• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Afghan and Iraq Wars are Unjust, Unreasonable, and are Entirely Fraudulent.

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Not entirely:

Halliburton's businesses. Conversely, the company is still incorporated in the U.S., generating approximately 49% of its revenue from this country in 2010.[3] This keeps it extremely sensitive to downturns in the U.S. economy as well as changes to U.S. environmental legislation.

Stock:Halliburton Company (HAL)

"Vice President Dick Cheney’s stock options in Halliburton rose from $241,498 in 2004 to over $8 million in 2005, an increase of more than 3,000 percent, as Halliburton continues to rake in billions of dollars from no-bid/no-audit government contracts.

An analysis released by Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) reveals that as Halliburton’s fortunes rise, so do the Vice President’s. Halliburton has already taken more than $10 billion from the Bush-Cheney administration for work in Iraq. They were also awarded many of the unaccountable post-Katrina government contracts, as off-shore subsidiaries of Halliburton quietly worked around U.S. sanctions to conduct very questionable business with Iran (See Story #2). “It is unseemly,” notes Lautenberg, “for the Vice President to continue to benefit from this company at the same time his administration funnels billions of dollars to it.”

According to the Vice President’s Federal Financial Disclosure forms, he holds the following Halliburton stock options:

100,000 shares at $54.5000 (vested), expire December 3, 2007
33,333 shares at $28.1250 (vested), expire December 2, 2008
300,000 shares at $39.5000 (vested), expire December 2, 2009

The Vice President has attempted to fend off criticism by signing an agreement to donate the after-tax profits from these stock options to charities of his choice, and his lawyer has said he will not take any tax deduction for the donations. However, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) concluded in September 2003 that holding stock options while in elective office does constitute a “financial interest” regardless of whether the holder of the options will donate proceeds to charities. Valued at over $9 million, the Vice President could exercise his stock options for a substantial windfall, not only benefiting his designated charities, but also providing Halliburton with a tax deduction.

CRS also found that receiving deferred compensation is a financial interest. The Vice President continues to receive deferred salary from Halliburton. While in office, he has received the following salary payments from Halliburton:

Deferred salary paid by Halliburton to Vice President Cheney in 2001: $205,298
Deferred salary paid by Halliburton to Vice President Cheney in 2002: $162,392
Deferred salary paid by Halliburton to Vice President Cheney in 2003: $178,437
Deferred salary paid by Halliburton to Vice President Cheney in 2004: $194,852

(The CRS report can be downloaded at: http://lautenberg.senate.gov/Report.pdf)

These CRS findings contradict Vice President Cheney’s puzzling view that he does not have a financial interest in Halliburton. On the September 14, 2003 edition of Meet the Press in response to questions regarding his relationship with Halliburton, where from 1995 to 2000 he was employed as CEO, Vice President Cheney said, “Since I left Halliburton to become George Bush’s vice president, I’ve severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interest. I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven’t had, now, for over three years.”

UPDATE BY JOHN BYRNE

The media has routinely downplayed Cheney’s involvement and financial investment in Halliburton, one of the largest U.S. defense contractors that received supersized no-bid contracts in Iraq. Ultimately, the importance of the story is that the Vice President of the U.S. is able to use his position of power to reap rewards for his former company in which he has a financial investment. Halliburton may also benefit from a chilling effect in which the Pentagon is more likely to favor Cheney’s firm to seek favor with the White House.

Cheney continues to hold 433,333 Halliburton stock options, and receives a deferred salary of about $200,000 a year. According to Cheney’s most recent tax returns, he held $2.5 million in retirement accounts, much of which likely came from his former defense firm.

Cheney recently filed disclosure reports that show he is valued at $94 million.

Senator Lautenberg’s disclosure, brought forward by Raw Story, received no mainstream coverage. While the press has often noted that Cheney was formerly Halliburton’s CEO, they routinely fail to mention how much money he accrued from the firm during his service there. They also fail to mention that he continues to receive a pension."

