Halliburton contracts in Iraq...ehhhhh?

[3278]

Compelling points, Bethyaga, both about Haliburton and Sorkin.

[ak404]

Well, it's corruption, and people in particular can only tolerate so much of it before they say enough's enough, but onto this Haliburton thing.

You'd think that with Cheney's close ties to Haliburton and the administration being awash in corporate lackeys, that Bush would take great pains to give other corporations - even corporations from other nations - a chance at Haliburton's contract, but then again, "tact" isn't exactly a word in this Adminstration's rulebook.

Yes, it stinks of corruption, and yeah, it's yet another damned coincidence in the Administration, but I think a few more facts need to be uncovered. It's not as though a single BBS can do anything to shake the government (we still need a week or two to breed the giant flying porcupines that shit cluster bombs, then it'll be a different story), but I'm not going to be too quick to say that the events of this year have been driven by greed, fear and corporate corruption, even though I may be leaning in that direction.

[Maelwys]

You'd think that with Cheney's close ties to Haliburton and the administration being awash in corporate lackeys, that Bush would take great pains to give other corporations - even corporations from other nations - a chance at Haliburton's contract, but then again, "tact" isn't exactly a word in this Adminstration's rulebook.

Um, why should the US government create a new contract for another company, when a contract to do this exact same thing already exists? That's ludicrous. What's even more ludicrous is assuming that from this rather extremely biased article, that corruption exists.

[DV8]

Where does all the money for rebuilding Iraq come from?

[FlameBlade]

I'm not talking about winners or losers. I'm talking about even field of competition for the contract itself based on company's skills.

And what does that mean exactly? I'm very serious here. Is "skills" the only thing a potential contractor brings to the table? Or does proven loyalty, valuable contacts, and an existing working relationship have value as well?

Yes--I think our hiring (and contracting) processes in government need to be "fair" to a large degree, but I've worked in government for almost a decade, and I can tell you from first hand experience that attempts at creating "fairness" seem to lead to what I consider an unacceptably difficult and unweildy process. When I worked as a social worker, the process for hiring a new worker typically took three months from the moment the position came open to the moment a new worker began training. Three months. That's unacceptable. In a large office with 50 workers, they may not notice one or two workers missing for a few months, but in my office, where we had 4, it was devastating. The contracting process can take a similarly long time, and how sad when your requirements change in the middle of a four month search for contractors, and then you have to decide to shoulder on and hope that whoever you choose can adequately match the new requirements or else start the process over.

The best contracting process (in my experience) has been where we go through the bidding and examination process and then contract a company long term to fill all needs in a specific area. We found one company to supply all our computers for a five year period, rather than bidding for every new batch that comes out. We hired a single contractor to handle our wiring needs across twenty counties, and they come out whenever we have a new project. We have a good working relationship, so there's no need to go fishing for each new project, even if someone else might get it to us cheaper. The cost savings in not having to repeat the search process and not having to re-establish a relationship makes it worth it.

So how did Haliburton and its subsidiaries win this contract originally way back in 1992? Were appropriate processes used? I assume so. And if they provided this sort of support reliably for a good eight years, then why wouldn't we extend the same contract into the current administration?

Ok. I'll take your word. You have more experience in these matters (10 years minus 3 months) than me. I know that working at NASA, if something is reliable, we re-award the contract. But still, I got my very first taste of some kind of problems with contracting. NASA budget analysis branch at where I work...at near-top level of the place where I work is trying to overhaul entire system, so people on top can do check up on lower level, and where money is going. So they contracted to a company...and 6 years...nothing. 6 million dollars for nothing (I asked several people to confirm this. This is indeed the case. Boss of my mentor told me the same thing. Ouch.). After first year, they should have something reliable, but 6 years...nothing. I'm only an intern at that time, but I already discovered many different programming errors in the system, and reported it. Eventually, I was like, fuck it, and stayed with original information that my coworkers gave me. This program was after...6 years? By looking at the system, it is obvious that any group of competent programmers can program such system in much less time, but apparently, the programmers just went ahead and try develop their own systems without actually consulting each divisions of budget management of their needs and their expectations.

