War Profiteering

ForumProgressive & Liberal!

Melde dich bei LibraryThing an, um Nachrichten zu schreiben.

War Profiteering

Dieses Thema ruht momentan. Die letzte Nachricht liegt mehr als 90 Tage zurück. Du kannst es wieder aufgreifen, indem du eine neue Antwort schreibst.

1janey47
Bearbeitet: Nov. 20, 2006, 3:36 pm

I've recently seen Frank Rich (NY Times columnist and writer of The Greatest Story Ever Sold), Hendrik Hertzberg (New Yorker Political Editor and author of Politics: Observations and Arguments) and Mark Danner (New Yorker Staff Writer, contributor to New York Review of Books, and journalism professor here and there) speak, and in each instance they all mentioned two things.

First, they said that although the Bush Administration and the Iraq War are causes for great concern, they mostly agreed that these excesses and possibly treasonous acts can be prevented in the future by a vigilant press and a vigilant Congress.

Second, they each said with approval that Nancy Pelosi will be beginning a Congressional oversight committee to look into, among other things, war profiteering.

I have emailed the New York Times, and I've also emailed a friend who is a low level reporter at the New York Times, and I've emailed Nancy Pelosi, and no one is paying attention to this.

Last week, Halliburton spun off KBR, which is the (now) corporate entity responsible for everything in Iraq, aside from the fighting. KBR, which was a division of Halliburton, is now a separate corporation, publicly traded and still 83% owned by Halliburton. Halliburton has said that after the 120 day lock up period, they plan to distribute those KBR shares in a tax-free distribution to Halliburton's shareholders.

Why is this disturbing?

Halliburton earned about $150 million in the KBR IPO. That's after all the profits for the last several years were absorbed -- remember, KBR was a *division* of Halliburton until quite recently. Now that KBR is a separate entity, it must be sued separately for any wrongdoing. To the extent that there IS an investigation into war profiteering, it seems pretty clear where liability is going to fall. But now that KBR is a separate entity, Halliburton won't be held responsible. Halliburton has been taking profits throughout, and it just got a big $150M jolt of cash. Now, whatever happens, if KBR is assigned huge liability for its mishandling of Iraq, Halliburton is shielded, because it's no longer the responsible entity. Once the tax free distribution is made, it won't even be the parent company. KBR will simply declare bankruptcy, and roll over. No restitution will be made to the US taxpayers.

According to the KBR prospectus, Halliburton has partially indemnified KBR against liabilities arising from an ongoing investigation by the SEC into alleged bribery of government officials in Nigeria, but I saw nothing about indemnification against liability arising from any future investigation into its dealings in Iraq.

I think it's important that the public be made aware of this. I think this should be front page news.

Here's a link to the KBR prospectus:

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1357615/000119312506236315/ds1a.htm#rom71...

This actually has me extremely depressed. A friend watched the PBS business news over the weekend and even THEY didn't say a word about the KBR IPO. I don't know why this has gone completely under the radar.

2deargreenplace
Nov. 21, 2006, 8:47 am

It may be rather out of date now, but a few years back I read The Best Democracy Money Can Buy by Greg Palast with my jaw dropped in disbelief for much of the time.

He spends a lot of time outlining how the main players in big companies like Halliburton are linked to George Bush, and the ways that they would profit from the Iraq war.

PS what's IPO stand for?

3janey47
Nov. 21, 2006, 12:24 pm

IPO means Initial Public Offering (of common stock of a corporation).

It dismays me greatly that Halliburton is going to get away with this. So far, not a single person I emailed has responded. I fear that they all think I'm a crank. I mentioned to Barbara Boxer that I'm a member of the California Bar, formerly practicing in securities issuance, and that prior to going to law school I worked in investment banking, but, you know, they all get a lot of email and my protests just aren't loud enough to get their attention.

4daschaich
Nov. 21, 2006, 1:28 pm

I got some first-hand evidence of indifference to war profiteering here in Boston last Saturday when a local anti-war group, the Greater Boston Stop the Wars Coalition actually held a march and rally against the war profiteers. We rallied in the Common, and then marched past the Boston offices of Bechtel, Verizon and Putnam Investments (Halliburton was originally on the list, but the city refused to approve a parade permit past their offices, which would have required closing some high-traffic roads).

The point is that this rally had a very disappointing turnout -- only a few hundred, about a tenth of their antiwar rally around this time last year. Part of the reason for the low turnout was the fact that people were a little drained after the election, part of it was limited cooperation from United for Justice with Peace, but a good portion of it, I think, was that people just had a hard time getting riled up about war profiteering, and the action didn't attract many besides the "usual suspects".

5nickhoonaloon
Nov. 21, 2006, 3:01 pm

Well, I`m glad the two of you made the effort, each in your own different ways.

I think the problem you`re having, particularly daschaich, is that (I imagine) you`re taking an item that isn`t on the public`s agenda, and trying to raise it`s profile. Necessarily, a campaign of that sort will take a long time to gather momentum, and will tend to appeal initially only to the pre-converted.

