jump to last post 1-11 of 11 discussions (58 posts)

Why we invaded Iraq - follow the disappearing money

  1. Doug Hughes profile image59
    Doug Hughesposted 7 years ago

    Department of Defense can’t account for 96 percent of money administered in Iraq reconstruction fund.

    Yesterday, the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) released its findings on how the money was spent from a special Iraq reconstruction fund set up by the Department of Defense (DOD) between 2003-2007. The account used Iraqi oil money to fund the reconstruction of Iraq. SIGIR concluded that 96 percent of the $9.1 billion the reconstruction program cannot be accounted for by the DOD:

    A US federal watchdog has criticised the US military for failing to account properly for billions of dollars it received to help rebuild Iraq. The Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction says the US Department of Defence is unable to account properly for 96% of the money. Out of just over $9bn (£5.8bn), $8.7bn is unaccounted for, the inspector says. [...]

    from ThinkProgress http://thinkprogress.org/

    1. leeberttea profile image53
      leebertteaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Yeah, there's a convincing argument for more government.

      1. Misha profile image78
        Mishaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Surely more legislation would have made this impossible lol
        *sarcasm smiley*

      2. Doug Hughes profile image59
        Doug Hughesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        There's a convincing argument not to put conservatives in charge of the money. This isn't 'governemnt' misnamgaement - it's GOP mismanagement - and the first place I would look is Halliburrton.

        1. MikeNV profile image83
          MikeNVposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Sadly you are mistaking the GOP for the GREEN PARTY.

          When it comes to money there is only one party.

          $54 Billion in Medicare Fraud.  Is that the sole responsibility of the GOP too?

          John Kerry... he's a Democrat right?  Dodging half a million in Sales Tax.  Is that the GOP's fault.

          You like to hammer the GOP... and there are a whole lot of bad guys in the GOP... no doubt. And Halliburton is evil.

          But as you dig in and look at the people who flow in and out of Government and Corporate America you see a pattern.  They all work for the GREEN PARTY.  Democrat and Republican alike. Dodd is a Democrat right?  Is it the GOP's fault he took a sweetheart loan deal then claimed he didn't realize it was a Bribe?

          Paulson walked away with $700 million tax free thanks to George Bush.

          Both sides care nothing about the American People... they are all chasing the money.  And no matter how much they get it's never enough.

          Democrats and Republicans are just a way for the Green Party to manipulate public opinion.

          The Ruling Party making the Green from War are the Bankers who finance it.

          War is about Profit.

          1. profile image48
            repsyclerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            I do not understand why the US has decided to wage war with every country that disagrees with it's policies. Our news media starts reporting on how bad this or that country is. And then the next thing you know, the US Army or Navy is conducting "Exercises" off their coast or border,  provoking a negative response. The public gets softened up with a bunch of propaganda and lies and then all of a sudden the whole USA is ready to blow that country away. Have we played too many X-Box games or Battleship? Why has PEACE become such a terrible, unpatriotic word? Everyone is not an adrenalin junkie. We need to wake up and realize that all our murdered soldiers ( son, daughters, husbands and wives) will never come home. They are dead forever.

        2. Evan G Rogers profile image77
          Evan G Rogersposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          HA!!! Wasn't clinton bombing countries while he was in office?

          I agree with Libbertea - we need to have more "anti-war regulations" in place!! This $50 billion / month piece of legislation would create almost 10 jobs! and it would increase our national security! and it would help the poor!! And it would cure cancer!!! And we would never go to war!!!

          (then we go to war again, because no one cares what the regulators were doing)

          Now we need even MORE anti-war regulations!!! It's obvious that we just didn't have enough!!! Now we need to spend $300 billion / month to have thousands of people scanning the internet posting on blogs saying "oh, btw, I know we were talking about a new recipe for tacos, but.... DON'T GO TO WAR!! IT'S BAD", and we'll need a few more thousand out walking the streets, randomly going up to people yelling at them "YOU AIN'T THINKIN' OF GOIN' T' WAR, ARE YE?! CUS THAT'S BAD!!!"

          ...... this would be the liberal solution to war!!! Government spending on needless crap.

          ....... the conservative solution to war would just be the same thing with less people and fewer dollars spent....

          please look at third parties, people.

          1. Misha profile image78
            Mishaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            One thing you don't account for Evan is that after winning elections your third party (including Ron Paul) will have to comply with existing system or be eliminated, either by impeachment(s) or assassination(s)...

            Only a total failure of elections due to non-participation is capable of sending the message to the top, aside from a blood bath called revolution of course... And unfortunately I don't see the former coming...