In other words...sometimes, money are wasted because some company are fuckwit. Sometimes, money are wasted because someone on near the top won't swallow pride and admit that it was a mistake to waste 6 million dollars after 6 years with a company (believe it or not, the company was contracted 6 times for the same project.) and on top of that...budget analysts in a divison developed their OWN system that is vastly better than one that company's system, and already distributed to other budget analysts divisions.

Now you know how my past experience influenced me. 10 weeks was a lot for me...I learned in and out of politics in that area. It nearly drove me crazy, because way they operated...seemed so inefficient, when there are a lot of chances to be efficient.

[Cain]

Maelwys: I can see giving Cheney the benefit of the doubt, although I'd rather see him prove his innocence in court. But you don't seem to be viewing any of this as suspicious in the slightest? Why on earth is that? I feel that, at the very least, there's more than enough evidence to begin an investigation.

[DV8]

*ahem*

Where does all the money for rebuilding Iraq come from?

[FlameBlade]

*points to DV8

[DV8]

Alright, I'm going to leave myself way open for attack, because the following comment is based on rumours;

What I've heard - and this is only what I've heard, nothing official - is that there are talks that the rebuilding of Iraq is going to be paid for with Iraqi oil. Which will get the job done, don't get me wrong, but it's wrong for soooo many reasons.

[3278]

Maelwys: I can see giving Cheney the benefit of the doubt, although I'd rather see him prove his innocence in court.

"Ambiguous until proven innocent in a court of law?" Well, that makes sense; he's rich and powerful, so we don't have to be fair or just with him.

[Cain]

IMO, we've got enough evidence to push for a public investigation. Publically proving his innocence would be the best, wouldn't you say? Or do you think there's not enough circumstantial evidence to even warrant an investigation?

[Serious Paul]

Why Dennis, is it wrong?

I have an idea where you are going with this, so let me add a few other questions, that may help you illustrate your points, or maybe not.

*Would you agree that the previous Iraqi did massive amounts damage to its own economy, people and infrastructure?

*Do you think the Iraqi people will benefit from this rebuilding? Do you think they will have pride in their accomplishments, rebuilding their own country, oweing no one anything for this?

*Do you think the victor in a war has the right to set terms, even if they are unfair? I mean after all the US won. Iraq lost.

Just food for thought.

Cain: How much would all of what you are suggesting cost? Also as 32 stated, what happened to innocent until proven guilty? Do you honestly think that if people could prove wrong doing, Cheney wouldn't already be in court?

As for the appearence of impropriety, well what if I thought you were living in a way I didn't like? Do I get to lock you up? Charge you? What about slander you? How much intrusion should be subject to?

I won't say you can't question, not at all. Nor would I suggest that you are completely with out basis in your suspicions-I would however think that there are things that are of much more pressing concern than this.

[3278]

IMO, we've got enough evidence to push for a public investigation.

How's that? I mean, I really don't know enough about this to judge one way or the other, so I'm not saying there /isn't/ enough evidence. I'd just like to know what that evidence is, and what wrongdoing there is evidence of.

Publically proving his innocence would be the best, wouldn't you say?

Well, it's unethical and unconstitutional, but if that's what you mean by "best," then, uh, sure.

Or do you think there's not enough circumstantial evidence to even warrant an investigation?

Well, again, honestly, I'm not sure. I just don't know that much about this. But what you're saying isn't, "There should be an investigation," it's, "He should prove his innocence," which is the statement to which I'm objecting.

[Cain]

Ok, point taken on "proving his innocence". However, given the fact that Cheney's stocks were placed in a blind trust, and given the limitations on blind trusts, and his past connections to the Halliburton corporation, do you or do you not think that's worthy of further investigation?

