$9 Billion Lost?

[hardeeharhar]

BBC Article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4224661.stm)

9 Billion? 9 BILLION!

This is almost worse than losing tons of explosive... anybody want to follow the money trail?

[shetline]

9 billion? Oops!

Well, what do you expect when a large part of the CPA was run by Young Republican kids just out of college, jobs they got via the political patronage of their parents?

[tonton]

But... but... but...

Oil For Food! Oil For Food! :mad:

[jwri004]

Does any one else find it ironic that the US could have conceivably paying the "insurgents" to kill their own troops?

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by tonton
But... but... but...

Oil For Food! Oil For Food! :mad:


Kofi, Kofi!

[segovius]

This article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/file_on_4/4216853.stm) adds a bit more detail.

In one case, auditors say the key to a safe holding millions of dollars was kept in an open backpack in an office.

On one occasion, $1.4bn had to be transported to a bank in three helicopters, as it weighed 14 tons, but no deposit slip was obtained when it was paid in.

One US company is accused of massively inflating its profits by setting up sham companies to send fake invoices which the coalition paid. Others are alleged to have demanded dubious commissions which then came out of Iraqi funds.

Some Coalition officials are said to have openly demanded bribes of up to $300,000 in cash.

Winds of freedom.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by segovius
This article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/file_on_4/4216853.stm) adds a bit more detail.
Winds of freedom.

I supported, and continue to support, the invasion of Iraq as a good thing, but why were such bunglers in charge? The firing of the general that said we needed 250,000 troops, the looting of the musueam, the firing of the first head of the CPA (after only a week or something), the appointment of Paul Bremer, Abu-Grahab, probably allowing the Syrians and Iranians to smuggle the WMDs out of the country, this mismanagement of money etc.

I think we need more than two "sides" to pick from, here are my suggestions:

Commie Pinko Traitors
==============

"Bush is involved in a world conspiricy to steal the middle east oil,
Iraq was better under Saddam that it will ever be again, and
America deserved 9/11"

Democrat Apologists
=============

"Bush stole both elections, and everything would have been better with
the democrats in charge. Iraq should have been cured with diplomacy,
but if we had to invade, democrats should have done it"

Athiest Apathists
===========

"Who cares, I didn't care about the OJ trial and I don't care about Iraq"

Born again Apathists
=============

"Who cares, the rapture will happen any day!"

Republican Apologists
==============

"I can explain why every action by GWB and company is a good action, and
they didn't make any mistakes that I can see - if you don't like American
why don't you move to France?"

Neo-Nazi Mutants
============

"The only good arab is a dead arab, raghead"

European Socialist weenies
================

"American contues to suck more harshly every year"

[Anders]

I have to say that this only proves that America continues to suck more harshly every year

[groverat]

Originally posted by Anders
I have to say that this only proves that America continues to suck more harshly every year

Then Yurrup blows.

Let's fight! With sticks at dawn!

[Placebo]

Originally posted by groverat
With sticks
Shut up, Einstein. ;)

[durin oakenskin]

Originally posted by e1618978
I supported, and continue to support, the invasion of Iraq as a good thing, but why were such bunglers in charge? The firing of the general that said we needed 250,000 troops, the looting of the musueam, the firing of the first head of the CPA (after only a week or something), the appointment of Paul Bremer, Abu-Grahab, probably allowing the Syrians and Iranians to smuggle the WMDs out of the country, this mismanagement of money etc.

Is it so difficult to understand? There... where... no... WMDs... in... Iraq... Therefore nothing to smuggle for the Syrians or Iranians.

Maybe the whole thing went completely wrong because the Bush administration made some errors? They didn't care for the Iraqi people, didn't care for the future of the country or even the needs of their own military. All they cared about was money, apparently.

[Towel]

Anyone else think it was funny that this report was released on Sunday? And then, after spending 24 hours being overshadowed by a certain other long-scheduled story, was promptly forgotten by the media?

