More missing oil money

[Critta]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/file_on_4/4216853.stm

This kind of thing surely doesn't help the US position in Iraq, is it just me or does more and more money keep going missing, last time we discussed this it was 4bn, now 9bn missing?

[stats]

Dirty

[Karmashock]

from what we can see, it's stolen... mostly by iraqis... they say they've got 3000 people on a pay role and we can only find 200 people when we do an audit.

You'd typically control this situation in a revolutionary society by just killing people for this and calling it treason.

However, the US will just take the hit and let them live.

Seriously... can you think of any revolution where people that did that didn't lose their heads?... there aren't any... capital offense... death...

But our money makes that unnecessary.

Those bastards had better thank god for the near bottomless pockets of the American tax payer.

[shutupandshave]

from what we can see, it's stolen... mostly by iraqis...

I dont see anything that suggests that in the link?

Seriously... can you think of any revolution where people that did that didn't lose their heads?... there aren't any... capital offense... death...

The velvet revolution.

[Karmashock]

I didn't read the link... I got the information from our sources. The money goes to fund iraqi insitutions... these are staffed by iraqis... and money goes missing.


as to velvet, why do you think that is? The US and Europe were there too... footing the bill.

If people steal and it threatens the solvency of your government, then it's treason... ie death in any age.

[shutupandshave]

as to velvet, why do you think that is? The US and Europe were there too... footing the bill.
Maybe so, but it was still there, and it was still peaceful.

It's possible.

The US footed the bill for the Velvet revolution?

[Critta]

I didn't read the link... I got the information from our sources. The money goes to fund iraqi insitutions... these are staffed by iraqis... and money goes missing.

Incorrect, the money goes towards the contracts granted to facilitate the rebuilding of Iraq. I have posted below a list of all the verified Interim Government contracts (note we are only looking at those where the "Type of Funds" is DFI)
http://www.cpa-ig.com/pdf/table_j_1_verified_contracts_updated.pdf

Take a look for yourself, the vast majority of contracts are to Western Companies. Including a large amount to Kellogg, Brown and Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton in non-bidded contracts. Last time I checked, Dick Cheaney used to run Halliburton before he was vice-president. Not surprising really.

The CPA inspectors also seem to have different ideas as to the cause of the missing money.

http://www.iraqrevenuewatch.org/reports/092404.shtml

America invades countries... sets up provisional governments... staffed by Americans... mismanaged... and money goes missing.

[Karmashock]

The US footed the bill for the Velvet revolution?
Like Iraq, that nation's future was backed by US and European money and power.

Any loss of money would have been donated or loaned if the loss of htat money threatened the nation's future.

Dispite what you seem to think, we do have very strong beliefs and morals. Especially the neocons... of which I am a member. We want freedom for the world... the whole world.

Incorrect, the money goes towards the contracts granted to facilitate the rebuilding of Iraq. I have posted below a list of all the verified Interim Government contracts (note we are only looking at those where the "Type of Funds" is DFI)
http://www.cpa-ig.com/pdf/table_j_1_verified_contracts_updated.pdf

Take a look for yourself, the vast majority of contracts are to Western Companies. Including a large amount to Kellogg, Brown and Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton in non-bidded contracts. Last time I checked, Dick Cheaney used to run Halliburton before he was vice-president. Not surprising really.
Any US company that steals money will just get audited. Haliburton over charged us on some stuff, and we told them to give it back in teh audit. They gave it back.

If US companies took this money, then we'll run the numbers and get nearly all of it back.

America invades countries... sets up provisional governments... staffed by Americans... mismanaged... and money goes missing.
Dispite what you think, our book keeping is better then most european nations. The fact that we catch it, is a testement to this fact.


If US companies did this, then we'll find it in the books and get teh money back.

[Shackled Phoenix]

America invades countries... sets up provisional governments... staffed by Americans... mismanaged... and money goes missing.

So... we spend countless billions of dollars to invade the country... to steal 9 billion dollars from it's Oil? give the state's intelligence a little bit more credit then that.

The biggest proof that america did not go into iraq for profit, is the sheer amount we have spent on this war, and continue the spend.

I fail to see the logic in your argument here.