In order to have enough evidence to begin a conflict of interest investigation, all one needs is reasonable evidence showing the potential for an elected official to have personally gained from a policy decision. When one considers that Cheney had a very large amount of Halliburton stock, enough to make him into a major shareholder; plus the fact that he used to work for them, plus the fact that some of his shares could not have been divested until fairly recently, plus the fact that a blind trust isn't stupid, and dumping all those shares would hurt his portfolio-- well, that sounds like more than enough for an investigation, if not a conviction.

It's very likely that Cheney is still a major shareholder in Halliburton. Of course, I can't access that data-- if I could find it, then Cheney could as well, rendering useless the entire blind trust system. Given that, and the massive amounts of profit Halliburton's shareholders stand to make from this deal, that seems like more than enough to warant an investigation. I mean, from what I've been able to discover, Cheney had close to 700,000 shares in Halliburton stock or stock options. If by his actions, he managed to raise prices by even a dollar per share, that's $700,000 he could have made-- hardly chump change.

As far as the cost goes... well, how much did we spend on prosecuting Clinton? We had a lot more pressing things then, too; beginning impeachment proceedings over what amounts to sexual impropriety really sounded like sheer pissiness then. However, what we have here is what, on the surface, appears to be a massive profiteering move. Rather it is or not, I can't tell, and I'll leave that to the investigators. IMO, that's a great deal more serious than a perjury charge.

SP: You can't really *prove* wrongdoing until the matter is investigated. There may or may not be enough evidence to file charges, none of us know for certain. However, investigating the facts is a different matter. Oh, and trying to block an investigation, like what happened during the Enron debacle, won't help matters and would be worthy of an "obstruction of justice" charge.

Bottom line? Does anyone actually think this doesn't deserve further investigation?

[Bethyaga]

And yet the contract in question was originally approved in 1992, long before this current position made it any sort of conflict of interest. If anyone can provide any evidence that the contract was originally awarded unfairly in 1992, then we'll look into it, but that process would have nothing to do with Cheney's current position or his current administration. The original contract ran through 1999. When was it decided it would be extended? In 1999? Under Clinton? Or was the extension made recently only as the need for it arose? If so, then would the same extension offer had been made if the need arose before Clinton left office? After all,the Clinton administration had a working relationship with Haliburton for seven years. Would they have continued it? Would the same extension decision have been made under a Gore administration?

Please, first someone show me that this decision was made by the current administration in some way. And then please someone give me some evidence that this decision was maybe made inappropriately and wasn't just "business as usual" that would have happened under any administration. Give me something.

What we have so far is: "There is a working relationship that exists between the federal government and Haliburton. It is possible that the current vice-president will profit from that relationship on leaving office." That's not an inditement. That's not evidence. Heck, when examined this way, it's not even all that suspicious. What we really have is the possibility of suspicion. Someone give me more. I know there's got to be a hundred journalists digging into this, scrapping for any piece of laundry they can find. Show me what they have.

[Cain]

Well, it appears that the normal procedure for this sort of contract is to go through a competitive bidding process. However, Halliburton hasn't been competing, and they've recieved several lucrative contracts for work both in Afghanistan and Iraq. The specific contract in question wasn't made in 1992; that was the start of similar contracts.

From what I can tell, each new area of warfare recieves it's own contract. Halliburton has been a primary, but not the only, supplier. Suddenly, however, they're the exclusive supplier; with no or minimal competition, and have been allowed to completely skip the bidding process for some other contracts.

You may be right, Bethy-- by itself, this one contract might not be enough to raise suspicion. But combined with the other contract Halliburton's recieved?

Oh, and one more note to SP: Others have asked for an investigation. Cheney may or may not be guilty of corruption and profiteering; that's something a judge will decide, not me. But a GAO investigation is what you do as a precursor to a trial, assuming the investigation uncovers enough evidence to bring before a judge.