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by Towel
Anyone else think it was funny that this report was released on Sunday? And then, after spending 24 hours being overshadowed by a certain other long-scheduled story, was promptly forgotten by the media?

I believe that this is standard operating procedure in the Bush Admin... Clearly the most important news occurs on the weekend.

[Gilsch]

Originally posted by e1618978
probably allowing the Syrians and Iranians to smuggle the WMDs out of the country, this mismanagement of money etc.
Could you please elaborate on how the assload of satellites we have couldn't track down such "massive" movement of WMDs? Thanks.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by Gilsch
Could you please elaborate on how the assload of satellites we have couldn't track down such "massive" movement of WMDs? Thanks.

Donkey Carts.

[Gilsch]

Originally posted by e1618978
Donkey Carts. Oh right!! I forgot those are invisible to spy satellites.

[tonton]

I know who's pulling those donkey carts. The same asses who still claim that there were ever massive stockpiles of WMD's to begin with.

[sammi jo]

Originally posted by e1618978
Donkey Carts. [/B]

Get over it! There were no WMDs, and hadn't been since 1991. The CIA said there were no WMDs and so did intel services from Germany, Russia and France. Everybody knew that, and so did the Bush Administration. The "weapons of mass destruction" issue was a fear tactic to scare the populace sh¡tless, a variant of the "false flag" operation which has been used time and again to start and "justify" wars that would otherwise be unsellable to the US people, (recent examples being the Gulf of Tonkin, Northwoods, 9-11 etc. etc).

And they were right. But....don't worry about it...it's all forgotten. The American people have (on the whole) forgotten that Iraq was invaded and occupied to remove WMDs, or any of the other numerous reasons given. Take a poll now and they'll tell you it was to spread democracy and liberty in the middle east.

People will believe anything, no matter how absurd or outlandish, if its repeated often enough, via a media that only echoes the administration's line, devoid of analyses or counterpoint. The general public are too busy, pressured and stressed out with life.... it takes time and research to be politically savvy. And that is how this administration gets away with what they perpetrate. Public ignorance and a Sovietlike cowardly media are the greatest weapons in the Bushcorp's arsenal.

[giant]

e, it's nice that you have a complex and considered world view, but when it comes to WMD you have to look at the facts and get away from the myths.

The easiest way to point out the fault is for you to explain exactly what chemicals would have been smuggled.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by giant
e, it's nice that you have a complex and considered world view, but when it comes to WMD you have to look at the facts and get away from the myths.

The easiest way to point out the fault is for you to explain exactly what chemicals would have been smuggled.

Sarin gas canisters, for one. Imagine that you are Saddam Hussein and America is going to invade - what would you do? Keep in mind that he was a very smart and charasmatic fellow.

Here is what I would have done:

1. Form a secret alliance with Syria - they are the most
like Saddam-era Iraq.

The deal would be - you hide my WMDs, my cash and my
family, and in exchange I will give you 20% of Iraqs
territory should I re-gain power.

2. Stash money in various places around the world, create
other hiding places in case Syria betrays me.

3. Train terrorist commandos to hide during the
invasion and blow stuff up afterwards. Hopefully the
US will get tired of losing soldiers and pull out
so that I can come back and re-gain power.

Instruct them to disrupt the election, and get them
to enlist the Sunni mullas to do the same. Cause a
civil war.

Maybe he tried to do this, but it didn't work out?
In any case, tons of people were crossing the border
before the invasion.

[segovius]

Originally posted by e1618978
Sarin gas canisters, for one. Imagine that you are Saddam Hussein and America is going to invade - what would you do? Keep in mind that he was a very smart and charasmatic fellow.

Here is what I would have done: ----snip-----.

Nah, I would have mobilised my death ray anti-matter gun, smuggled it aboard a secret shuttle launch (or maybe Russian spysat) and using the brainpower of top scientists I have kidnapped (remember - I am evil so I could do that) reprogramme it to blast repeatedly at Saturn.