This is not to say that there aren't corrupt american officials handling iraqi money. It is quite plausible. But you can't say that "america" does this, for one corrupt individual, or even several, does not make "america".

[MVB]

Shackled wins; besides, while Critta argues well and provides evidence to back up his claims, they're almost always heavily slanted against America to begin with. A reason I've tried not to start many debates here anymore is that my own opinions are irrevocably biased FOR America, because I find our nation to be a wonderful place.

Anywho, Shackled's point is the correct one. The US has not stolen any money in Iraq; at the worst, corrupt individuals have done so, and that does not make the US. I do not believe Americans are any more or less likely to commit corrupt acts than individuals from any other nations, either, so this "argument" proves nothing about America, only that individuals -- in any circumstance -- will take advantage of what opportunities present themselves.

[Karmashock]

furthermore, 5 billion is a petty amount of money... even to Halliburton... it isn't worth it.

Don't look at things as being '5,000,000,000' dollars... look at it as being 10~20 percent of their annual income. That isn't big enough to justify the risk. For the US, we have a 12,000,000,000,000 dollar a year economy... 5 billion is chump change. Even the Federal government has an annual budget of about 2,000,000,000,000 dollars a year. Five billion... what would that buy us? We're 300,000,000 million people that produce about 40,000 dollars in capital wealth a year... each.

things must be seen in proportion. Accusing the US of stealing 5 billion is like accusing a millionare of sneaking into children's homes to steal piggy banks. Even if we were that immoral, we're not that stupid.

We went for ideological reasons... We want people to be free.

[Critta]

I didn't read the link... I got the information from our sources. The money goes to fund iraqi insitutions... these are staffed by iraqis... and money goes missing.
America invades countries... sets up provisional governments... staffed by Americans... mismanaged... and money goes missing.

There was no logic with this argument, and at no point do I even suggest America stole the money. it was a sarcastic pass at Karma's outright declaration of Iraqi guilt in the matter. When will you people learn, if you make incorrect blanket accusations against another nation, I will make blanket accusations against America. It winds me up when you do it, it winds you up when I do it.

I was not accusing the US of stealing anything, however mentioned in several of the news reports which I have read are examples of things such as CPA officials taking bribes, contractual prcedures not being followed, contracts with absolutely no paperwork. Please bear in mind also that the CPA was a joint operation between all the countries in the coalition, there fault is not all with the US here.

This link (http://www.iraqrevenuewatch.org/reports/120604.shtml) provides a little information about some of the mispractices which were found which can be proved from the figures and paperwork. Problems such as bribes and theft cannot be proven with the available information, and as the CPA does not exist any more it's not exactly as if there is any accountability there.

All I am trying to suggest is that this sham of a provisional government is

a) Not a good example to set to the Iraqi's on how to run a fair, accountable and transparent government.
b) Wasting and possibly stealing both Iraqi and American taxpayers money

I still don't buy your going in for ideological reasons, we went in after WMD expecting a short war and occupation, we were not prepared for the level of insurgency we encountered and as such the war has gone on a lot longer and cost a lot more than first expected.

Had the war been as short as planned ("we win" declared in 2 weeks, low level insurgency, 3-4 months occupation and then handover of power to a democratic government), International companies would have stood to make a large amount of money from rebuilding what the army had destroyed.

You couldn't enter WWII for ideological reasons whist your allies were being systematically conquered by Hitler, you needed to be attacked then.

What is to make me believe that your nature (and indeed human nature) has changed enough to make you suddenly want to invade a non-agressive country half way round the world and spend millions of dollars doing it without some kind of compensation at the end of it.

Look at my suggestion, it was obvious the allies were expecting a short campaign, it's not exactly if Iraq had the biggest army in the world after the millitary sanctions it had been under for the past decade. After the success with the invasion of Afghanistan and destroying the Taliban, I think your millitary fancied their chances in Iraq.

Can nobody else see the potential economic gain that Iraq would have been seen as?

[shutupandshave]

Like Iraq, that nation's future was backed by US and European money and power.
Strange, my Czech economist wife says that you're completely wrong. In fact she laughed.

staffed by Americans... mismanaged... and money goes missing.
Shackled and MVB, I think here Critta says that it was not Americans, not America that was taking the money. I dont think he had the heart to point it out after you all rallied together in your joint rage at the injustice of the US of A being implicated.

