculation. But it's good speculation. IMO, a darn sight better then those who are arguing the opposite, who have nothing more then a tightly attached tin-foil hat and a theory that they want to believe.

Edited, Sep 18th 2007 6:36pm by gbaji

Don't worry. The LoTRo servers just went down for a patch, so as soon as my eyes stop bleeding from reading his post (yes, I admit it, I read it), I'm gonna have a good laugh at his 'inductive logic'.



Pillock.

And that's really the main point I was going after. The idea that the primary impetus for invading Iraq was so that Halliburton could increase it's bottom line is absurd. The degree to which the Bush administration even considered this is debatable, but I honestly don't believe that Halliburton pushed at all, nor the Bush would have given much weight to it if they had.


As to the second part of that paragraph, you're correct to a point. Halliburton as a separate industry is always going to look for more business. However, from a business perspective, it would have made more sense to push for more business in Afghanistan then push an administration into going to war with Iraq so that they could push for more business there. That's perhaps my biggest problem with the theory. It simply makes no sense. Halliburton certainly isn't going to say no if the US decides to invade Iraq and requires their services there as a result, but I just find it a bit over the top for some people to assume that the entire reason we went to war was so that they could get that extra business.


Also, your point about repairing an existing infrastructure versus being somewhere with none at all has some merit, but I'm not sure that's really a strong point. After the fact, yeah. But not prior to a decision to invade. If you were Halliburton and you were looking at US forces in Afghanistan hunting for OBL, fighting Taliban forces, and generally trying to secure things for the new Afghan government, and if you had the power to influence public policy, wouldn't you simply push that policy towards building that very infrastructure that is missing? Wouldn't you build that oil pipeline everyone talked about? Wouldn't you build roads where none exist? Wouldn't you build that big fortress/embassy? Wouldn't you perhaps then suggest that it would be a great idea to help "encourage Democracy" if we say built some schools, maybe some housing, maybe a hospital or three?

I could think of a hundred different ways that Halliburton could have profited in Afghanistan. All of which would have made them a higher profit to funding ratio, and all of which would have made much much better PR for them and the Bush administration. The idea that Halliburton would actively lobby for war with Iraq purely so they could do work in Iraq only makes sense if one starts with the assumption that the purpose of Halliburton is not to make money, but to make money while being "evil". And while I'm sure some out there have that viewpoint of big business, I just find it bizarre to assume a set of actions based on an assumed set of motives that have little to do with actually making money and have a lot more to do with giving some people a great bit of political ammunition to lob around when they need to.

Well that first bit is rather flawed, since many people said from the get-go that it was going to be a total fuCk-up. The whole remark seems rather like a bit of sarcasm to me.

Yeah, but prior to the war some people said it would be easy. Some said it would be hard. And a zillion other predictions ranged in between. It's somewhat meaningless after the fact to point at the small number of people who guessed right and imply that A) they knew what they were talking about (more then anyone else) and B) that the Bush administration should have known because those guys said it. I think it's more then unfair to do that after the fact...


As to the specifics of the remark, I see it more as having your cake and eating it too. Everyone likes to bash Bush, but for different reasons. It's one of the more amusing aspects of the whole thing. The "bash" changes based on the agenda at the moment. If you want to show Bush as an overconfident ***, you make a statement like Red made (that he had no clue it would be so bad). If you want to make Bush look like he had evil ulterior motives, you say the exact opposite (he knew, but did it anyway). The result is some pretty contradictory claims made about the same man regarding the same things (sometimes even coming from the same people).

It's not a big deal. I suppose it's human nature. I just found it amusing is all...


EDIT: Let me add one more observation on Red's remark in this context.

Red was specifically countering my assertion that Halliburton would have known that Iraq would take up sufficient resources as to require massive reductions in US involvement in Afghanistan. Tying it into the bit I wrote above, this means that his argument of the moment was to say that they didn't know that Iraq would be difficult, so therefore they would push for us to go into Iraq so they could get profits from *both*.

He was not being sarcastic. He just forgot that the staple anti-war position is that the Bush administration secretly knew that Iraq would be a quagmire and drew us into it deliberately for some reason. Oops!

Edited, Sep 19th 2007 7:36pm by gbaji

Gbaji said.




Other than the OP (whose mangling of the english language precludes any expectation of an intelligent insight into world affairs), I don't think anyone here ( or pretty much anywhere) believes that the 'primary impetus for invading Iraq' was so that some companies could make a quick buck.

To deny that those aforementioned companies ar'n't sittin in their counting houses rubbing their hands with glee at their gigantic profits from the last few years, is pretty daft too.

The point that gbaji and his dwindling comrades seem to be intent on missing, is this. If it wasn't about money, or WMD's, or bringing democracy, or humanitarian reasons, WTH is it all about?

I know the argument about Bush and his amazing ability to foresee the future, that leads him to believe that, if action isn't taken here and now, then sometime in the as yet un-defined future, Iraq would have become a threat. But, just assuming for a moment, that that was on Saddaams mind, what has the actual results of this war been?

The list is long. Afghanistan in as much chaos as ever. Iraq is now in the hands of the Shia majority (thats the shia militias. I dont mean the government. The only thing the government is doing atm, is trying and failing to pretend to be something other than an American sock puppet). It is now the number one training camp for wannabe militants, and also the number one reason (up there with the Israeli palestinian conflict) for causing people to become militants in the first place.

