| Conflict of interest |  | ||
| Archive | |||
|
Posted by: Christopher ® 02/12/2002, 23:23:04 Author Profile Mail author |
As an environmentalist, I was bothered from the start that we had elected an oilman as our president. Between his literal assault on our environment since taking office and emerging ties between Enron and Bush's administration, he sure hasn't put my mind at ease. But his, his father's and so many other past and present U.S. and world leaders' financial ties to the defense industry is just too, too much. see
Does this bother anyone else here? How can we possibly expect our nation's leaders to take peace seriously, when they are the very upper crust getting fat off of war???? Our government's "war on terrorism" is a crock--they knowingly fuel terrorism, and then they get rich fighting it. Bush and his cronies are traitors. Chris |
| | Recommend | Alert | Previous | Next | Current page |
Replies to this message
Re: Conflict of interest Re: Conflict of interest -- Christopher Top of thread Archive
Posted by: zip ®
02/13/2002, 09:00:10
Author Profile Mail author
Chris, Thanks for the links. I have not read them entirely, but what I did read was interesting. All I have to say about the apparent ties that Bush has is that people who are rich and influential have their hands in a variety of cookie jars - that's why they're rich and influential. One would probably raise an eyebrow at the majority of connections that exist between apparent adversaries, if these connections were ever made public. I don't know that this absolutely points to guilt by association - it simply means that these people are trying to extend their power/money base through available channels. As the one article pointed out in regards to Weinberger, people can be very stern on one subject and then dismissive about their own behavior that can be associated with improprieties.
As far as Osama himself trying to profit off the war by his potential connection to a defense advisory group - I doubt that this is true. bin Laden is/was at the top of a very fanatical organization. It’s difficult to imagine that you could get that far in a group comprised of religious homicidal maniacs when your allegiance really lies somewhere else.
zipperhead
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
What, are you CRAZY??? Re: Re: Conflict of interest -- zip Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Christopher ®
02/13/2002, 21:40:37
Author Profile Mail author
Ha, ha, just kidding, zipperhead.
I think you're right about the rich elite and the way of things. That in itself can raise an eyebrow (actually it makes both my eyebrows raise--I can't do the one-brow raise), but it's almost too much for me that these rich and influential people are also the very decision makers on the most serious issues we face as a nation--issues whose best course of action could very well be the opposite of what would benefit the defense industry.I'm disturbed further by the fact that our political/economic system seems to have evolved to the point where it guarantees, or nearly guarantees, the appointment of these rich and influential people to the high offices.
But the wealthy elite buying their way in is bad enough (as AHF so enigmatically put it, "American business is business). But politicians making money off of war? For the defense industry, peace does not the coffer fill. Ongoing wars and tits-for-tat, like we see between Israel and Palestine, do. That brings me back to the question I asked from my first post--which I'll change a little so it's not so blatantly rhetorical (maybe someone does have answer):
CAN we expect our country's leaders to take the issue of peace seriously when they are the very ones getting fat off of war?
I doubt it. What do you think?
Chris
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Elaborate on peace please Re: What, are you CRAZY??? -- Christopher Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Bahman ®
02/14/2002, 11:12:24
Author Profile Mail author
"CAN we expect our country's leaders to take the issue of peace seriously when they are the very ones getting fat off of war?" What peace? Where? How?
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
total, all-encompassing, world peace Re: Elaborate on peace please -- Bahman Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Christopher ®
02/14/2002, 14:38:13
Author Profile Mail author
--Is obviously not going to happen. Let me quickly say that I'm not pushing a swords-to-plowshares agenda, though I am critical of how far my government has pushed its military options. So, what do I mean when I vaguely state, "the issue of peace"? Let me start with the Israel-Palestine conflict. A couple of weeks ago the U.S. refused to sign a peace proposal between the nations because it didn't account for some Israeli deaths at the hands of Palestinians. Those deaths were retaliation for Palestinian deaths, which were retaliations for retaliations for other retaliations. That's much the same crazy cycle that teenaged inner-city gang members are stuck in. Does my government take advantage of that cycle in the Israel-Palestine conflict, which has gone on and on for decades? I suspect that it does. Do the big defense contractors make money off of that conflict? Absolutely. Israel alone is a billion-dollar resource for the defense industry. Now if the people supposedly negotiating cease-fires, agreements, etc. have money staked on the OPPOSITE of cease-fires, we have a glaring conflict of interest, and how they go about the "peace process" comes down to their personal integrity. Which I, for one, am extremely skeptical of. I do believe in the potential for individual human integrity, but I think our system is supposed to be devised to protect us from having to take that chance in such major issues.