The blast would cause a bit of the planet's core to split off and it would be timed perfectly so its trajectory would send it hurtling towards the earth.

The calculations of the scientists would ensure that it hits Baghdad precisely after the election (I would have planned the date of this in advance by sleeper moles I implanted in the WhiteHouse Iraq election Planning Department.

Then my minions in the Sunni camp would claim this is God's vengeance and the whole of the world would convert to radical Islam and start blowing each other up because they hate each other's freedoms.

I gloat maniacally in my shackles and (if not handcuffed) rub my hands with glee.

[e1618978]

I think that my post was more reasonable than you are letting on - but believe what you want. I don't care if there were actually WMDs or not - I still support the invasion.

And I also support the invasion of Syria. Iran is only do-able if it a joint effort between the US and the secular Iranian government.

Jordan already is democratically elected (but with a constitutional monarch). Iran will be entirely democratic if we can bonk the Ayatolla. Palestine and Isreal will soon be seperate democratic countries.

Things are looking up.

[giant]

Originally posted by e1618978
Sarin gas canisters, for one.
Please, be very specific and don't just stick to one.
Imagine that...
Speculating is useless unless it's based on detailed solid facts.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by giant
Please, be very specific and don't just stick to one.

Speculating is useless unless it's based on detailed solid facts.

You asked me to speculate, and then complain when I do?
These are all typical - respond with exaggeration to make things seem silly, move the target around, etc.

I was responding to a question about what substances could be smuggled into Syria without the CIA knowing. Sarin gas is one substance, there are many others I am sure.

[giant]

Originally posted by e1618978
You asked me to speculate, and then complain when I do?
I asked you what chemicals Iraq could/would have smuggled out. VX? You already said sarin. What else?

[e1618978]

Originally posted by giant
I asked you what chemicals Iraq could/would have smuggled out. VX? You already said sarin. What else?

Plutonium. What do I look like, a chemist? Why do you want me to list a bunch of chemicals?

Anthrax and other biological agents.
Mustard gas.
...

[BRussell]

Originally posted by e1618978
I think that my post was more reasonable than you are letting on - but believe what you want. I don't care if there were actually WMDs or not - I still support the invasion.

And I also support the invasion of Syria. Iran is only do-able if it a joint effort between the US and the secular Iranian government.

Jordan already is democratically elected (but with a constitutional monarch). Iran will be entirely democratic if we can bonk the Ayatolla. Palestine and Isreal will soon be seperate democratic countries.

Things are looking up. I've noticed that you've said several times that you support invading other countries like we did Iraq. I'm curious - are there any downsides or risks involved in doing this? Will the US simply be able to replace bad governments with good ones and everything will be happy every time, or could things backfire, and how? I'm interested in your thoughts.

[Harald]

Some questions:

When was the last time the CIA and all other agencies think that Iraq obtained materials like this?

What is the lifespan of these chemicals (Google is your friend)?

Once you've done that, you'll need to ask why you think you know better then every agency on the planet who said that anything they had would be hair-gel about now.

Please, it's so simple. They didn't have any. Our governments were told this and chose to present a different picture the public.

[giant]

Originally posted by e1618978
Plutonium. What do I look like, a chemist? Why do you want me to list a bunch of chemicals?
Well, that's the thing. You have a belief that Iraqi agents were smuggled over the border at the beginning of the war. That belief is ignorant about the facts of Iraq's WMD situation. It's a fantasy held by those who are ignorant about what Iraq actually produced, how it was produced, what it was used for, etc, etc.