Karma you're right. It's a small amount of money. No one stole it.
It's still there.

Reminds me of a chat I once had with an FC member at a fest. His new PC that he loved was broken... I had a look at it, and I thought the motherboard was dodgy
"oh no it cant be the motherboard he said", so we changed the processor, and still no problems, I went through and explained why it couldn't be anything else... however he insisted it wasn't the motherboard.
If he insists one item after another that nothing is broken, then surely the PC works fine?

You say it's mostly the Iraqi's that stole all this money but there's no evidence, Critta says it's mostly the Americans and you ignore his evidence for whatever reason (perhaps it's not true).
Therefore, no one took the money and it's still there.

[Karmashock]

I still don't buy your going in for ideological reasons, we went in after WMD expecting a short war and occupation, we were not prepared for the level of insurgency we encountered and as such the war has gone on a lot longer and cost a lot more than first expected.
First, there is no way I can convince you of our sincerity... your mind is closed.

The US = the great satan.

Thank you and whoever programmed your ass.

as to us being unprepared... Bullshit... we expected a lot of horse shit from these people. Did we match it perfectly? No, we're learning how to fight wars like this basically from scratch... but we did expect suicide bombers and road side bombs.

You couldn't enter WWII for ideological reasons whist your allies were being systematically conquered by Hitler, you needed to be attacked then.
Minus ideology we would have allied with hilter and japan. They're stronger nations. Together we could have crushed the british insurrection and then encircled russia.

Instead of the US pumping up england, we'd be pumping up Germany...


It would be a slaughter...


It was also totally against what we believed. If you don't see the ideology, then you're just totally fucking blind.

What is to make me believe that your nature (and indeed human nature) has changed enough to make you suddenly want to invade a non-agressive country half way round the world and spend millions of dollars doing it without some kind of compensation at the end of it.
The pay off is a free world. Think of it like joining the neighborhood watch and chasing down a burglar even if they didn't steal anything from you. Just to improve the community.

That's what we're doing.

Look at my suggestion, it was obvious the allies were expecting a short campaign,
No, we expected any force that stood and engaged us to fall. That did happen. We were well aware that we'd be fighting an insurgency war from the beginning. This is in part why we obliterated the iraqi forces instead of allowing them to run away. No living to fight another day.

Can nobody else see the potential economic gain that Iraq would have been seen as?
PERSPECTIVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HOW MUCH DID IRAQ COST!!! ANSWER THAT!!!

DAMN YOU"RE STUPID!!!

*kicks wall*
how many times do we have to explain this shit?

motherfuckshit... There is NO WAY TO MAKE THAT MONEY BACK!

If you tell me not to use caps, then it falls on deaf ears... this is the 5th time I've explained this and I'm fucking tired of it.


Shackled pointed it out again... talking to you is like trying to communicate with a tenderized squid...


*leaves conversation due to the abject futility of it all*

[Karmashock]

I saw my name and so will answer this last post in this thread... continuing further is just too f'ing annoying.
Strange, my Czech economist wife says that you're completely wrong. In fact she laughed.
If she thinks her nation became free in a vacuum, then she's deluded herself.

also, if she's an economist, then have her set you straight on your various issues...

funny that you had to go to "the pub" to get wisdom in that econ thread when your wife should have had all the answers... but whatever...

You say it's mostly the Iraqi's that stole all this money but there's no evidence, Critta says it's mostly the Americans and you ignore his evidence for whatever reason (perhaps it's not true).
Therefore, no one took the money and it's still there.
he only has speculation...

[Critta]

First, there is no way I can convince you of our sincerity... your mind is closed.

The US = the great satan.

Very much incorrect, it is very easy to change my mind, however you need to use a more persuasive argument than, "we're nice, trust me, but we will crush anyone who opposes what we believe in"

I disagree in principle with a lot of US millitary & intelligence decisions, both past and recent as I have explained. I do not think the US is Satan, more that you are abusing your position as only superpower in the world. I also believe that

It does piss me off somewhat that not only do you not read my posts correctly, you also presume to be able to decide what my thoughts are as well.