24. Cheney’s Halliburton Stock Rose Over 3000 Percent Last Year – Top 25 of 2007



More so Canada. But yeah, war zones tend to drive up the cost of doing business. It's not just fossil fuels, by the way. It's everything: Economy of Afghanistan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think American anticipated betting able to capture more of these contracts with Afghanistan's government than they did. In order to help make the invasions legitimate, the inflow of capital is to be a global project. China does a great job at annoying Western economic globalists with their ability to make labor cheaper and out compete them.
You make a good case that some benefit from war. But the larger issue is whether it drives public policy. Hillary & Barry (somewhat less so) are also hawks, & I don't see them gaining from the wars other than politically. This is the more typical case.

I benefited (in an indirect fashion) from war & the threat thereof by being paid to design weapon systems.....although I'd prefer that they'd be used strictly in self-defense.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
Shouldn't have supported him and his Ba'ath Party throughout the 60's.
Shouldn't have armed Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War.
Shouldn't have provided chemical elements to him which enabled him to gas the Kurds.

And I can grant you all of that and still ask, what should we have done - if anything - about Saddam, in 2001?
 

Aquitaine

Well-Known Member
And I can grant you all of that and still ask, what should we have done - if anything - about Saddam, in 2001?
Nothing. He had nothing to do with September 11th 2001, and there's plenty of other dictators who we either leave alone or even prop-up.
 

Wirey

Fartist
And I can grant you all of that and still ask, what should we have done - if anything - about Saddam, in 2001?

Think of how much American money, and how many American lives, would have been saved if he had been left alone. How much better off would the average Iraqi be? What was gained for all that expenditure of blood and treasure?
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Think of how much American money, and how many American lives, would have been saved if he had been left alone. How much better off would the average Iraqi be? What was gained for all that expenditure of blood and treasure?
The average (& below average) Iraqi (& Kurd) was being killed off at a pretty good clip. I doubt they're worse off, but those favored by the ruling class would suffer....but then many of them deserve to. I'm more concerned about our money, lives, & money...which I didn't want wasted there, regardless of any good resulting from it.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
Again, the Bush administration did an absolutely reprehensible job with at every turn - no argument.

Hitchens made some interesting arguments that I find challenging to address the whole collection:

- Agreed that the West often acts immorally and unethically purely for economic reasons.
- Agreed that the West often looks the other way or props up dictators and / or genocides.
- U.N. nations are "supposed" to shut down perpetrators of genocide (like Saddam).
- Saddam's crimes were on a steady path of escalation.
- The situation in Iraq was a pressure cooker of sectarian conflict, again that pressure was increasing, not decreasing.

My gut is that if we'd done nothing, we'd have been witness to a horrific meltdown. Perhaps the best path would have been to push for an Arab-led coalition that was somehow sectarian-aware, to depose Saddam? I have some moral and ethical trouble taking the stance that we should sit back and watch genocides occur...
 

Aquitaine

Well-Known Member
Again, the Bush administration did an absolutely reprehensible job with at every turn - no argument.

Hitchens made some interesting arguments that I find challenging to address the whole collection:

- Agreed that the West often acts immorally and unethically purely for economic reasons.
- Agreed that the West often looks the other way or props up dictators and / or genocides.
- U.N. nations are "supposed" to shut down perpetrators of genocide (like Saddam).
- Saddam's crimes were on a steady path of escalation.
- The situation in Iraq was a pressure cooker of sectarian conflict, again that pressure was increasing, not decreasing.

My gut is that if we'd done nothing, we'd have been witness to a horrific meltdown. Perhaps the best path would have been to push for an Arab-led coalition that was somehow sectarian-aware, to depose Saddam? I have some moral and ethical trouble taking the stance that we should sit back and watch genocides occur...

We're already witnessing a horrific meltdown in Iraq. As for Hitchen's romanticized arguement for the Iraq War, I personally believe Scott Ritter made an appropriate counter-arguement to it.

The main issue with Dictators in the Middle-East is that we continue to purchase Oil from them.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
We're already witnessing a horrific meltdown in Iraq. As for Hitchen's romanticized arguement for the Iraq War, I personally believe Scott Ritter made an appropriate counter-arguement to it.

The main issue with Dictators in the Middle-East is that we continue to purchase Oil from them.

I would happily pay more for gasoline that came from elsewhere!