The Israeli/palestinian conflict in a worse state than ever. Lebanon a tinderbox that could go off at any moment. Syria operating in pursuit of god knows what, and pretty much no-one mking any effort to find out, such is their level of ostrasism,

and Iran, who tho they seem to have some pretty irrational people in charge, are not suicidal, and to believe that the Iranians would use a nuke to attack the US or israel, knowing that it would mean their complete
annihilation is absurd.

So, in general the effects of the Iraq invasion ahve been negative, for the peopple of Iraq, the people of the region, and the people of the world as a whole. (except the shareholders of companies who are maing a pile o'f cash out of the whole sorry mess). But if we agree that Iraq was not about money, what was it about again?

Well if, as Gbaji says, Bush knows what he is doing, and its all going to plan, then it is obviously about causing utter chaos in the moslem world.

And for once I agree with him. Thats exactly what its all about. Mission (almost) Accomplished!

If the whole region is in chaos, wich it very nearly is (and why would the US want a stable Iraq? That would mean a Shia govt. and they wouldnt allow an attack on Iran from their soil), then it will be a much simpler proposition for the US to move in (to the wider ME), take control militarily, secure access to the oil, provide security for Israel, and to be in an ideal position to spread the war beyond Iraqs borders into Iran, Syria or wherever the fancy takes them.

Wich, as I think I've said in the past, is exactly what the war in Iraq is all about. Not money, not WMD's, not **** or any of the other lame-**** excuses that have been used. Its about control of resources.

After all, isnt that exactly what wars are always about??

Unfortunately, standing up in public and saying to the American people, or the world n general, "we are going into the ME to secure Israel from the barbarian hordes, and steal the worlds major oil reserves for ourselves", won't wash. So, by blinding the public with stories of mushroom clouds, sarin, Britney and OJ Simpson, and going in under the pretense of 'nation building', (sureley not the role of a 150,000 man military machine) the master plan to secure the role of the US as global superpower, becomes acceptable to the voting public.


Bush said only the other day...



The troops are not coming home. The reasons to keep them there, and to send more, will keep on changing, as they have changed ever since they arrived in the foirst place.



The Dems know this, thats why they faff and dither. They, on the whole, agree with the aims, if not perhaps the methods.

Meanwhile the people keep dying, the soldiers keep coming home in boxes, and the UN keeps wringing its hands.

The difference between me, and someone like Gbaji, is that I can see this for what it is. Aggression on a massive industrial scale, with the aim of securing (in this case that means' stealing') someone elses resources without a thought for the death and misery of the innocent by-stander.

Gbaji (and others like him) ponce it all up in 'noble deeds' and 'bringing peace and stability to a troubled region', 'fighting them there so we don't have to fight them at home' etc.

They refuse to openly (or perhaps even privately) acknowldge it for what it really is, because then they would have to admit to themselves that they find mass murder an acceptable form of behaviour.

But call it what you will, armed robbery, theft with violence, liberation.... the end result is always the same.... Slaughter and death on a gigantic scale for the people who get in the way. Profit, power and glory for those who pull the strings and issue the orders.

ill tell you why we invaded iraq.

it was in our best interest to do so from a national security point of view. and the reasons are many.

1. israel. iraq is smack in the middle of the hate mongers bent on destroying that tiny little country. by destabelizing iraq, and resoundly placing our foot print there, we can intercept and possibly defuse attacks generated toward israel. and in the long long long run, mabe even help modernize the islamic view toward outside peoples and help them become more peacefull faster.

2. oil. with china projected to increase its energy demand 10 fold in the next 20 years, and the massive increase of third world countries industrializing across the globe, all competing for a finite resourse that was only projected to last 100 more years 20 years ago BEFORE the huge increse in demand across the globe in the last 10 years, there is a very real and serious threat to the security and econimic prosperity of this country. we need energy. there isnt enough to go around. kingdoms have been going to war since the concept of war evolved over securing resources adn to styme off economic ruin. this is no differant. we NEED to secure an energy resource BEFORE the well starts running dry. the last country with the lights still on when it dries up......wins.

3. stopping the spread of radical islam and communism. the middel east is the last and largest portion of the world where democracy is still mostly absent. and just our luck, they are sitting on the largest supply of energy on the planet. if it runs out, they will be on top of the worlds economic kingdom. they WILL be calling the shots and every one will be trying to please....THEM.....for the ever shrinking supply of cheap energy.

iraq is about the security of our future. not tomarrow. not next year. but for the next 100 years.

from a strategic point of view, invading iraq was necessary. finding osama bin laudin wasnt. kill him adn another will pop up, and in the grand scheme of things, what he did amounted to a bloody nose. it would take more than that to really hurt this country. it would take...say....running out of cheap energy.

israel, oil, and the spread of democracy are all very important to our security. and im not talking about invasion type security, im talking about economic ruin type of security in the far future.

soo, we killed for gold and world domination basically.

hugely immoral, but its what wars have been mostly about since the first time a hunter killed another hunter from another tribe. competition over resources.

it had NOTHING to do with the immediate security from attacks like the one on 9-11. but most people wouldnt understand the true reason. and being a democracy, they needed you to support what we did. so they misled you. thats what politicans do to get what they feel they want or need. the little people, you, just cant comprehend the big picture. then there is that whole God thing to work around to get to the butchering of innocent people........

baaaaa baaaaaa baaaaaa

We're three little lambs
who've lost our way.....

Did that help?