tags: Iraq war, profiteering, Halliburton, KBR, politics, streaming video
WAR PROFITEERING.
No one, including Bush, his wife, nor their smarmy cronies, cares about our troops, the Iraqis, nor the thousands of grieving American and Iraqi families out there, NO! Nor did they ever care! For weeks, I have been alluding what I think has us in Iraq -- alas, probably too subtly -- but I won't beat around the "Bush" any longer (pun intended). This war is not about oil, Saddam, freedom, or revenge, although these are all great smokescreens; this war is all about robbing the American taxpayer in the form of war profiteering. And who is the biggest war profiteer of all? Halliburton. Don't believe me? I have a streaming newscast video that helps me to prove my point;
- Log in to post comments
Oh, change the bleeding record.
Why are you on scienceblogs, exactly? This and the umpteen posts before it are you whining and demonstrating an unbelievable naivety about politics. I see nothing of scientific value here whatsoever.
Sweet Cthulhlu! The communists were right: capitalism DOES corrupt people.
Mike, if you check around the science blogs, you will often find posts that have nothing to do with science. That may offend you, but there it is. Or is it the point that offends?
so, mike, you think that as a scientist who is affiliated with scienceblogs, the only topic i am allowed to write about is science, eh? not only that, but i am allowed to write only about scientific topics that you personally care about since the science stories that i have written are obviously not good enough for you. okaaaay, i get it. well, no one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to read what i have to say, but as a citizen of this nation, it is my duty to be aware of, to comment on, and to change if possible, things that i see that are harmful to this nation and her citizens.
Did you read any of those umpteen posts, Mike? Because the honeybee post right before this post seems to be about "science". And I could not detect even a hint of whining or political naiveté in it.
>Mike, if you check around the science blogs, you will often find posts that have nothing to do with science. That may offend you, but there it is. Or is it the point that offends?
I'm quite happy to be offended, thank you for your concern. My complaint is not that science bloggers blog about non-science issues occasionally. It's that she has posted 5 politics posts in 4 days, and none have anything resembling careful analysis. You know, the kind we might expect from a scientist.
>o, mike, you think that as a scientist who is affiliated with scienceblogs, the only topic i am allowed to write about is science, eh?
I said nothing of the sort.
>not only that, but i am allowed to write only about scientific topics that you personally care about since the science stories that i have written are obviously not good enough for you.
I didn't say that either. But it's OK - that's the kind of blinkered thinking I expect from you.
>well, no one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to read what i have to say,
I suspect that you would disagree with those on the ultra-right who say "you don't like the war, go live in another country". So would I. Yet you're essentially making the same argument.
>but as a citizen of this nation, it is my duty to be aware of, to comment on, and to change if possible, things that i see that are harmful to this nation and her citizens.
You sure do. And last I checked I have a right to post here and disagree.
>Did you read any of those umpteen posts, Mike? Because the honeybee post right before this post seems to be about "science". And I could not detect even a hint of whining or political naiveté in it.
I did read the honeybee post, and I enjoyed it. I like this blog when it's not a mouthpiece for moveon.org.
I imagine I may disagree with Mike on several political issues but I don't find his criticisms unfair or unfounded.
ScienceBlogs obviously shouldn't be exclusively concerned with their writers' subject of expertise, but they are primarily to do with them. There's no reason why ScienceBloggers' political views should be strictly excluded, the world would be a poorer place without pictures of cats/squids/offspring, and there's a positive requirement to cover the science angle of policy issues, but this just doesn't seem the place for personal general political advocacy and it shouldn't be a running theme, whether one agrees with the views expressed or not.
well, mike, i am inclined to be complimented in a back-handed sort of way by what you said because it appears that you read everything i write. so i shall endeavor to try to write a few more things that you might enjoy if you will attempt to indulge me when i go on a political rant. of course, commenting on those stories that you enjoy or would like to see more of is a good way to give me feedback since i rely on comments as well as page views to judge what it is that brings people here, and unfortunately, politics has been the "big draw".
At the beginning of W's first term I wondered why Rumsfeld was so set on downsizing the military. He closed so many bases and disrupted the economies of the surrounding communities.
Then when the war started and they started outsourcing what used to be military functions to private corporations for billions of dollars, it made sense.
Now I wonder what is going to happen to this very large private army of mercenaries after this administration leaves office.
Well, I don't quite read everything - I just subscribe to the "Scienceblogs Select" feed and hit a few other scienceblogs along the way.
I do enjoy your science posts, and you're quite correct that I should post a compliment or two rather than a complaint. I shall endeavor to do so next time I particularly enjoy one of your posts.
I was reacting to something that I've seen other science bloggers do - namely write about politics in such a way that leaves little room for open discussion. In my opinion, a blog that is part of scienceblogs.com should not be posting 'op-eds' with little or no critical analysis, except for rare occasions. I would love to see you post about politics while being a bit more critical than "Bush and Cheney are murderers and the war is all about oil". This is irrespective of whether I happen to agree with you or not.
I do also understand that you want to have a popular blog.
Looking back, my first post was a bit kneejerk and uncouth, so I apologize for that. I hope I have made my position clear subsequently.
Seems that the only thing requiring immediate resignation is directly paid for sex http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/bush-official-resigns-in-wake-o…
I'm not sure that war profitering was the immediate aim of Bush & Co.
Not to say that armament firms haven't made a killing and I suspect that Halliburton have grossly overcharged for the goods supplied. But I suspect that it comes down to ignorance & stupidity on the part of the US administration and profit maximisation on the part of the suppliers.