[3278]

However, given the fact that Cheney's stocks were placed in a blind trust, and given the limitations on blind trusts, and his past connections to the Halliburton corporation, do you or do you not think that's worthy of further investigation?

Well, no, but I don't understand what it is that you think he did wrong.

Let's play a little game everyone loves, called Earl's an Idiot; briefly, succinctly, tell me what laws you think Cheney has broken, and what evidence you have of that breach. I'm not necessarily asking you to dig up any more than you have, I'm just saying, if you were the prosecutor, and you were talking to someone who knew nothing about this, and you needed to convince them of the need for an investigation, what, exactly, would you say?

[Cain]

Ok. Bear in mind, I do not think there's enough evidence to convict just yet, only enough for an investigation. I cannot prove things beyond a reasonable doubt, I can only provide suspicion.

The crimes involved are Criminal Profiteering, namely securites fraud and insider trading, as well as abuse of power. The Vice-president is also prohibted from using the office for personal gain; there are some very strict regulations on what kinds of gifts he can accept while in office, and he is forbidden to make a profit off his job duties.

Now, we know that Cheney was a major shareholder in Halliburton. Because of how blind trusts operate, it is most likely that he still is a major shareholder, and he is aware of that fact. Further it appears he has hundreds of thousands of stock options, which will not mature for several years, and which cannot be divested. COmbined, that means he stands to make a tremendous profit if Halliburton stock increases in price.

So, the next fact is that Halliburton and/or it's subsidiaries have recieved contracts worth a very great deal of money, one of which is unprecedented in scope, and neither of which required competitive bidding. Any corporation who recieved a major contract without going through competitive bidding is worth a closer look; any corporation who recieved a contract of unprecedented size, especially one allowing for unlimited capital, is definitely one that requires close observation. Combine the two, and you have a very suspicious situation without obvious political connections.

Add to this the massive amount of money Cheney stands to gain from Halliburton. The dividends alone are worth a fortune; but it's the stock options that are the clincher. Cheney has the right to buy X amount of Halliburton stock at a fixed price (I believe, the 1992 price, although I'm not sure); the higher the stock price rises, the more he stands to gain. Similarily, if the stock price plummets to below that amount, those options become worthless, wiping out a significant portion of his net worth. He thus clearly stands to lose a great deal if Halliburton doesn't maintain their stock values, and stands to profit incredibly if they rise significantly.

Now, Halliburton has been losing money as of late. The public announcement of these contracts will likely make their stock value rise, however, more than offsetting their current losses in the eyes of investors. And by doing so, Cheney not only prevents himself from losing money, but stands to make a tremendous amount.

Any of these points is worthy of a closer look by itself. Combined, they should be worth a full investigation, wouldn't you say? As I said, it's not enough for a conviction, but it is enough to start questioning matters very seriously.

[ak404]

Alright, I'm going to leave myself way open for attack, because the following comment is based on rumours;

What I've heard - and this is only what I've heard, nothing official - is that there are talks that the rebuilding of Iraq is going to be paid for with Iraqi oil. Which will get the job done, don't get me wrong, but it's wrong for soooo many reasons.

IOW, we break it, they pay for it, but they don't get to choose the company, they don't get to choose the government, they don't get to write the constitution, they don't get to vote for their officials, they don't get to participate in anything, and when (or if) they do, the US government can step in and prevent any decisions they don't think are "appropriate."

No, that makes perfect sense. After all, they're just Arabs.

[DV8]

Why Dennis, is it wrong?

Because, if it is true - and I'm not saying it is, they are just rumours after all - then it would essentially mean that the United States and Britian went to war with Iraq because they suspected caches of weapons of mass destruction to be in the possession of the Hussein regime, ending up not having any proof of such weapons caches, kicking the shit out of a bunch of stuff, disposing of the ruler, and rebuilding it with Iraqi money.