But my main point was about watching genocide from the sideline. And, I do not believe that Western interventions are the root of all modern genocides, not by a long shot.
 

Aquitaine

Well-Known Member
I would happily pay more for gasoline that came from elsewhere!

But my main point was about watching genocide from the sideline. And, I do not believe that Western interventions are the root of all modern genocides, not by a long shot.
The developed world was perfectly happy sitting back and watching Suharto kill a large population of East Timor, as well as the Hutus killing the Tutsis.

Hell in the case of Suharto, the United States was actually arming him!
 
Last edited:

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
I would happily pay more for gasoline that came from elsewhere!
It doesn't work that way.
The price of oil is what matters. If the price is high, suppliers win. The more gets bought, the higher the price. Doesn't matter who buys from where.
The only solution is to stop buying it.
And petroleum is a very inelastic commodity. Small changes in supply and demand cause huge changes in the price.
Remember a few years ago when the price of gas jumped 40% in a day because Hurricane Isaac might hit the gulf coast? It didn't, but nobody got a refund.
If us 'Muricans stopped pumping gas like we do it would fall to $5 a barrel. We drive that bus.
Tom
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
- Saddam's crimes were on a steady path of escalation.
- The situation in Iraq was a pressure cooker of sectarian conflict, again that pressure was increasing, not decreasing.

My gut is that if we'd done nothing, we'd have been witness to a horrific meltdown. Perhaps the best path would have been to push for an Arab-led coalition that was somehow sectarian-aware, to depose Saddam? I have some moral and ethical trouble taking the stance that we should sit back and watch genocides occur...
It was my understanding that we had the Hussein administration pretty well bottled up. Saddam was no military threat to anyone. There was an enforced no-fly-zone right through the middle of his country. The Kurds were safe and the UN weapons inspectors were reporting that there was no evidence of WMDs. Iraq was stable.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
It was my understanding that we had the Hussein administration pretty well bottled up. Saddam was no military threat to anyone. There was an enforced no-fly-zone right through the middle of his country. The Kurds were safe and the UN weapons inspectors were reporting that there was no evidence of WMDs. Iraq was stable.
So what your saying (dumbed down for us groundskeepers) is.......

Things are under control.
Let's attack & crush them!
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Almost.
Things are under control. Let's leave things as they are till something else develops.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
It was my understanding that we had the Hussein administration pretty well bottled up. Saddam was no military threat to anyone. There was an enforced no-fly-zone right through the middle of his country. The Kurds were safe and the UN weapons inspectors were reporting that there was no evidence of WMDs. Iraq was stable.

I don't think the Kurds, or the inhabitants of Abu Ghraib, (and the list goes on), would agree with your assessment that Saddam was "well bottled up".
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The Kurds would. The no fly zone had rendered Saddam powerless against them. Moreover, we'd stopped selling him the napalm and toxic gasses he'd been using against them.
The Kurds were safe.
Abu Gharib had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein. The American invaders were responsible for that.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
The Kurds would. The no fly zone had rendered Saddam powerless against them. Moreover, we'd stopped selling him the napalm and toxic gasses he'd been using against them.
The Kurds were safe.
Abu Gharib had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein. The American invaders were responsible for that.

I think you need to go just a touch further back in your history books...
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Au contraire. My history is sound. It's you, my friend, who's been duped.
Where, specifically, have I erred?
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
Au contraire. My history is sound. It's you, my friend, who's been duped.
Where, specifically, have I erred?

Perhaps I misunderstood your post. I took you to mean that it was the Americans that turned AbuGhraib into a prison for torture. Did I misread your post?
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I think I see where you're going here, Icehorse. Yes, there was torture and abuse in the prison -- and the country in general -- before the invasion. No-one's saying life under Saddam was a bowel of cherries, but that doesn't diminish the chaos and abuse wrecked by the Americans.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
I don't think the Kurds, or the inhabitants of Abu Ghraib, (and the list goes on), would agree with your assessment that Saddam was "well bottled up".
Yes, actually, they would.
Compared to the pre-sanctions/no fly zone Iraq Saddam's teeth had been pulled.
After the invasion things were horribly worse.
Tom
 
Top