The other thing is that, in the UK at least, most people don`t involve themselves in marches, rallies etc unless an issue strikes fairly close to home - usually either the workplace or the local community.

The question of how to get arguments across to the wider population in this day and age, is a very big one, and not one where I`d pretend to have the answers !

6abductee
Nov. 25, 2006, 2:02 am

I don't have much to say on this topic, as I have only started to read tracts which represent all sides of this issue just recently. However, I do recommend checking out War Is a Racket by Brigadier General Smedley D. Butler.

7kinmon
Mai 2, 2007, 1:32 pm

Iam sorry to see this site inactive for so long, because I think the point that Bush's admin. is wrapped up in war profits is a national disaster. Do Americans no longer understand debt? When we see trillions owed to foreign countries can't anyone parallel that to the more easily understood individual bankrupcy or home foreclosures. Coupled with loss of jobs, jobs being outsourced, who is going to pay off the debt incurred by this administration?

8cbaker123
Mai 8, 2007, 11:24 pm

Oh, I think Americans understand debt very well. Both personal and public debt.
CBaker
www.thefantasyyears.com

9AsYouKnow_Bob
Mai 8, 2007, 11:49 pm

#1: Spinning off KBR matches with the earlier story about Halliburton moving their corporate HQ to the Persian Gulf. (...And probably out of the reach of American subpeonas....)

10kinmon
Mai 23, 2007, 8:03 pm

Okay, lets keep this thread going, message all your groups to read it. I've been raging about Bush/Cheney/neo cons & war profitering for several years now with little or no one listening. There have been brief & no follow thru in multi-news media, not harping like I have been. Recently the TV news has been asking why Americans aren't sacrificing for this war like they have for previous wars. Bush told the public "don't fret, just go out shopping" or words to that effect. This war planned & executed behind closed doors & justified by falsehoods wouldn't have stood the scrutiny of raised taxes, the selling of war bonds or call for a military draft that's why they are able to sell out America by putting us in debt my children & grandchildren will never see the paying off of. The Bush clan, the Cheney clan have little regard for America or it's citizens after all they will have all the gas & energy profits to support themselves anywhere they go.

11Retired-book-addict
Mai 25, 2007, 11:32 am

Similar ideas are expressed in american theocracy. Bush and Cheney's War (let's start calling it what it is) was planned at some level even before Bush was elected (little tidbit: Cheney is supposedly from Texas, but established residency in Wyoming to avoid violating a policy of president and vice-prsident not being from the same state). 9/11 was a godsend for the planners, who would have invaded Iraq anyway.

As for lack of media attention, I don't know what to say. Maybe the media (what liberal media?) thinks the subject too deep, too unintersting, or too extreme to deal with. Who knows? I do know that my Congressman will be of little help (Tim Walberg, MI-7, maybe the furthest right wing of anyone in Congress - by the way, kinmon, the fact that I live among some shockingly extreme right-wingers colors my views on gun control considerably).

I think another part of the problem may be that people want to beleive that their leaders (Democrat or Republican) are above such scheming. Of course, that sets a perfect stage for those very acts.

12kinmon
Mai 28, 2007, 8:48 pm

redmeatlib, I'll bet NC, Jesse Helms, Elizabeth Dole numerous lesser "tarheels" against your T Walberg & throw in the Baptist Convention that covens in Greensboro, these to, I think, the shame of the state that held out signing the Constitution until the Bill of Rights was added.
In thinking of media coverage there have been articles, TV coverage, magazine articles, books concerning many of the questions about the Bush/Cheney gas war. Not always with good follow-up nor public out-cry. The election put Dems in only enough control of congress to make waves. And waves in the form of almost equal time in media about their congressional hearings, bill agenda, etc.
I think you're right about our not understanding the cunning of the powers in & around this admin. that has so greatly damaged our country. Rove can't be forgotten in their success, have you read Bush's Brain? His work can clearly be seen in the papers being sent to the hearings re asst attorneys' firings. It seems grade schl level tactics, the same as Bush's refusal to admit his stated Iraq war objectives are failures. Unfortunately, congress seems as stumped by their tricks as do the rest of us.

13varielle
Jun. 1, 2007, 1:22 pm

I can't say this is a topic I am well versed on as the sense of helplessness it engenders makes me physically sick. However, the Nicholas Cage movie a few years ago, The Lord of War, conveyed the callousness of war profiteers in a way that most people could understand. Too bad it didn't do better at the box office.

14Kajabel Erste Nachricht
Jun. 9, 2007, 2:06 pm

I'm new with LibraryThing and brand new with this group. I think people are seeing just how much has been hidden during the last 25 years, especially the last 6!!

I am familiar with Smedley Butler, too. I recommend learning about him and reading his work. He was one of the early birds with the warning of the 'military industrial complex', like Ike.

I hope Americans are learning that we have to fight to keep our freedoms. Industrialization, technology, and greed joined in an unholy union. I am doing all I can to spread the word. We need to stay informed but when those who take the power by force bully the media into propaganda or silence, it's a challenge for working parents to devote the time to their employment or business, families, each other, much less putting in a couple of hours of investigation each night about what others are trying to cover up on a civil, state, national, and world level.