Weapons of mass desctruction: I think this has been covered enough, we really don't need to get back into that idiocy.

Disposing of the ruler of Iraq: Well, thumbs up...it was generally accepted that he was a bad guy, even if there is no proof of the validity of the charge laid out against him, he still needed to go. No harm done there.

Kicked the shit out of a bunch of stuff: If you want to make an omelette... It could've been much worse.

Rebuilding Iraq with Iraqi money: No matter how you turn this, no matter how good this might be for the Iraqi's; The war on Iraq will essentially be paid with Iraqi money. The war did the economy a ton of good - like all war does when it's not domestic and doesn't last too long - and now money flows from Iraq to the United States as the contracts go to American companies.

*Would you agree that the previous Iraqi did massive amounts damage to its own economy, people and infrastructure?

It's not as black or white as you claim it to be, but _I_ think so, which is hardly truth, it's merely my opinion.

*Do you think the Iraqi people will benefit from this rebuilding? Do you think they will have pride in their accomplishments, rebuilding their own country, oweing no one anything for this?

No, because they're not rebuilding their own country. Companies from the United States are doing it. It's forced import, for chrissakes!

*Do you think the victor in a war has the right to set terms, even if they are unfair? I mean after all the US won. Iraq lost.

Christ, you can be so simple sometimes. If you are going to take the moral high ground and dispose of what you think is a bad leader, for "the good of the Iraqi people", and you use spurious accusations to do so, then do _what is right for the Iraqi people!_ Don't then turn around and forcefully sluice millions of Iraqi dollars into your own economy.

They're paying for their own fucking demise!

[Salvation122]

I'm not certain that they have the infrastructure and expretise to rebuild their own country, Deev. And if we're paying for it with Iraqi money... so what? I mean, really. It's not like we're batering, and it's not as though we'd be taking /all/ oil profits to pay for our services.

Think about it. How would they pay for it if they were rebuilding it, Deev? With oil. So we're not stealing it, and we're rebuilding almost certainly better than they could.

[ratlaw]

I'm not certain that they have the infrastructure and expretise to rebuild their own country, Deev. And if we're paying for it with Iraqi money... so what? I mean, really. It's not like we're batering, and it's not as though we'd be taking /all/ oil profits to pay for our services.

Think about it. How would they pay for it if they were rebuilding it, Deev? With oil. So we're not stealing it, and we're rebuilding almost certainly better than they could.

Actually, no we're not. By letting Iraqis put together companies in a freely competitive market to compete for rebuilding Iraq and paying /them/ with Iraq's oil profits, we'd be doing several very useful things (for Iraq). One, we'd be creating a host of jobs that don't currently exist. Two, we'd be creating businesses and bussiness leaders to create an economy that doesn't currently exist. Three, the money made from selling oil would be staying in Iraq and fueling the Iraqi economy. Four, we wouldn't look like greedy assholes on the world stage.

The issue here isn't using oil money for rebuilding, the issue here is using Iraq's oil money to improve the American economy at the expense of developing necessary economic infrastructure within Iraq. Dennis has a very valid point: we went to war with Saddam for our interests, but also in the interests of the Iraqi people (so we claimed). We should construct the peace the same, and pouring their major national resource into our economy is hardly doing them any favors.

[DV8]

I'm not certain that they have the infrastructure and expretise to rebuild their own country, Deev. And if we're paying for it with Iraqi money... so what? I mean, really. It's not like we're batering, and it's not as though we'd be taking /all/ oil profits to pay for our services.

Think about it. How would they pay for it if they were rebuilding it, Deev? With oil. So we're not stealing it, and we're rebuilding almost certainly better than they could.

Don't be daft, Sal. It's not about that. It's about the fact that there's no other place that the money goes but the USA. They made damned sure that _they_ were on the receiving end of all that Iraqi oil _AND_ sluiced the money they pay for it back into their own economy. The Iraqi's are getting raped twice!