Minus ideology we would have allied with hilter and japan. They're stronger nations. Together we could have crushed the british insurrection and then encircled russia.

You have entirely missed my point here, you said that you went into Iraq because your ideology states that people to be free.

My point was that this sacred ideology is enough to justify a pre-emptive war against a state which was not a threat to you to gain the freedom of some people who you have no ties to in any way, it was however, not enough to justify entering a war which was in the process of removing the freedom of the majority of your allies.

Basically you are saying that you have an ideology of freedom which only applies on the offence, not on the defence.

Feel free to correct me if I have come to the wrong conclusion.

The pay off is a free world. Think of it like joining the neighborhood watch and chasing down a burglar even if they didn't steal anything from you. Just to improve the community.

The pay off is one nation which may or may not end up free, depending on the results of the democratic process you have put into place.

This is a hell of a long way from a free world. As far as your metaphor goes, I see it more like joining the neighbourhood watch then proceeding to chase down and beat to a pulp someone who one of your neighbours had gossiped to you about being "a bit shifty".

As far as the money side goes, the US was aiming for a short war, IF this had happened, you woulc have stood to profit from the war a great deal. However the insurgency prevented a short war and now it is costing you a great deal of money.

Shackled et al misunderstood me at first due to assuming you all knew how I was thinking, you however had repeatedly done so. Oh, and whatever happened to not insulting people unless they did so to you first?

Whatever happened to not insulting people unless you were insulted first?

[Critta]

he only has speculation...

Backed up by a CPA-IG report, which is a lot les than you have given to back up any of your claims.

[shutupandshave]

funny that you had to go to "the pub" to get wisdom in that econ thread when your wife should have had all the answers... but whatever...
As I have said on many occasions, the pub comment was an analogy and not really happened.

Strange how you conveniently forget facts when it suits you.

As for the economy side of her, she got a first, and was awarded something from the government for being top in the region or country at economics. She has set me straight on a few things, which is why whenever we've been able to prove anything in our economics arguments, I've been in the right :).

Karma, from what source did you get your idea that the US brokered and paid for the velvet revolution?

[Morpheus]

US is not Satan, but it is very far from God, too.

And if I understood right, didn't US enter WWII after they were attacked by Japan, whose ally was Germany? From that, I do not see any ideological reasons for that war whatsoever.

[shutupandshave]

Well the US had been supplying the UK with supplies during the war - the lend-lease act I believe it was called, so it was involved before then.

US is not Satan, but it is very far from God, too.
I wouldn't say that most of it's people are too far from good though. I have a lot of time for a lot of Americans. I think it's just the realisation that there is a world out there, and it's bigger than America - would make me happy.... apparently US football players are significantly larger than Rugby players over the world, and also the US bankrolled the velvet revolution in Czechoslovakia.
Not only that, but it was a US ship that found the enigma machine, and Americans that decoded the Enigma code. There were no British in World War II other than the occasional cigar smoking, scotch drinking eccentric. Not to mention the US waltzed in out of the goodness of their hearts and bailed us out (and the bailing out part, I dont particularly disagree or agree with - for me the jury is out, however I think it demonstrates the manners of some people, to continually bring it up).

Anyway.

As I said, I like most Americans, and for the most part America is pretty cool. I just have issues with the way it's headed, and what's happened in the last few years.

[Morpheus]

I think that the big deal in here - people have become complacent. As long as the big majority enjoys their lives, noone really cares that much about what's going on outside their own circle. They can chat and discuss it, but actually caring about issues - not really. And by caring I mean really caring about who or what to vote for - doing the research, looking at the numbers. When leaders don't deliver - kick them to the curb, no second chances. US maybe the strongest coutry in many categories, but that does not mean that we can say: "See, we're the best, we don't need to improve because everyone else is worse than us anyways, and if you don't agree, you suck anyways, your opinion doesn't matter."

[MightyDWC]

All i got to say is the UN was on the take from Iraq, as well as several nations. Saddem was using the money from the Oil for Food program to build palaces and Pure Gold Thrones for himself and his sons while his people suffered. The other nations that were on the take from Saddam were supposed to try and preasure the UN to lift sanctions on Iraq, thus allowing Saddam to rebuild his WMD program. Two of those nations were Germany and France. I have nothing against Germans or French, I blame their goverments. Why do you think they wouldn't help us when we went in to take Saddam out? But OHHHHHHH after we did the job they want to reep the spoils?