            1. Aya Katz profile image83
              Aya Katzposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              So, Misha, you think it would be easier to organize a revolution than to get people to just stop voting? That really says something!

              1. Misha profile image78
                Mishaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                I don't know what would be easier Aya, but I do see a lot of anger mounting, and I don't see anybody but myself advocating voters abstinence. smile

                1. ledefensetech profile image72
                  ledefensetechposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  I disagree.  It's not so much sending a message as it is electing the right people.  What we need are people like the Founders.  I know, Misha, that you don't have either the history of, or experience with, people like the Founders; but that's what set the fledgling United States on the path to preeminence in the world.  It's why you came here, I think.

                  What we have in power now are people not much different than those in the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, I think.  Unlike the USSR, the quickest way to lose support here is to start acting like Stalin or the KGB.  Nixon, I think, was the closest we got to that nightmare, or maybe it was FDR.  I'm leaning towards FDR, but then I hate him with an incandescent rage, so I might not be the most objective person in the world concerning him.

                  1. alternate poet profile image68
                    alternate poetposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                    I think the point is that you cannot elect 'the right people' - the few very rich have control of the political system, the banking system, the government and all.  You get the chance to vote for one out of a very few millionaire or billionaire puppets with a lot of flag waving to make it look like an election.

                    The real problems with Communism are exactly this (and very little else really) just the inability to change, and the entrenched position of the leadership in their own dogmas, and in the US their own super-greed for power(money).

                  2. Misha profile image78
                    Mishaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                    I won't even argue LDT. I have life experience that you don't, and until you get such experience we are likely to disagree on that point. My experience shows that no politician can win a fight against the system, no matter how good or humane or smart or whatever-positive-trait-matters-to-you they are. They either get converted or get thrown away, and the system proceeds on its own. Looks like they are fighting the law of nature.

                    Revolutions seem to work slightly different as the old system gets destroyed - but then the new one emerges pretty fast, oftentimes even more perverted than the old one. Your founding fathers made darn good attempt, yet it is still failing 200 years later... smile

            2. profile image48
              repsyclerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              Viva revolution!!!!!!

              1. Elpaso profile image59
                Elpasoposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                I really don't understand this political "Remedy". When has doing nothing about a problem helped or got rid of a problem? I think the total opposite. More people need to get more involve with politics and watch the people you elect more closely and vote out the politicians that are not producing.

        3. AlexiusComnenus profile image61
          AlexiusComnenusposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Yes Bush was horrible with money (and I'm definitely not a Bush fan) but Obama is worse. $2 trillion in 18 months?! That's insane. Money mismanagement will happen regardless of who is in power. Remember that power corrupts. People get in charge of those purse-strings and want that power. I say they all need to be fired and we need to start over.

          Restore the Republic.

          1. Jim Hunter profile image59
            Jim Hunterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            How did Obama vote on all of those spending bills?

            Why he voted for them.

            He inherited exactly what he voted for.

  2. SIVAGNANAM, V. profile image56
    SIVAGNANAM, V.posted 7 years ago

    America's defence department need not account for the money collected from Iraq's oil resources.

    It is enough if the leave Iraq. Who are they, how can they take and spend Iraq's resources in Iraq itself. Then why is there a  government in Iraq?

  3. SIVAGNANAM, V. profile image56
    SIVAGNANAM, V.posted 7 years ago

    Invading a small country like Iraq does not bring any good for America. It is like Raegan's invasion of Barbados.  It is like Thatcher's invasion of Falklands. For a big country like America, they should invade larger countries and reap its consequences. But America wont do that. For fear of defeat... They want big name at a low cost.

    1. Jim Hunter profile image59
      Jim Hunterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Barbados?

      Research can be your friend.

      1. SIVAGNANAM, V. profile image56
        SIVAGNANAM, V.posted 7 years agoin reply to this

        No research...  it was real....

        1. Jim Hunter profile image59
          Jim Hunterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          It was Grenada,

          Barbados was a member of the Caribbean Peace Force,

          Which were US allies not US enemies.

          Like I said research can be your friend.

          1. VENUGOPAL SIVAGNA profile image59
            VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Sorry.

            It is Grenada, which is also not good.

            Better he could have beaten a boy going on the street.

    2. ktarcus profile image75
      ktarcusposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Hold on buddy although I detested Margaret thatcher get your facts right...
      Argentina invaded the Falkland islands which are a sovereign island group owned and controlled by the British who went to war to regain freedom for the people of the Falklands like Jim hunter says do your research.

  4. MikeNV profile image83
    MikeNVposted 7 years ago

    The Federal Government thinks the American People are stupid.