[DV8]

Oh, and thanks for backing up my point, Ratlaw. I mean, it's a insane thought that it would happen, which is why I'm asking the question where the money comes from, because I'm hoping someone can debase these rumours.

[3278]

Are rumors all these are? I mean, do we have nothing but word-of-mouth that we're using Iraqi oil money to pay for the rebuilding? I haven't heard anything either way, so it's hard for me to judge.

If we are using Iraqi oil money to rebuild Iraq, what would be the correct thing to do instead? Should we pay for the rebuilding ourselves? Or should we say, "Hey, we cleared up that problem for you, and we're taking off now. Have fun!"

It's hard for me to judge the relative morality of the issue when I don't really know what we're /supposed/ to do in this situation.

[ratlaw]

The last I had heard was that the plan was to use Iraq's oil money to pay for rebuilding, but that some oil industry experts were prediciting that Iraq's oil infrastructure wouldn't be capable of supporting the costs in the short or medium term. This was on the News Hour with Jim Lehrer a few weeks back.

[DV8]

32, I don't think it's a problem that they use their oil to pay for the rebuilding of their country, though I think it's fair that the United States helps out a bit with that, too. And Britain. But what is most important is that they decide themselves with whom they do business, who will land the multi-million dollar contracts, wether it American or Burmese.

It just smells like a backhanded way to get their hands on some cheap Iraqi oil and boost the economy through destruction of a country. Especially considering that the reason for going to war turns out to be completely spurious.

[ratlaw]

See my post here about the strategic value of being in Iraq. The war wasn't about WMD, terrorism, helping Iraq or getting their oil, at least not exclusively or primarily. It was about fundamentally changing the political balance in the Middle East in favor of the United States and Western interests. Personally, I think in the long run that won't necessarily be contrary to the interests of the people in the Middle East, but it isn't necessarily to their benefit either. So in that sense the /reason/ for going to war isn't spurious. The justifications for going to war, or at least two of the major ones, are.

[Serious Paul]

Because, if it is true - and I'm not saying it is, they are just rumours after all - then it would essentially mean that the United States and Britian went to war with Iraq because they suspected caches of weapons of mass destruction to be in the possession of the Hussein regime, ending up not having any proof of such weapons caches, kicking the shit out of a bunch of stuff, disposing of the ruler, and rebuilding it with Iraqi money.

And? A state exercised its right to make war. They most likely did so with less than honorable intentions, or by being less than honest?

Par for the course to me.

Weapons of mass desctruction: I think this has been covered enough, we really don't need to get back into that idiocy.

Okay.

Disposing of the ruler of Iraq: Well, thumbs up...it was generally accepted that he was a bad guy, even if there is no proof of the validity of the charge laid out against him, he still needed to go. No harm done there.

Unless you are said ruler, or anyone close to him. But I pretty much agree.

Kicked the shit out of a bunch of stuff: If you want to make an omelette... It could've been much worse.

I may not agree with how you word it, but I do agree it could have been worse all around.

Rebuilding Iraq with Iraqi money: No matter how you turn this, no matter how good this might be for the Iraqi's; The war on Iraq will essentially be paid with Iraqi money.

I am not sure I believe this totally. Its too simplistic. With out seeing how the figures break down, simply saying they are paying for the war seems narrow.

The war did the economy a ton of good - like all war does when it's not domestic and doesn't last too long - and now money flows from Iraq to the United States as the contracts go to American companies.

The United States isn't the only nation to benefit, should they all be punished? Iraq may yet stand to profit, and while I may agree that the market may not be as free as US idealists make it sound, the people get food, water and stuff out of this, is that so bad?

Should they be forced to allow their country to be turned into a free for all? Also who is the Iraqi people? Who represents them, makes their decisions? This sounds like horse trading to me.

It's not as black or white as you claim it to be, but _I_ think so, which is hardly truth, it's merely my opinion.