Sarin, for example: Iraq was never able to make high quality sarin and what they did make degraded very, very quickly. To deal with this during the Iran/Iraq war, they created binary warheads which mix the precursors while being delivered to the target. As explained by UNMOVIC:
According to documents discovered by UNSCOM in Iraq, the purity of Sarin-type agents produced by Iraq were on average below 60%, and dropped below Iraq’s established quality control acceptance level of 40% by purity some 3 to 12 months after production. [...] There is no evidence that any bulk Sarin-type agents remain in Iraq - gaps in accounting of these agents are related to Sarin-type agents weaponized in rocket warheads and aerial bombs. Based on the documentation found by UNSCOM during inspections in Iraq, Sarin-type agents produced by Iraq were largely of low quality and as such, degraded shortly after production. Therefore, with respect to the unaccounted for weaponized Sarin-type agents, it is unlikely that they would still be viable today
Now, we've only seen 1 binary sarin warhead, the one insurgents unknowingly used as an IDE, and this was left over from the Iran/Iraq war. Left over where? Nobody knows. But it wasn't a significant threat since even the precursors had degraded over time. Those warheads, of which there were likely very, very few, were over a decade old and essentially a useless weapon to anyone who had them and would not have been worth the trouble to smuggle out.

The point is that we could go down the list of each chemical and see that in reality, there wasn't much of a reason for Saddam to smuggle degraded, useless, harmless chemicals out of the country.

What *was* smuggled out of the country was construction equiptment, military equiptment, commercial factory equiptment, etc, etc. Stuff that was actually worth something.

That's not to say that nothing related to special weapons was smuggled over, but it's nothing of significance, and we can go back and make educated and informed guesses as to what was smuggled.

In other words, e1234567, what you've expressed here is a myth that is ignorant of the actual facts.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by BRussell
I've noticed that you've said several times that you support invading other countries like we did Iraq. I'm curious - are there any downsides or risks involved in doing this? Will the US simply be able to replace bad governments with good ones and everything will be happy every time, or could things backfire, and how? I'm interested in your thoughts.

I think that the invasion of Iraq went very well, and in the end we are going to get a good elected government.

Now you may disagree with this, as many have in the past, but as things progress there seems to be fewer people who think that way.

Now - forget your ideas about how Bush and company are a bunch of losers, dispite their screw-ups they are all very smart people. *Despite* making just about every mistake that a human could make during the occupation of iraq, they were successful.

Now - remember that they will have learned from their mistakes. We already know that the invasion of any of these countries will go spendidly. Whoever planned the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan is good at his job. The occupation will also go well, because people will have learned from their mistakes in Iraq.

These are barbarous nations - Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran (muslum gov't only), Pakistan. The world will be a better place if we can convert all of the middle east into democratic countries.

[segovius]

Originally posted by e1618978
*Despite* making just about every mistake that a human could make during the occupation of iraq, they were successful.

Sum up in one concise sentence why it was successful.

Edit: better clarify. What constitutes success - please support your claim.

[e1618978]

[You have a belief that Iraqi agents were smuggled over the border at the beginning of the war.

Sure - you have convinced me. However, the WMD thing was not a particularly important piece of the puzzle for me, it was just latched onto by replies to my post.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by segovius
Sum up in one concise sentence why it was successful.

Saddam Hussein out of power, and reasonably good elections held.

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by e1618978
*Despite* making just about every mistake that a human could make during the occupation of iraq, they were successful.

How about you try and make sense sometimes?

[giant]

Originally posted by e1618978
Sure - you have convinced me. However, the WMD thing was not a particularly important piece of the puzzle for me, it was just latched onto by replies to my post.
I've just seen you mention it a number of times and wanted to set the record straight.

I'll shut up now.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by Gene Clean
How about you try and make sense sometimes?

I re-read it and still understand it, please clarify your complaint.

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by e1618978
I re-read it and still understand it, please clarify your complaint.


How can one make every possible human mistake and still be successful. Successful at what? Making mistakes?

[segovius]

Originally posted by e1618978
Saddam Hussein out of power, and reasonably good elections held.

You'd need to define 'reasonably good' but I find it interesting that you do not weigh things against the cost expended and the possible future ramifications.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by Gene Clean
How can one make every possible human mistake and still be successful. Successful at what? Making mistakes?