    Seriously... does any believe they don't know what happened to the money?

    Please.

    Time for America's citizens to wake the hell up and hold Politicians from both parties responsible.

    You don't overlook $8.7 Billion.

    And this from a Government who is going to demand small business issue 1099's to every vendor they purchase more than $600 worth of products/services.

    Make an error of a few hundred on your tax return and they know immediately that money is missing.

    What a load of BS.

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image77
      Evan G Rogersposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      But paying taxes help the economy!! My tax money goes DIRECTLY (*cough*) into helping make the US better for everyone else by building roads and hiring police (who don't care about you unless you had something stolen from you worth $3k+)!!!

      Taxes are a GOOD thing!!!

      ..... ow... that hurt to write.....

  5. Ohma profile image76
    Ohmaposted 7 years ago

    Why is it GOP mismanagement? Surly they are not the only ones with their fingers in this till.

    1. Jim Hunter profile image59
      Jim Hunterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Because he is anti GOP.

      I say its the Obama administration.

      They spent the money on tennis courts in Barbados.

      Just a guess.

      1. Doug Hughes profile image59
        Doug Hughesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Reading is a skill you aquire with practice. Critical thinking can be learned - but it's even harder. We will be patinet with you Jim and try to bring your abilities along, even if you have a disability.

        The dates mentioned in the article are 2003 to 2007.  At that time Senator Obama was not even considered a contender for POTUS - or he was fighting it out with Senator Clinton for the nomination. The reason I mentioned Halliburton is because they got so many sweetheart no-bid contracts with the DOD - and there were so many instances of fraud - or unexplained cost overruns if you want to use the official line that  it seems to me they would be at the top of the list of the usual suspects.

        1. Ohma profile image76
          Ohmaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          But that does not mean that there were not some Dems in charge with sticky fingers. It only means that Obama was not directly involved.

          1. Doug Hughes profile image59
            Doug Hughesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            "Sunday, December 10, 2006

            Demoralized Republicans adjourned the 109th Congress at 5 a.m. yesterday with a near-empty Capitol, closing the door on a dozen years of nearly unbroken GOP control by spending more time in the final days lamenting their failures -- to rein in government, tame the deficit and temper their own lust for power -"

            Dhe GOP was in control of the White House for the ENTIRE span of time involved - and the White House runs the Pentagon in a war. However if you want to check the date of the clip from the Washington Post - you will see that the Democrats ascended in Congress at the START of 2007, the last year of the 5 year span under consideration. Whatever the hell happened to the money, it was a GOP fiasco. fraud swindle.

            Deal with it. Ignorie it, if you prefer. Don't blame it on the Democrats. Expect to hear about the issue again when some wingnut brings up how fiscally responsible Republicans are.

          2. Jim Hunter profile image59
            Jim Hunterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            It doesn't mean Obama wasn't involved directly.

            He was a sitting Senator.

            Poor Doug can't see the joke in what I wrote.

            And Doug, you really should refrain from personal attacks.

            It isn't becoming.

            1. Doug Hughes profile image59
              Doug Hughesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              Telling Jokes is a skill that can be aqyured with practics, like reading comprehension.  Here's aclue. If you have to explain that somethng was a joke, it was a poor joke.

              The theft by SOMEONE of 8.7 BILLION of federal money while the GOP was in power is a joke to you. Hahahahaha - let's not look at it seriously at the incompetence of the GOP who set it up.

              1. Evan G Rogers profile image77
                Evan G Rogersposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                for someone who likes to insult those that disagree with him, you sure have a funky way of spelling "acquired"... Aqyured?!

              2. Jim Hunter profile image59
                Jim Hunterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                Spelling words correctly is an acquired skill as well.

                Here's a clue.

                When in doubt use a D i c t i o n a r y.

                Or at lest spell check.

  6. Ohma profile image76
    Ohmaposted 7 years ago

    Very nice speech but you still have not answered the question.

    I am in retail management. If an employee in my store decides to steal from the store does that mean I am guilty of theft?
    Maybe if you look at the reality of the situation and grasp the concept that Democrats and Republicans work side by side in our Government.
    It does not take any real intelligence to understand that both sides are equally corrupt and equally guilty of screwing the American public. All the posturing and blustering from both sides is only a smoke screen to cover up that fact.

    1. Doug Hughes profile image59
      Doug Hughesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      If you are in retail management, you understand what 'controls' are. You set up the till with a known starting amount - you know how much was rung up - how much was cash and how much was credit and you know if there is a discrepancy in hours.