Sorry if this seems to over-simplify things. I realize its complexity. Sometimes we need to break off little pieces and look at them but the bigger picture requires real holistic thought to begin to grasp.
Chris
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: total, all-encompassing, world peace Re: total, all-encompassing, world peace -- Christopher Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Bahman ®
02/14/2002, 16:00:25
Author Profile Mail author
"Is obviously not going to happen." I am glad you acknowledged that. It'll never going to happen because we are IMPERFECT HUMANS. Priod.
"Let me start with the Israel-Palestine conflict....Sorry if this seems to over-simplify things. I realize its complexity."
Yes you are oversimplifying. Weapons and defense contractors, etc. are only one factor. There are many. Note they almost got to an agreement about a year ago; and eventually they will. There is no other way.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: total, all-encompassing, world peace Re: Re: total, all-encompassing, world peace -- Bahman Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Christopher ®
02/15/2002, 05:34:35
Author Profile Mail author
Hi Bahman,
You have more faith in our federal government than I do, I'm afraid. I see the the ongoing volley of violence as a large factor in the Israel-Palestine conflict. It is a sympton of deeper-lying issues that cannot be addressed effectly as long as the chain of retaliations goes unbroken.But let's leave that example, then, and look again at my main point. Do you disagree that the figures mentioned in the article are in a position to profit from the success of the defense industry? If you do, why? If you agree that they are, do you find it disturbing? If not, why not?
Thanks,
Chris
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
wars & weapons Re: Re: total, all-encompassing, world peace -- Christopher Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Bahman ®
02/15/2002, 09:41:42
Author Profile Mail author
"Do you disagree that the figures mentioned in the article are in a position to profit from the success of the defense industry?" I'll give you a categorical 'NO' answer, which means I DO agree that a lot of figures profit from wars. But the real question is whether wars are waged solely based on that factor, and my answer is definitely NOT. There are many factors and each case is different.
"If you agree that they are, do you find it disturbing? If not, why not?"
I find much more trivial things disturbing (ask my wife!), let alone the issue of wars and weapons. But again that shouldn't deter me from a fair and logical analysis of the situation.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
PS Re: wars & weapons -- Bahman Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Bahman ®
02/15/2002, 14:21:17
Author Profile Mail author
I've been saying that many factors influence the decision making process on wars, and other matters of international importance (and even smaller ones), feeling certain that everyone can easily come up with a list. However, I thought that one factor, or two, shouldn't go unmentioned: The effect, influence, and responsibility of the participants; in this case of Palestanians and Israelies. If we don't acknowledge that it may be interpreted by them as an insult!
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: wars & weapons Re: wars & weapons -- Bahman Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Christopher ®
02/15/2002, 22:24:49
Author Profile Mail author
Thanks, Bahman, you've made some good points. So, is there ANYone on capitol hill you'd like to tape to a chair? Actually I hope no one pulled into my little 2Think Liberation Front was offended by that--even my put-down of AHF was done in fun. If not, my apologies! I would like to clarify where I stand on a couple of things.
You wrote,
"I'll give you a categorical 'NO' answer, which means I DO agree that a lot of figures profit from wars."My argument wasn't that a lot of figures profit from war, but that certain figures in particular--our president, a former president, a former defense secretery, a former head of the CIA, a former British prime minister, former presidents of Thailand and the Philippenes, et al--profit from wars. That's the conflict of interest I have a hard time with. I think it's alarming. Do we recognize and accept the fallability of man, and then let our leaders have such conflicting interests? I don't get it.
You wrote,
"But the real question is whether wars are waged solely based on that factor, and my answer is definitely NOT. There are many factors and each case is different."I agree absolutely that there are other factors, and that each case is different. But it could be problematic if in each case, one constant factor is that some of the leaders involved profit from the war industry. But yes, there are other factors, and so I don't agree that "the real question is whether wars are waged soley based on that factor." That is a real question, but I'm talking more about some of that grey area where judgment calls contribute.