Good to see you here! I say we just keep it going - others are catching on! Keep sharing.

AD

15tropics
Jun. 20, 2007, 12:50 pm

In his latest book Nemesis: The Last Days Of The American Republic, Chalmers Johnson describes many of the disturbing aspects of war profiteering and how space may become the next venue for weapons of mass destruction. Truly horrifying.

The author states that the U.S. military currently maintains 737 bases of varying sizes in more than 130 countries. America's version of a colony is the military base.

Nemesis was the Greek goddess of retribution and vengeance, the punisher of pride and hubris, fools and hypocrites.

16BGP
Sept. 12, 2007, 4:07 am

I'm surprised that no one mentioned the mercenaries who, as they are mercenaries, would be willing to serve the federal government if it paid its army the same way that it now (thanks to #43) pays its mercenaries. I've only read passages, but Blackwater by Jeremy Scahill explores one of the most unnecessary forms of corporate exploitation (not to mention the privatization of jobs which should be administered directly by the Pentagon) that the Iraq War has spawned.

17tropics
Sept. 13, 2007, 10:17 pm

There's a disturbing article in today's Los Angeles Times about Blackwater and its mega-millionaire conservative owner, Erik Prince

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-scahill25jan25,0,4485578.st...

18varielle
Bearbeitet: Sept. 17, 2007, 5:25 pm

There is a story on NPR today that the Iraqi government is trying to throw Blackwater out for killing nine civillians last weekend. Apparently they were guarding a convoy that was attacked and a shootout ensued.

19nickhoonaloon
Sept. 18, 2007, 5:17 am

If you`re taking a close interest in the war, you may be interested in something that happened over here.

There have, inevitably, been incidents where British soldiers have been killed by `friendly fire`.

After one such incident, where a British soldier as killed by US forces, the coroner in the case asked the US if they had any footage of the incident. I presume for him to ask the question, it had been suggested that they did. Official sources said `no`.

Shortly afterwards, the same coroner turned on the TV to see oficial US footage of exactly the incident he asked about.

Understandably, he issued an order that US officials attend the hearing to explain themselves. No-one showed up.

Interestingly, though he pursued the matter enough to make waves (some believe it was a contributory factor to Blair leaving office early), the government was remarkably quiet on the matter.

On taking office, Gordon Brown quickly tried to distance himself from the US in the public mind, but shortly after that he riding around in golf buggies with President Bush. If he thinks voters are impressed when he tries to face both ways in a very short space of time (about two weeks), he must be an idiot.

I wondered, did that make the news in the US ?

20maggie1944
Sept. 18, 2007, 11:01 am

yes, I believe I read about it. There are more stories to be told about the barbarisms of this war.

21nickhoonaloon
Sept. 18, 2007, 2:39 pm

Indeed.

I find that a difficult issue, actually.

On the one hand, I think it is, quite literally, barbaric that nations turn to war to resolve their differences, and the deliberate targetting of civilians I find shocking, just as I think terrorism is contemtible and appalling.

On the other hand, are there things I think are worth fighting for ? Well, yes.

22BGP
Sept. 18, 2007, 3:05 pm

>19 nickhoonaloon:,

Yes it did, but, compared to the Pat Tillman case (Tillman, a former pro NFL star who enlisted after September 11th, was killed by friendly fire, and the nature of his death was covered up; at least eight investigations into the nature of his death took place before the President's office or the Pentagon admitted that he had died by friendly fire), it had very little effect--if any--on the general American public.

As for the Gordon Brown golf buggy (for some reason, we call them carts over here) incident, well, you can blame Bush and his handlers for that element of the press conference; there was a moment when Bush did a u turn on the cart, and you could tell by Brown's bemused expression that he was not entirely prepared for all of Bush's antics. I'm not sure how the conference was covered over there, but, over here, none of Brown's qualifiers (there weren't many, but there were some) vis a vi Bush's position were shown in the mainstream media; all of the talking points which received coverage seemed to include the phrase "we agree."

Ultimately, I would be happy to see Brown come out with more force against US policy, but I think he is trying to play the long game by emulating the coalition based pragmatism of Attlee; this war is in no way comparable to WWII, but I think Brown is banking on the fact that he (and Labour) will be given a far larger mandate by the general public if he can manage to ease Britain out of the war (as opposed to rejecting the current Anglo-American coalition with an outright, unilateral pull out). Of course, this plan could--and should--fail if the British military is unable to truly play a supportive role in its military efforts (e.g., the British death toll continues to rise, regardless of the specific tactical pullbacks).

23nickhoonaloon
Sept. 19, 2007, 3:53 am

You`re right, I`m sure. I must admit I mentioned it partly out of mischief, (I assumed the US media would have covered it up) and partly because it truly offended me that the Bush administration could, in my eyes, insult both our servicemen and our courts and (and this is the worse bit), our politicians not only do nothing, but say very little. The impression I got from the government`s response is that it was very much "who will rid me of this turbulent coroner".

So, improved my opinion fo your press, if nothing else.

The longer-term pull-out is probably the best option I agree.

Anmelden um mitzuschreiben.