I claimed nothing, I asked questions. I wanted to help you and this discussion move forward. I asked for your opinion, obviously I value it at times.

Why I'll never know....

No, because they're not rebuilding their own country. Companies from the United States are doing it. It's forced import, for chrissakes!

SO where are all the Iraqi companies to take the US corporate presence's place? Or should we use European contractors? Again this sounds like horse trading to me. And while we trade horse and talk about ideals, people starve, and die.

Christ, you can be so simple sometimes.

Well thank you. I consider it a blessing to keep it simple, instead of over analyzing life.

If you are going to take the moral high ground

But I'm not. In fact I consider War Fare outside the realm of morality. I have said repeatedly, and will say it again:

Morality has no place in War Fare, War is an amoral act. Morality and war fare are like pigs with perfume.

...and dispose of what you think is a bad leader,

Any one who stays in power for twenty some odd years can't be a bad leader. Any time you smack a rhino, you can get trampled.

...for "the good of the Iraqi people"...

Like I care whats good for them. Or you. Or any one who isn't American. You kill me Dennis.

...and you use spurious accusations to do so...

If they are spurious.

Personally I would have loved to have seen Bush say something like:

"Yo, you dissed my bitch, so I have to pop a cap in yo' assz."

That would have been fucking awesome.

then do _what is right for the Iraqi people!

If they are doing the right thing, which considering its the Government, probably not. We can fuck up a wet dream if we try.

Don't then turn around and forcefully sluice millions of Iraqi dollars into your own economy.

Why?

They're paying for their own fucking demise!

How so?

You seem so angry Denny, take a breather man. I think Ratlaw has a good point in all this. Iraq as it is now presents so many intresting options to the US,a nd the World. Does Joe Raghead think that this is all in his best intrest or done in Allahs name? Most likely not. Will this be another Middle Kingdom fiasco? Maybe. Could it result in a change in the balance of power in the Middle East? Maybe.

Hell if I know.

All war is cheap.

[DV8]

Or any one who isn't American.

We can't discuss this properly if you're not interested in anything past your front door. You're confirming the horrible stereotype. Thanks for listening, though.

[3278]

Or any one who isn't American.

We can't discuss this properly if you're not interested in anything past your front door.

You can't discuss it properly if he doesn't care about people he doesn't know in countries he doesn't live in, to whom he has neither obligation nor loyalty? I think it's incredibly closed-minded to refuse to have an intelligent conversation on the grounds that someone else cares about different things than you do.

[DV8]

Of course you would.

The way I see things is that it requires compassion and understanding to discuss these things properly. Paul tells me that he doesn't care. Alright, case closed. The discussion will be fruitless if riddled with apathy, because, you know, who cares, right? I'm not going to sit here and have Paul not care about anything, it will ultimately be a waste of my time as well as his.

Now if he would care, and had a different opinion, that would be a different matter altogether, but basic caring has to be there, otherwise, what's the point?

This is the reason I try to avoid talking to Paul about international matters simply because he always falls back on "America Uber Alles" and shrugs anything that others value as important that's not directly in his sphere of influence and/or understanding off as "for other people to worry about." Or even worse; "It doesn't matter what you think because we have the bombs."

If it's so unimportant, then why interject your opinion about how unimportant it all is in a discussion between people who _do_ think it's important?

[Disclaimer: Everything between "" aren't quotes by Paul, they're concepts.]

[3278]

The way I see things is that it requires compassion and understanding to discuss these things properly.

And the way I see things, there's no "proper" way to discuss these things. Paul's point of view isn't less valid because it lacks what you consider to be the correct amount of compassion, any more than your point of view would be less valid than that of someone who favored a more compassionate stance than you. Paul's loyalties lie in a different realm than your own; that doesn't mean you should ignore him. In fact, it's the very difference of his point of view that makes the conversation valuable; otherwise, you may as well sit in a room and listen to yourself talk.

