There is oversight and auditing of the contracts. Potential overcharges and other discrepancies are looked at by the Defense Department audit agency. One of the FactCheck.org articles goes over that. It’s not just a blank check to Halliburton. They get watched over and audited and the same with other contractors.
Things seem to be working as they should or at least adequately. There is nothing there for me to get worked up about. Is there overcharging? I hope not. I’m not a fan of government waste. But it seems that things are in check to a reasonable degree.
If we know about it I assume it was caught by the auditors. I don’t think the govt is that incompetent in managing contracts. They audit. They have penalties for abuse.
There is a big difference between claim and proof. Anything claimed by the likes of Moveon.org is so immediately suspect that it isn’t even worth my time to pay attention to it. If there is real actual fraud I’ll hear about it through other reliable sources.
This thread was revived because there’s a recent a news item pertinent to what John said about 5 posts up. The article is not put out by Moveon.org, but by the Associated Press.
Today, US and Iraqi forces launched the largest air assault operation
Actually, I thought I perceived a slight shift in JohnChilds perspective. I think he can respond to these arguments. Many people who supported the war to remove WMDs from Iraq now realize it was of no value to the USA, except the military-industrial complex, and that it cost the lives of many USA/ally/Iraqi children.
Even Republicans are thinking differently abour Bush now.
William Fisher: When this year’s Human Rights report appeared last week, I e-mailed it to six of these old friends and asked them for their reactions “off the record.” They had a lot to say, but it all came down to this consensus: The United States had forfeited its right to report on abuses committed by others by committing its own, failing to correct them, and then holding no one in authority accountable. They said they would have expected this behavior in their own countries, but not in mine.
Since the United States has no veto in the General Assembly, the resolution calling for the creation of a new Human Rights Council was adopted by an overwhelming majority, which the US opposition couldn’t block.
Tom Harkin: We have an out-of-control president whose arrogant and, now, illegal behavior is running our country into the ditch. It’s time to rein him in. And a fine place to start is by passing this resolution of censure. I hope that Senator Feingold’s measure will be brought to the floor. And when it is, I will proudly vote yes.
The US Iraq/Afghanistan thing has got me thinking that you’re right, Steveyo.
BUT, when I think about Hitler, he just wanted to kill everyone to breed a master race.
Wikipedia thinks we both may be right (or at least, it’s so ambiguous I can’t really tell):
“A common perception of war is … a dispute over sovereignty, territory, resources, religion or a host of other issues.”
From what I remeber about British history, our wars have usually been over territory (money) or due to alliances with other countries (which have been about money). How can you hate people you have never met?
Cathy, please don’t hate me. I just finished replying to one of your posts in another thread, so I’m kind of scared to do the same here, but I have to.
First of all, I realise that it isn’t subtle. That’s kind of why I pointed it out.
Second, how am I wrong? When did war stop being about hating people?
EDIT: I don’t know what the heck I’m doing anymore. I didn’t read the first of your two consecutive posts above before posting this. My brain hurts.
Surprisingly, perhaps, I’m with John on this, even though I have the impression that John’s general political views are far to the right of mine. (The US left wing starts just to the right of the UK’s right wing.)
There are certain issues where opinions are so strongly held that it is very much the exception for someone to consider his opponent’s argument on its merits, and even rarer for someone to change their opinion after hearing a point well made. Examples include Clinton, Bus, Thatcher, fox hunting, abortion, religion… and so on.
One common factor of such issues is that each side has well rehearsed arguments (John says “rants”) which are deployed as a Pavlovian response to a given stimulus. Certain names or words stimulate the response. To a liberal lefty, George W Bush can do no right, and every mention of his name is enough to prompt the all-purpose anti-Bush rant. To many “righties”, the very word “liberal” is enough to provoke the well-rehearsed anti bleeding heart pinko liberal speech.
And no one gains. It is a ritual.
Which moves me on to Cathwood’s endearing question: how can you hate someone you’ve never met? By forming your opinion in advance, and then responding to that opinion as if it were fact. Opinions are so much easier than understanding. You don’t even have to go out to get one. In fact, sit still and people will beam opinions into your house, and if you’re careful not to blink, they will be automatically uploaded into your brain and saved as read only files.
Hatred is so much simpler than loving. If you hate someone then you can simply hurt them or run away. If you love them, then that’s a long term commitment, even when it isn’t fun, and something else looks like it might be.
And profiteering? People who care only about money will make money. People who care only about friends will make friends.
(And I’m sorry for saying you were wrong when your opinion is just as valid as mine, I was just practicing being more assertive)
It’s great that you contribute to these debates. Your brain hurting just shows that it’s using parts that it’s not used to using. Keep it up.
(Don’t worry I don’t have any personal opinions about you because you have dirrerent opinions to me. I realise that most of my opinions are a bit wacky anyway, it wont stop me arguing them though).
I have been giving careful consideration to the posts in this thread and have reached my final thoughts on the subject .
War is entered into by the governement of our respective countries for their own reasons. This may be because of financial gain, because we had an arrangement with a third country, etc. Hatred has nothing to do with it at this point because it is entered into with cold calculation.
Hatred (and fear - ie belief that the country is under threat from the other country or it’s inhabitants) is brought into it (cynically and purpousfully), initially via propaganda from our governments against the country they have decided to go to war with, in order to persuade ordinary people to kill other ordinary people and to die ‘for their country’.
Hatred and fear are also used to justified the deaths of many ‘innocent’ civilians.
War crimes tribunals are presumably held by the winners (NOT by the side with fewest war crimes).
.