I'm not going to participate in an argument with somebody who either didn't read my whole post, or else is being deliberately obtuse.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by e1618978
I think that the invasion of Iraq went very well, and in the end we are going to get a good elected government. I asked you about potential pitfalls. Does your answer mean that you think there are none - that if we invade a country and remove its government, only good can come of it? I want to know if you think there are any possible complications.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by segovius
You'd need to define 'reasonably good' but I find it interesting that you do not weigh things against the cost expended and the possible future ramifications.

As long as we don't try to fight more than one country at once, I don't think that there will be any ramificaitons. If we tried to do it all at once the whole middle east could disolve into civil war, but we arn't going to do that.

We seem to be able to handle the cost OK, even indefinitely.
GWB is finally going to cut government programs that are not producing results (150 programs, mentioned in last nights speach). If we can balance the budget with the war still on, then we are set.

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by e1618978
I'm not going to participate in an argument with somebody who either didn't read my whole post, or else is being deliberately obtuse.

I've read your whole post but this one didn't make any sense to me.

The occupation is still on-going, it didn't stop. So if one is making every possible mistake during the occupation [which has not ended] then one cannot be successful. Or do you think the occupation has ended and the US soldiers are there on a picnic?

In which case, your sentence makes even less sense.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by BRussell
I asked you about potential pitfalls. Does your answer mean that you think there are none - that if we invade a country and remove its government, only good can come of it? I want to know if you think there are any possible complications.

OK - possible ramifications:

1 - Europe pissed off

2 - Middle east disolves into civil war

3 - Saudi Arabian government falls

4 - Somebody attacks Isreal

5 - Increased terrorist attacks, possibly on US soil


All of these things I think can be handled, and most of them are also risks even if we don't take over the middle east.

If we go in and clean the place up, some time in the future these risks will be gone. If we don't then we will have the risks forever.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by Gene Clean
I've read your whole post but this one didn't make any sense to me.

The occupation is still on-going, it didn't stop. So if one is making every possible mistake during the occupation [which has not ended] then one cannot be successful. Or do you think the occupation has ended and the US soldiers are there on a picnic?

In which case, your sentence makes even less sense.

You and I obviously disagree that Iraq is progressing towards a self-deterministic elected government, and that the occupation will end. It is not that my post made no sense, it just does not agree with your ideas.

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by e1618978


2 - Middle east disolves into civil war


Civil war can happen only between the population of the same country. Like Iraqis fighting other Iraqis. Or Iranians fighting other Iranians.

I don't see how the entire Middle East can disolve into civil war.

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by e1618978
You and I obviously disagree that Iraq is progressing towards a self-deterministic elected government, and that the occupation will end. It is not that my post made no sense, it just does not agree with your ideas.

It makes no sense because you can't take a test, get every possible question wrong, and still get an A.

At least not in the schools I was educated in.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by Gene Clean
Civil war can happen only between the population of the same country. Like Iraqis fighting other Iraqis. Or Iranians fighting other Iranians.

I don't see how the entire Middle East can disolve into civil war.

whatever - termonolgy + nit picking, both posts.

Let me retract my statement that they did everything wrong. They did many things wrong, but obviously not enough things to cause the project to fail. They will do fewer things wrong next time.

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by e1618978
whatever - termonolgy + nit picking, both posts.

Let me retract my statement that they did everything wrong. They did many things wrong, but obviously not enough things to cause the project to fail. They will do fewer things wrong next time.

Its not terminology. Its actual DIFFERENT THINGS. You can't just say "oh its terminology" because, clearly, you've no idea what Civil War means.

But, to continue with the thread, 'the project' has failed miserably and has failed right in the beginning. It has failed because a)They found out nobody wanted them there, b) The weapons were not there c)They have killed more civilians and destroyed more things than one can count before going bald and getting deaf.

And you say they will do fewer things wrong next time? Well, next time, the opposite party will do fewer things wrong as well.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by Gene Clean
Its not terminology. Its actual DIFFERENT THINGS. You can't just say "oh its terminology" because, clearly, you've no idea what Civil War means.