Now if he would care, and had a different opinion, that would be a different matter altogether, but basic caring has to be there, otherwise, what's the point?

"It doesn't matter," isn't a valid viewpoint? You refuse to discuss it with Paul because his opinion is that it doesn't matter? Perhaps the point is for you to discover that it doesn't matter, or for Paul to discover that it does, or for other people to more solidly ground their opinions on the matter. Perhaps the point is just to hear a point of view that isn't your own.

This is the reason I try to avoid talking to Paul about international matters simply because he always falls back on "America Uber Alles" and shrugs anything that others value as important that's not directly in his sphere of influence and/or understanding off as "for other people to worry about."

How would you react if someone terminated a conversation with you because any conversation you have about international matters always comes back to internationalism, or "international responsibility?"

I don't think you /could/ reply to Paul's post. It's long, it's chaotic, and most of his arguments are impossible to attack because they're so alien to common wisdom. I think you couldn't write an effective reply, but you had too much pride to just let it be. But I'm just speculating; a guess is only as good as the guesser.

[DV8]

And the way I see things, there's no "proper" way to discuss these things.

Stalemate. Now what? Meta-arguing? Sure...here we go.

Paul's point of view isn't less valid because it lacks what you consider to be the correct amount of compassion, any more than your point of view would be less valid than that of someone who favored a more compassionate stance than you. *snip driftwood comments*

If I want to talk about how morality has no place in war fare, and how war is an amoral act, then Paul will be the first person I visit. You see, I don't want to talk about that, I want to figure out where the money is coming from that is being used to rebuild Iraq, and what people's opinions are about Iraqi oil and money flowing into the American economy, as soon as he's ready to discuss _that,_ I'll be all ears. But he doesn't want to discuss that, he's much more content to say; "Dennis, drop your Rage Against the Machine-isms and simply accept that war is hell, and that the Iraqi's are fucked - not proper fucked, just fucked - because they aren't under the protectorate of Pax Americana. We're taking it all, just suck the pain, boyo." To which I'll say; "I'd rather not accept that, thank you. Can we get back to my question now?"

You refuse to discuss it with Paul because his opinion is that it doesn't matter?

Yes, in essence, I suppose so. You see, I don't want to have a discussion on wether or not he should care, I want to have a dicussion about the good of the Iraqi people. Unlike some people on this board, I don't just want to be heard in every thread, no matter how unfounded and baseless my post is, or how irrelevant it is to the current subject.

Again, I didn't ask my question because I wanted to hear how completely hardcore Paul was for not giving a shit about innocent Iraqi lives, or any life that's not American. I really don't think isolationism has a place in a discussion about international affairs, and Paul keeps interjecting his isolationist views in exactly those types of threads. Normally I couldn't give a shit, because those threads I try to avoid like the plague because it's full of people who debate about things they hardly know anything about, for the simple enjoyment of debating - not to find a common ground, a common truce...but simply to debate - but this time he used his isolationist views to answer my question...well, actually no, he didn't, he just threw his viewpoints out there, without regard of what was actually being talked about.

"So what about apples?"
"I don't care about apples! People should simply accept that apples get eaten or fall of a tree and be done with it."
"Ehm...no. So what about apples?"

How would you react if someone terminated a conversation with you because any conversation you have about international matters always comes back to internationalism, or "international responsibility?"

It's absolutely irrelevant, Paul's reaction, and my opinion of his reaction are not the point here. So far, he hasn't even reacted. But if you must know; the way I always react to your posts when you're being dismissive or unnecessarily argumentative.

I think you couldn't write an effective reply, but you had too much pride to just let it be.

Yes, I most assuredly could. I didn't for two reasons; 1) I hate meta-arguing. 2) My reply would be as chaotic and my arguments wouldn't make any sense either. And I really don't think one dumb posts needs to be followed up with another.

In that spirit; can we drop this needlessly argumentative meta-debate and get back to the rebuilding of Iraq?