      Controls on inventory are more tricky - but you know how much merchandise is on the floor and on order - on a monthly basis (I would guess) there's a physical inventory and you KNOW what 'shrinkage' there is. (Shrinkage is the value of products that were not recorded as sold, but disappeared from inventory.)

      If you could not account fo 8.7 BILLION dollars in cash or inventory and you are the manager  it wouldn't matter if you had the loot or not - you would be held accountable. In the period of time involved the GOP was the 'managemnt'! ANd you want to muddy the waters and say they were kinda sorta involved - but maybe not...

      1. Ohma profile image76
        Ohmaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        That is not at all what I said. What I said is that even though there was a republican manager the republicans where not the only ones with motive and opportunity. Therefore it is unjust to say that they alone are responsible with out any cold hard evidence. Is it likely that the "management" was aware? Yes I would say so. Is it likely that the "management" is solely responsible? No.

        For that much money to be missing you can bet your booties that both sides of the proverbial fence where involved.

        1. Doug Hughes profile image59
          Doug Hughesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Y'all watch this. When something goes wrong in DC next week, regardless of what it is, Ohma is going to be right in there slamming Obama as if he did it personally and deliberately.  But today - when it's obvious somebody ran off with all the cookies in the cookie jar - AND he cookie jar - and Republicans were  fully in charge - Ohma is overcome with bipartisanship. smile

          1. Ohma profile image76
            Ohmaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            You obviously do not read many of my posts. That is okay, but please do not assume to know or be able to speak intelligently on the subject of my political views.
            If there is overwhelming proof that a specific person created the mess then by all means hold that person responsible be he Republican or Democrat but in the absence of overwhelming evidence that any one specific party or person created this mess then lets just say that any and all persons who had accessibility should be considered potentially responsible.

    2. Jeff Berndt profile image86
      Jeff Berndtposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      "I am in retail management. If an employee in my store decides to steal from the store does that mean I am guilty of theft? "
      No, but you'll still be responsible for the shrink, and for reducing the shrink as time goes on.

      If your shrink continues unabated, or gets worse, you might find yourself having to explain that.

      1. Ohma profile image76
        Ohmaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        and rightly so if I am doing nothing to curb the problem.

        1. lovemychris profile image55
          lovemychrisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Right...you start it, do nothing about it, hand it off to the next guy, then say, "Get Him!!"

  7. Evan G Rogers profile image77
    Evan G Rogersposted 7 years ago

    I will be playing the naive person who discovers why government is bad... please read!:

    "Where does the Dept. of Defense get it's money?

    Oh, Taxes, inflation and borrowing -- all of which are just indirect taxes, you say?

    How are taxes collected?

    oh, at the point of a gun, you say? Because if you DON'T pay taxes the government will hunt you down and arrest you?

    if the department of defense can't keep track of it's expenses........ then why the hell is it still in business?

    Because it has a monopoly on military might, you say? that makes sense! ...

    But why hasn't there been another company to come about and try to secure our borders for us? -- after all monopolies can easily be destroyed by simply starting a competetitor!

    Oh, because it's AGAINST THE LAW to try to start your own homeland protection business, you say.

    So... if a company CAN'T keep track of its money... and it has a government granted monopoly, so it can't go out of business, even though it obviously should.... and the money it gets comes from stealing from the public....

    ... we still call ourselves the land of the free?"

    THANK YOU!! THANK YOU!!! it was a hard part to play, but I wanna give thanks to me - i'm awesome.

  8. ledefensetech profile image72
    ledefensetechposted 7 years ago

    Yeah, but this is the United States of America and we've been doing the impossible for 234 years now.  All it takes is the "right" people standing up like the people who founded this nation and things will get better.  Think about it.  What else is the Tea Party and things like the 9/12 project, but descendants of "political clubs" that debated the issues of the day that de Tocqueville wrote about in his Democracy in America?  Which by the way I wish he'd called Republicanism in America.

    1. alternate poet profile image68
      alternate poetposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I am not an Amemrican, I am British where we have a different system with similar results.  From outside you don't seem to have been doing so well, finance and trade have done well but the treatment of the people does not show a parallel good record. From 'the' depression through Vietnam, then the fiction of the war on terror and then Iraq it seems to have been a constant drive to suppress the freedoms that most Americans are so proud of.  The brightest possibilities of change, Kennedy and King were murdered.

      1. ledefensetech profile image72
        ledefensetechposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        You might not be an American, but you're a close cousin at least.  Heck we got some of our best ideas from the British.  If I had to pick a time to begin the decline of the US it would be much earlier than you would.  We've been in decline since Theodore Roosevelt.  Still it was one of your lords who, just after the Revolution, prophesied that the former colonies would be a disunited mess two centuries from his time. 