I'm out of time, so I'll get to your other comments later. Thanks again, Bahman
Chris
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: What, are you CRAZY??? Re: What, are you CRAZY??? -- Christopher Top of thread Archive
Posted by: grendel ®
02/14/2002, 15:47:45
Author Profile Mail author
"CAN we expect our country's leaders to take the issue of peace seriously when they are the very ones getting fat off of war?" so...what exactly do you propose?
grendel
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
My proposal Re: Re: What, are you CRAZY??? -- grendel Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Christopher ®
02/15/2002, 06:20:06
Author Profile Mail author
--is to divide and conquer. We'll need everyone's help, and about 20 rolls of duct tape, but I think we can do it. Grendel, you and Bahman catch Cheney in his office and get him so duct taped to his chair he has to breathe through a straw. Martin and Vicki, after an awkward but pleasant "We meet at last," will get Ashcroft and do the same. Karyn and rpcman, can you two take on Rumsfeld? Eric will look after AHF, keep him out of trouble. Tyler, you and I are gonna liberate the press. Craig C., who I nominate for president by the way, will take JAK and Douglas (hey, we need EVERYone) and find a back entry into the White House. Locate Junior, give him what-for and at least two full rolls of tape. In fact, roll him up in a rug, tape up the rug, and shove it in a chimney. Brian DC and Alf Omega, I'm trusting you two with George, Sr. Be careful, he's a killer. We need someone--I know, how about someone?--to sit down with Powell, and see if there's even a glimmer of hope for him. If not, you know what to do. So that's my proposal. As for a plan B, sorry grendel but the best I can come up with right now is to push for awareness. An essential component of our nation's quality-control feature--an integral aspect of democracy--is awareness, even wariness of what our leaders are doing. I feel that that component is largely stagnant (apathy and controlled press are at work here), and for the time I'll settle with championing a little eye-openage. I know I'm an idealist, but come on, what else do we have? Your response was ambiguous, and I hesitate to read into it. I really would like to hear what you say.
Thanks,
Chris
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
My answer! Re: My proposal -- Christopher Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Bahman ®
02/15/2002, 10:00:00
Author Profile Mail author
I saw my name in this post and decided not to waste the opportunity for a response. 1)You say:
"As for a plan B, sorry grendel but the best I can come up with right now is to push for awareness. An essential component of our nation's quality-control feature--an integral aspect of democracy--is awareness, even wariness of what our leaders are doing."
I am going to set all modesty aside and proclaim that I AM very aware. And I am on the opposite side of you in this issue. And I am pretty sure I can find a few others on my side. Now what?
What I am getting at is this: Did you ever think that there may be a lot of 'aware' people, but most of them are NOT on your side?2) I'd very much like to know what your reaction was with respect to the wars in Bosnia and Kosovo, and what you think about them now. (Remember that Bush was NOT in office then!)
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: My answer! Re: My answer! -- Bahman Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Christopher ®
02/16/2002, 04:04:10
Author Profile Mail author
Bahman:
"I am going to set all modesty aside and proclaim that I AM very aware. And I am on the opposite side of you in this issue. And I am pretty sure I can find a few others on my side. Now what?
What I am getting at is this: Did you ever think that there may be a lot of 'aware' people, but most of them are NOT on your side?"A few answers here. First, I'd say that this site and others like it have a higher percentage of informed, thinking people than the regular population. I can't confirm that, but it seems to go with the nature of the site. (Sorry if I put you on the defensive.)
Second, I was referring to awareness of the issues--from various sides--not awareness of my opinion. Of course sides are taken. Two informed people disagreeing is better than two uninformed people agreeing.
So yes, I did ever think that there may be a lot of 'aware' people. Whether most of them are 'on my side' or not is moot, and like I said, I can live with it even if that's the case. I'm not actually arrogating myself to any position of authority, as you seem to have concluded. Do you think the American population is adequately informed? I don't. I think there is a giant slice of the nation that gets all its information from mainstream media, whose picture I see as very one-sided.
I don't have anything to say about Bosnia/Kosovo--I'm following the trial. Instead I'm going to try and figure out why, because I've voiced dissatisfaction with/distrust of George W. Bush, you will point out that he wasn't behind that war.
Chris
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Some answers, some questions Re: Re: My answer! -- Christopher Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Bahman ®
02/16/2002, 08:24:15
Author Profile Mail author
"(Sorry if I put you on the defensive.)" No, no. There was nothing to put me in the defensive, and I wasn't there!