But, to continue with the thread, 'the project' has failed miserably and has failed right in the beginning. It has failed because a)They found out nobody wanted them there, b) The weapons were not there c)They have killed more civilians and destroyed more things than one can count before going bald and getting deaf.

And you say they will do fewer things wrong next time? Well, next time, the opposite party will do fewer things wrong as well.

Whatever - I don't want to reply to your post because I have no interest in listening to your rebuttal. We just disagree.

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by e1618978
Whatever - I don't want to reply to your post because I have no interest in listening to your rebuttal. We just disagree.

We may disagree, but there's one clear thing; you talk without prior knowledge on the subject. That, and other things in your posts, make me believe that the only way to discuss something with you is to educate you on-the-go about the things for which you make such big claims - while failing to support them in any way - which would, hopefully, lead to a better discussion.

Though then, you resort to trivial things such as 'whatever, we just disagree' mantra, which is, quite frankly, just weak.

In any event, I shall not continue discussing things with you anymore. Less useless trouble for my keyboard.

[e1618978]

In any event, I shall not continue discussing things with you anymore. Less useless trouble for my keyboard.

Excellent.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by e1618978
OK - possible ramifications:

1 - Europe pissed off

2 - Middle east disolves into civil war

3 - Saudi Arabian government falls

4 - Somebody attacks Isreal

5 - Increased terrorist attacks, possibly on US soil


All of these things I think can be handled, and most of them are also risks even if we don't take over the middle east.

If we go in and clean the place up, some time in the future these risks will be gone. If we don't then we will have the risks forever. OK, but let me give you another possibility: that we bring into power a worse government than the one that we overthrow. In a word, blowback. This might happen in Iraq. They had an election, but who was elected? What will they do? What if they're more anti-American or more terrorist-sympathetic than Saddam Hussein? What if they trample on human rights more than Saddam? What if they seek WMDs? Pakistan was a democracy that did all of these things up until a few years ago anyway. What if Iraq of 2006 looks like Pakistan of 2000? Do we invade again? Or what if they turn into another Iran, or a puppet state of Iran, a member of the Axle of Elvis?

In my view, democracy isn't they key, it's liberalization. We want a more stable, moderate, and safe Middle East. Everyone wants that. But how does that happen? IMO, it happens through an economic system that creates a large middle class, an educational system that encourages openness and inquiry, through rights for women, etc. If we could press a button or do a war that would liberalize, I'd say sure. But that's a more subtle thing, isn't it? It's more about attitudes than specific rulers. It even runs much deeper than voting, as the many troubled democracies around the world today indicate.

So, what if overthrowing a government destabilizes the country such that it turns out worse than it was when we started? It just seems like you don't even consider that to be a possibility. Am I wrong?

[e1618978]

In my view, democracy isn't they key, it's liberalization. We want a more stable, moderate, and safe Middle East. Everyone wants that. But how does that happen? IMO, it happens through an economic system that creates a large middle class, an educational system that encourages openness and inquiry, through rights for women, etc. If we could press a button or do a war that would liberalize, I'd say sure. But that's a more subtle thing, isn't it? It's more about attitudes than specific rulers. It even runs much deeper than voting, as the many troubled democracies around the world today indicate.

So, what if overthrowing a government destabilizes the country such that it turns out worse than it was when we started? It just seems like you don't even consider that to be a possibility. Am I wrong? [/B]

That was one I missed - it would truely suck if we got a worse government. However - maybe that possibility would be less if we had multiple democratic governments competing to be the most "western" in order to facilitate trade?

IMHO, the best thing about a democracy is that it limits government power, and I think that it is much easier to get liberalisaiton with a democracy than without. China is liberalising without a democracy, but they are the only example I can think of (where I can think of many liberal democracies).

[Anders]

Originally posted by e1618978
Saddam Hussein out of power, and reasonably good elections held.

Then the iranian revolution was the greatest gig on earth.