        As for Kennedy, it's not a bad thing he was killed, at least in my opinion.  You have an awfully high regard for someone who almost got us in a nuclear war with Russia, all while he was on pain medication no less.  I think the Cuban Missile Crisis scare so many people in the defense industry, that they had him eliminated.  Too many unexplained loopholes and strangeness surrounding the event to be anything else.  Castro couldn't do it, the Russians wouldn't, so it had to be an inside job.

        1. lovemychris profile image55
          lovemychrisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          "As for Kennedy, it's not a bad thing he was killed", but don't you dare terminate that zygote!!

          1. ledefensetech profile image72
            ledefensetechposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Last time I checked a zygote didn't almost end the world in nuclear fire.  Likewise few people shed tears when Hitler and Stalin died.  Every day we're faced with the decision to do good or evil.  Those men chose to do evil and deserved their fate.

            But then again, I'm not surprised you can't seem to understand something simple like that.

        2. alternate poet profile image68
          alternate poetposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          I have a high regard for the guy who prevented the escalation of the cold war by preventing nuclear missiles being installed on Cuba, your view of it may be different from mine. I have a high regard for the guy who was opening up government, giving people some future dreams that did not include creating a fallacious 'war on terror' and offered the best chance of finding balance in the world - the alternative was the escalation of the Vietnam war through to the destruction of Iraq and the terrorising of people by their own governments. I guess those who might have wanted Kennedy and King out of the picture are the victors.

          1. ledefensetech profile image72
            ledefensetechposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Kennedy made the Cold War worse.  There's evidence in the man's own library that Khrushchev was willing to start detente a decade earlier than they did, except that Kennedy took the gloves off and pushed us to the brink of war.  Had Kennedy not done that, Khrushchev would have been able to break the Party to his will like he did the military with his "soft" purge.

            Instead we got Vietnam, Afghanistan and the massive arms buildup of the 1980's.  Sorry, but I'm not a great Kennedy fan.  Much like our current President, he was all flash no substance.

            1. alternate poet profile image68
              alternate poetposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              Hmmm  -  what a difference a view makes.  A murdered President was responsible for all those atrocities after he had been gone a while.  I think your reason is totally subject to your slanted viewpoint, I guess warmongering Bush and Co HAD to trash Iraq is all down to Kennedy too.  I don't think your kite flies very well.

    2. Jeff Berndt profile image86
      Jeff Berndtposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Led, do you seriously think that the tea party is on a par with the early political clubs from back in the day?

  9. SIVAGNANAM, V. profile image56
    SIVAGNANAM, V.posted 7 years ago

    I heard that American soldiers serving in Iraq are engaged in making money with local cooperation. They seem to make millions of dollars in hard cash with local oil merchants. But I cant establish its authenticity.

    1. Jeff Berndt profile image86
      Jeff Berndtposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      No, not soldiers. Ex-soldiers. Blackwater (now called Xe) hires former soldiers to be mercenaries--excuse me, I mean security contractors, and lets them do pretty much whatever they want, since they're not subject to either US law, Iraqi law, or US Military law.

      Xe's security contractors also get paid a lot more than our soldiers do, which is a shame. The US government is paying Xe, which pays its employees better than the US Government pays its own soldiers.

      Maybe the US government ought to pay its soldiers better. They wouldn't have to hire Xe, and they wouldn't have to deal with the mess when Xe's employees commit crimes and nobody has the jurisdiction to arrest them.

      But US soldiers aren't making a pile of money in Iraq. Not unless they retire (at which point they're no longer US soldiers) and get a job with Xe or some other contractor.

  10. ledefensetech profile image72
    ledefensetechposted 7 years ago

    Well then it seems that you would have an unverified story.  I can tell you this much, returning soldiers only come back with hazard pay, they don't get anything extra from being in the Gulf.  If your rumor mill knew anything about the US military, they'd know that.

    1. SIVAGNANAM, V. profile image56
      SIVAGNANAM, V.posted 7 years agoin reply to this

      We can say that even the war in Iraq is a rumour,  because we are not personally verifying whether the war is actually going on in Iraq. My statement was not a rumour, but hearsay only. Better not to go into it deeply.... because the prestige of the US is at stake.

  11. ktarcus profile image75
    ktarcusposted 7 years ago

    OH you poor deluded souls do you actually believe that any politician will ever tell you the truth about anything which may involve them as being seen in a bad light? POLITICIANS LIE IT IS IN THEIR BLOOD.

 
working