"Second, I was referring to awareness of the issues--from various sides--not awareness of my opinion."
Me too: Awareness of the issues. To demonstrate my point, I am going to claim, with a little exaggeration, that people are generally aware and still half the country voted for Bush, for instance.
"I'm not actually arrogating myself to any position of authority, as you seem to have concluded."
No, I didn't mean any such thing at all.
"Do you think the American population is adequately informed? I don't."
What is adequate? What we have to keep in mind is that typically only a fraction of the people of any society gets involved with social and political isues to SOME DEGREE.
"I think there is a giant slice of the nation that gets all its information from mainstream media, whose picture I see as very one-sided."
This is an often cited issue. We can discuss it in more detail if you wish but here is a summary: 1) Are all mainstream media on ONE side, and if so which side? 2) Do you think if people are really interested, they can't get to hear and see all sides of an issue? 3) As an example, how is PBS?
"I don't have anything to say about Bosnia/Kosovo--I'm following the trial. Instead I'm going to try and figure out why, because I've voiced dissatisfaction with/distrust of George W. Bush, you will point out that he wasn't behind that war."
Are you wondering why I said that? Nothing sinister! Just to show you that even Clinton (which I assume you trusted more?) had to resort to war. And all that goes to show that such complex decision-makings have to take into account many factors; financial benefit is probably on the bottom of the list.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Some answers, some questions Re: Some answers, some questions -- Bahman Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Christopher ®
02/18/2002, 16:52:13
Author Profile Mail author
Hi Bahman, thanks for your response. I see some things differently, but I appreciate hearing your side.
To respond to a couple of things:You wrote, "To demonstrate my point, I am going to claim, with a little exaggeration, that people are generally aware and still half the country voted for Bush, for instance."
Here I can't avoid directing just one small criticism at that portion of the populace: Good going, guys. As for the "general awareness", I don't know if I would put it that way. Either I wouldn't or I would be quick to define "general awareness" as sub-standard. Take the ways in which we (forgive the generalism) are uninformed--all the news deemed unfit to print?--and couple it with the ways we are misinformed--Who saw the footage of 500,000 U.S. flag-draped food packets raining out over Afghanistan? Simply a publicity stunt, and misleading--we fed 500,000 of the 7.5 million refugees for a day, and the real picture of life for those refugees is not conveyed to us. That mixture of uninformed and misinformed is the "general awareness" I see around me. In too many ways I consider myself "generally aware," and it bothers me. It bothers me that it's hard to get beyond that.
And yes, I say this is due in a huge part to a one-sided mainstream media. Which "side" that is isn't the issue; the fact that so much of what everyone sees IS one-sided is the issue. As for which side, it seems to be that side exerting the pressure.
You're right, though, in that one can do better than the general awareness I've defined. It takes effort, and like you said, interest. That general awareness will prevail because so many are satisfied with CNN, their local paper, and the 6 o'clock news. I don't blame anyone for that--that should be enough! Ideally, it would be, and I'm sounding the idealist's trumpet. How can I not? When examining a situation, don't we set it against a hypothetical best-case scenario for comparision?
You wrote, "Are you wondering why I said that? Nothing sinister! Just to show you that even Clinton (which I assume you trusted more?) had to resort to war. And all that goes to show that such complex decision-makings have to take into account many factors; financial benefit is probably on the bottom of the list.
Oh, that's why. Whew, heh, heh. Well, somewhere in this thread, the suggestion was made that each of these incidents are unique, and I agree. Let me state once again that first, I don't claim that corruption was born and will end with Bush; and second, I never said that wars were staged solely to give the defense industry business. I don't like Bush, at all, but I do wonder where he really fits in. And personally, I don't put financial interest anywhere near the bottom of the list of factors. Even if I'm wrong about that, I still feel strongly that (and this was my original point) the aforementioned prominent world figures have no business investing in war.
Thanks again for your comments.
Chris
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Fair enough. To each his own! n/t Re: Re: Some answers, some questions -- Christopher Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Bahman ®
02/18/2002, 17:39:37
Author Profile Mail author
..
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: What, are you CRAZY??? Re: What, are you CRAZY??? -- Christopher Top of thread Archive
Posted by: zip ®
02/15/2002, 09:32:39
Author Profile Mail author
Chris, Sorry it took me so long to respond, but some knucklehead was practicing their duct-tape techniques on me.
