Comments on: The case for war

By: Where's The Beef?

Where's The Beef? — Sun, 05 Dec 2004 06:10:26 +0000

In essence, what is your essential point? Mine was that the guys in charge now are not perfect in their angelness. They are not angel-like to the fullest degree. But the other guys and the way they had been doing the job? They occupied a wholely different end of the spectrum of the universe of “guys who run things.”

By: Uncle Kvetch

Uncle Kvetch — Thu, 02 Dec 2004 14:42:52 +0000

OK, that last bit of snark was somewhat misdirected. I realize now that by “the guys previously in charge,” Where’s the Beef was referring not to Saddam’s regime, but to the corporations and UN officials who administered (and, in some cases, profited handsomely from) the oil-for-food program. My essential point stands. A better tag line might be: “Halliburton: Not Necessarily the Worst Apple in the Bunch.”

By: Uncle Kvetch

Uncle Kvetch — Thu, 02 Dec 2004 14:28:56 +0000

While Haliburton may not be staff by perfect angels, the guys previously in charge were on a different part of the spectrum. Wow. Talk about high praise. This could be a great tag line for the cover of the next annual report: “Halliburton: Hey, Saddam Was Even Worse!”

By: Where's The Beef?

Where's The Beef? — Thu, 02 Dec 2004 06:51:48 +0000

>> presumably someone must have been running the oil industry so it could produce the oil for the oil for food programme That is a very good point, in my view. I suspect we will learn more as the details and patterns of the corruption in the Oil-for-Food programme is investigated. We may also find out more about the property that reportedly has gone missing. While Haliburton may not be staff by perfect angels, the guys previously in charge were on a different part of the spectrum.

By: rob

rob — Wed, 01 Dec 2004 21:55:30 +0000

So far as the Halliburton thing goes, presumably someone must have been running the oil industry so it could produce the oil for the oil for food programme. Why couldn’t they have been used: presumably they would have had some links, if not some people, on the ground, and so more of the money would have gone back into the Iraqi economy. Surely not all of them – the links or people – could have been committed Ba’athists.

By: Uncle Kvetch

Uncle Kvetch — Wed, 01 Dec 2004 21:14:23 +0000

Jet, I don’t consider “best most capable company” and “known evil” to be even remotely synonymous. I would also suggest that there might have been additional options beyond Halliburton and “Barely Existant Iraqi Startup, Inc.”

By: jet

jet — Wed, 01 Dec 2004 19:19:46 +0000

Uncle Kvetch, I understand your chagrin over Haliburton, but your statement doesn’t refute mine. Why would we believe an Iraqi firm would do better? And I’m sure there are Iraqi firms that could do better, but given the need for quick action and the difficulties of operating in a worn torn country, surely you can see why the administration would chose to go with a known evil over the unknown? I’m not saying the administration was right, I’m just saying that the reasoning that would lead you to their conclusion is perfectly rational.

By: Uncle Kvetch

Uncle Kvetch — Wed, 01 Dec 2004 15:22:32 +0000

You can’t blame the administration for not getting stuff done fast enough and then also blame them for using the best most capable companies ie Haliburton over Iraqi-just-started-yesterday-mobil. Associated Press, 11/26/04: “A third or more of the government property Halliburton Co. was paid to manage for the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq could not be located by auditors, investigative reports to Congress show. Halliburton’s KBR subsidiary “did not effectively manage government property” and auditors could not locate hundreds of CPA items worth millions of dollars in Iraq and Kuwait this summer and fall, Inspector General Stuart W. Bowen reported to Congress.”