[Shackled Phoenix]

There was no logic with this argument, and at no point do I even suggest America stole the money. it was a sarcastic pass at Karma's outright declaration of Iraqi guilt in the matter. When will you people learn, if you make incorrect blanket accusations against another nation, I will make blanket accusations against America.

Might wanna phrase stuff more carefully then, sarcasma and such is hard to express with text. Surely you can see how i would find you blaming the US. And i personally was not blaming anybody. I'm sure there are americans AND iraqi's stealing the money, and prolly even some brits have found they're way to some over the course of this whole thing.

As for the idealism, you're probably right. US didn't go in JUST to free the poor people of iraq. We also had suspicions that iraq may have, or be attempting to gain, WMD. Plus Iraq has been diplomatically a thorn in our side in the area for quite a while now.

were we being aggressive to what we percieved as a possible threat to our nation? yes. Were we being TOO aggressive? possibly, thats really a matter of opinion. but our biggest reason for going in was to put down a percieved threat to our nations power, which most nations tend to do. Saddam just gave us a couple of damn good excuses, and a chance for a good deed while we did.

What we didn't go there for was profit. We already spend less on crude oil than nearly any other country in the world thanks to relations with saudia arabia. And the original estimated cost of the entire thing was guessed at over 400 billion, not million, BILLION dollars. that's not very good profit :(
Yes bush is supported by several oil companies, which brings up the belief he did it for personal profit and to profit his "friends". only flaw with this idea is that lower overseas oil prices, aren't profitable for his buddies. Bush wants to "lower gas prices for the nation" by opening up the alaskan national wildlife reserve to drilling. THIS is him trying to make profit for his friends, for they're profit comes from domestic oil. and if it lowers gas prices, bush looks good in the process.

What am i trying to say with all this? America is not "good" and "idealistic", we did not go into iraq just to help the poor people. Nor is america "evil" and did this for profit. We are simply a country, who saw an oppurtunity to put down a percieved threat (and it was a percieved threat in the states) and make an ally at the same time. Self defense.

In truth though, i do believe that idealology did have SOME small affect on our descision, as bush, and seemingly more and more of the US government, seems to be more and more christian oriented, which probably did have some influence in going into iraq.

[shutupandshave]

We also had suspicions that iraq may have, or be attempting to gain, WMD.
*waves hand*
no we were sure Saddam had them.

Shackled, I think the problem is - there was a whole tonne of BS about why we went to war, and we now know this to be BS...which leaves us with the question why did we really go to war?

People weren't really talking about the freedom of the Iraqis before the war, they were talking about AL-Q links and WMD. Now we've discovered these to be a lot shakier than we first believed, we're left wondering "how can people be so wrong, so many people said we were wrong and we ignored them - there must be something else going on here"?

[JADezimar]

In truth though, i do believe that idealology did have SOME small affect on our descision, as bush, and seemingly more and more of the US government, seems to be more and more christian oriented, which probably did have some influence in going into iraq.

I do not see the implications of christians being the reason here? Christians do not preach to go to war or hate other people. They may dislike what they do, they may not tolerate what they do, but when it comes straight down to the life of the person, they put that far above in importance than the majority of human beings on this planet.

[shutupandshave]

true, they do.

However there is the suggestion that christian "fundamentalists" are urging to cleanse the world of Islam, just like christian fundamentalists tried to do a long time ago.

[JADezimar]

However there is the suggestion that christian "fundamentalists" are urging to cleanse the world of Islam, just like christian fundamentalists tried to do a long time ago.

This is absurd. My mothers church preached against the war. My Fathers church preached against the war. My friend justin's church preached against the war. What leads you to beleive that, Christians want the world cleansed? All 3 of those churches are different denominations.

[shutupandshave]

Not all Christians JAD, just the extreme ones... as I said.

[JADezimar]

What extreme ones?

[shutupandshave]

The fundamentalists

[JADezimar]

Please explain, who the fundamentalist are?