Anyways, you wrote: "...it's almost too much for me that these rich and influential people are also the very decision makers on the most serious issues we face as a nation--issues whose best course of action could very well be the opposite of what would benefit the defense industry."
Or perhaps they have to choose a course of action that would not jeopardize their other interests - like oil. After all, they're not going to get decent prices for their oil if there is a war going on at the drilling sites! Think about it - Bush the first could have dragged the Gulf War out by taking the fight into Baghdad. But he made it a quick war without finishing the task at hand. Why would he do that if he were profiteering from war? Must have been because there were more profitable interests at risk. You see, warmongering is not necessarily the over-riding moneymaker that you may think it is.
You also wrote: "I'm disturbed further by the fact that our political/economic system seems to have evolved to the point where it guarantees, or nearly guarantees, the appointment of these rich and influential people to the high offices."
Perhaps, but you will occasionally get boys from the outside track, like Truman, Carter and Clinton. Who would have predicted their administrations four years prior to their actualization? As long as these "dark horse" politicians can ride the merry-go-round, then we will have some brakes on the political monopolies. Furthermore, even representatives within the same political parties will not necessarily have the same portfolio of interests to look after - thus some compromises will be made to safeguard general public interests.
You ask: "CAN we expect our country's leaders to take the issue of peace seriously when they are the very ones getting fat off of war? I doubt it. What do you think?"
I think there are a variety of factors that affect politicians’ decision-making. After all, whether you like to believe it or not, they are humans with human emotions. In fact, if they were totally uninterested in public welfare, then they would never run for office. They could hire lobbyists to spend weeks and months and years banging their heads against walls in D.C., while the uncaring fat cats sit on the beach, publicly cavorting with their mistresses and passively reaping the benefits of their insider-guided investments. Yet, these politicians do choose the life they have because they want to make a difference in a variety of ways. I don't believe they are in it just for the money. They could get as many or more of the perks with less publicity-related stress in the private sector.
zipperhead
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: What, are you CRAZY??? Re: What, are you CRAZY??? -- Christopher Top of thread Archive
Posted by: grendel ®
02/15/2002, 11:21:29
Author Profile Mail author
"CAN we expect our country's leaders to take the issue of peace seriously when they are the very ones getting fat off of war?"
pharmaceutical companies profit from disease outbreaks. construction companies and contractors benefit immensely from war, as there is much to rebuild in the aftermath. every time a person dies, morticians and funeral homes benefit. out of every tragic and unfortunate circumstance, there is profit to be made somewhere. this is nothing new. as bahman said, this does not definitively link the profiteer to the cause of the event.
grendel
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
positive link not required Re: Re: What, are you CRAZY??? -- grendel Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Christopher ®
02/16/2002, 02:57:46
Author Profile Mail author
I don't want my leaders wondering how much their investments in war or oil are bringing in. Period. We shouldn't need to wait around to see if that conflict of interest is in fact complicating matters. We are imperfect humans and that's enough reason for me. Isn't that what the conflict of interests idea is, anyway?
Chris
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Conflict of interest Re: Conflict of interest -- Christopher Top of thread Archive
Posted by: AHF ®
02/14/2002, 10:09:12
Author Profile Mail author
So you're a tree hugger. That explains your responses to the defense spending thread. AHF
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
That tree is your brother Re: Re: Conflict of interest -- AHF Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Christopher ®
02/14/2002, 14:11:46
Author Profile Mail author
There you go again, AHF, trying to pidgeon-hole everyone. After all this time, you'd think you'd grow out of that. You seem much more interested in which "camp" someone belongs than what they have to say. Why don't you pretend you know nothing about me--it won't be hard because you're almost there--and respond to what I say. I definitely didn't post it as a final word, an air-tight summation of what's going on. I truly feel like a babe in the woods at times, but I'm still going to speak my mind. So it doesn't bother you that Bush Sr. and Jr., Carlucci, Baker, the former presidents of Thailand and the Philippenes, and others are putting big money in defense companies, in the hopes that those companies will GROW? How do defense companies grow?
Chris
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: That tree is your brother Re: That tree is your brother -- Christopher Top of thread Archive
Posted by: AHF ®
02/15/2002, 00:24:09
Author Profile Mail author
Interesting that the Earth Liberation Front is at the top of the FBI's terrorism list just now. Now we see what your motivations are. AHF
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page