By: Tim

Tim — Wed, 01 Dec 2004 14:24:40 +0000

Brian wrote: >>an eminently foreseeable consequence of invading Iraq and deposing Saddam Hussein was the chaos that currently confronts us >Then why didn’t anyone predict it? What, apart from the anti-war movement? >>The argument from the antiwar movement was never that there’d be chaos if we removed Saddam – that’s the argument you’ve all convinced yourself you made in retrospect. It was a very common argument made by the anti-war movement before the war. >>No, the main arguments the antiwar movement put forward were (a.) the US would just replace Saddam with another totalitarian dictator (b.) they certainly wouldn’t allow any sort of free press, and (c.) you’d have to be a stark raving lunatic to think the yanks would ever allow an election.” Whilst I’m sure someone, somewhere in the anti-war movement made such arguments, they were at most one in a thousand and never taken seriously. >>On all three points you have been proved manifestly wrong. I really don’t think it behoves someone in the pro-war movement (wrong on every count) to make such a claim about someone in the anti-war movement (right on most counts). You’ve made yourself look a fool, Brian.

By: jet

jet — Wed, 01 Dec 2004 12:52:48 +0000

Walt Pohl, 1) The administration can be excused for expecting a longer drawn out war and not having more troops for cop duty. And this preposes to second guess the Pentagon which might say we needed more troops in reserve to keep Iran, N. Korea and France (just kidding) in line. The counter to that is that if we didn’t have enough free troops, then we shouldn’t have invaded. But that is more the Pentagon’s fault than Bush’s (Bush is at fault for not taking a guillotine to the Pentagon for a day of example making). 2)In Japan the government wasn’t made up of mass murderers (of Japanese)and criminals. I’m not so sure we would have as much suport in the South if their raping, murderering, mass graving overlords were still in power. 3)Good point but I still find some merit in the counter arguement. You can’t blame the administration for not getting stuff done fast enough and then also blame them for using the best most capable companies ie Haliburton over Iraqi-just-started-yesterday-mobil. 4)…….I’m convinced they should have hired me.

By: nic

nic — Wed, 01 Dec 2004 08:16:44 +0000

Your opposition to the war to some extent actually caused the war My friend, that is pure genius. It’s so mindblowingly acute I had to read it backwards to get it. Ever thought about applying for a position at the American Enterprise Institute? They need people like you!

By: Where's The Beef?

Where's The Beef? — Wed, 01 Dec 2004 07:19:10 +0000

Walt Pohl, I do not care much about the evident lack of credibility in your recent remarks. But maybe you should. [If you address me again here, please do the courtesy of using my designated moniker, “Where’s The Beef?” rather than a poor substitute. If not, consider yourself duly ignored.]

By: Walt Pohl

Walt Pohl — Wed, 01 Dec 2004 06:36:13 +0000

am, you are too ignorant to participate in the discussion. I supported the war. Most of the Crooked Timberites supported the war until it became clear that they were going to fuck it up. Maybe it’s time you take some responsibility for the American soldiers you helped kill by giving George Bush a blank check to screw the country. WtB, why do you think I give a shit about what you think about my credibility? You’re just some guy on the internet, one whose backing a President who’s too drunk or too stupid to recognize when he’s driving the country into a ditch.

By: am

am — Wed, 01 Dec 2004 05:35:52 +0000

Your opposition to the war to some extent actually caused the war. Because public dissent in the West and French perfidy at the UN were the two main resons why Saddam felt he could successfully hang on. An honourable course to have taken would have been to march in the streets demanding that Saddam quit and go into exile. That would have improved the situation in Iraq and would have made the invasion all but impossible. But to your eternal shame, none of you even thought of doing this. Presumably, because your hatred of the US and George Bush trumps any concerns whcih you might have for the people of Iraq.

By: Where's The Beef?

Where's The Beef? — Tue, 30 Nov 2004 23:38:49 +0000

walt pohl, the moniker is “Where’s The Beef?”. Your earlier remark was no argument. It was self-contradictory since you claimed not to be expecting perfection. But if these points—evident within your remark—doesn’t discredit what you said, then, expand on your remark. You made the bald assertion that the insurgency would not have emerged under different circumstances that the White House could have created. Back that up without discrediting yourself further, if you can.