Skeptic Project

Muertos Said
"The war in Afghanistan was fought as a retaliation against 9/11, to capture or kill Osama bin Laden"

White House given plan days before Sept 11 ?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4587368/</p>

JOHN J. MARESCA, VICE
PRESIDENT OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, UNOCAL CORPORATION
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION
FEBRUARY 12, 1998

"Mr. Chairman, the Caspian region contains tremendous untapped hydrocarbon reserves. Just to give an idea of the scale, proven natural gas reserves equal more than 236 trillion cubic feet. The region's total oil reserves may well reach more than 60 billion barrels of oil. Some estimates are as high as 200 billion barrels. In 1995, the region was producing only 870,000 barrels per day. By 2010, western companies could increase production to about 4.5 million barrels a day, an increase of more than 500 percent in only 15 years. If this occurs, the region would represent about 5 percent of the world's total oil production."

That's allot of resources, maybe it was a little to tempting?

Here's another from 911 Myths:
http://www.911myths.com/html/9_11_and_the_afghan_pipeline.html

Good stuff about about hijackers:
http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/Hijackers<br /> And Bin Laden:
http://debunk911myths.org/topics/Osama_bin_Laden</p>

Hijacker Martyrdom video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5810097534812155210#

@Muertos:

"Iraq was very complicated. I agree that Bush had plans to attack Iraq since the day he got into office. We'll probably never know for sure, but I think the main reason was that we wanted a permanent site for bases for large numbers of U.S. troops that was not contingent upon the continued assent of a government we don't particularly like (Saudi Arabia, our previous base country)."

If you are willing to admit that Bush wanted the war to gain military bases, instead of the stated reasons of WMD etc, then why do you think it to be such a stretch that Bush wanted the war also for the huge gains for companies that he, father, and Cheney were CEOs and top advisors, or for other reasons, many of which might be of much more personal gain for Bush, Cheney, etc?

@Captain Ferseus, Great points.

Just to be fair, the situation is a little different than your water analogy, IMHO. There are other bottled water companies that the city might choose from.

But, in regards to Halliburton: "BRS was awarded and re-awarded contracts termed "non-competitive" due to BRS being the only company capable to pull off the missions. ". (sidenote: and were they really the only company capable of pulling off the missions? And how independent was Provisional Authority in Iraq at the time? I haven't looked into that).

As for being former employees: Yes, I'm not sure what, if any, and how, if in any way, a former CEO could get benefits from his old company. I suppose Cheney had to exercise his stock options when he left in 2000.

I also edited my previous post to re-include consideration of possible influence of even foreign companies. I know you have already addressed this point, but just letting you know.

Thanks for all your input so far.

Haliburton was chosen because they were at the top of the industry as a logistical support privatized military firm. They had the resources necessary to give support to a military operation of that size, and hiring a group from within the US is a much simpler process than outsourcing to a different country. However, the Singer book I referenced before shows a lot of the arguments against using PMFs and how even Haliburton has come under repeated fire from military and government officials.

Think about it. You're in the Halliburton board room in 2001 and the CEO says, "You know what, we need to increase our profit 500% over the next 5 years."

Someone raises their hand and says, "I know! We'll get a stooge elected President, and then trump up a reason to invade Iraq so we can rebuild it!"

Someone else raises their hand and says, "Why don't we just diversify and buy a couple of subprime mortgage companies?"

To be fair:

The war in Iraq would almost certainly increase Halliburton's profit enormously.

The same certainty would not have been obvious with subprime mortgage companies.

Yes, but my point is, why commit yourself to some elaborate Rube Goldberg-esque scheme to manipulate national policy and start a war--a complex process where any number of things can go wrong--when there are much easier ways of making money? Isn't that needlessly complicated, not to mention risky?

Let's say you're the #1 shareholder in Halliburton and someone has come to you with this scheme to get rich by starting a war. Here's what has to happen:

1. You have to get your guy(s) into a position of political power. Huge risk that you'll fail along the way--if you lose, investment busted.
2. Your guy(s) in power have to convince Congress to authorize the war. Huge risk that they can't--if you lose, investment busted.
3. The war has to go successfully enough for there even to BE a reconstruction to profit from. Suppose Iraq hadn't collapsed immediately, but instead Iran invaded to prevent us from taking over, and now we're involved in a bloody stalemate with Saddam still left in power? Huge risk--if you lose, investment busted.
4. Even assuming everything goes right, you have to make sure your guy(s) in power give you the contracts. One Congressional investigation into the awarding of contracts, a little bad PR and you're frozen out. Huge risk--if you lose, investment busted.

There is no responsible investor that would take chances like these, especially when there are alternatives--for example, if Halliburton is about big infrastructure contracts, why not try to get a sweetheart deal to build hotels and port facilities in Dubai? All you need for that is an ambassador to grease palms and somebody with an in to the Dubai government. Nobody gets killed, and if it comes out that you cut corners to get this deal, the fallout will be limited--much more limited than if it comes out that you tried to start a war that will get your shareholders' sons and daughters killed or at least piss them off to the point where they will not vote for your guy(s) in power anymore.

It's just too big a risk. It makes no economic sense whatsoever.

@Captain Ferseus Great points.

>> Actually, yes it was; the subprime market was making a lot of people very, very rich, and it was widely known people were making a lot of money from it.

But does that mean that everybody in the world would and did invest in this and nothing else?

>> Doesn't seem as such, I started on 9/11 just for a reference point though:

It does seem that Halliburton went up a lot after the invasion, in general, but, ya, a lot of companies did, I suppose. Maybe my friend, mentioned below, would try to make something of that, lol. But, no, I remember at the time that people angry about Halliburton were showing some pretty correlated gains, but I'd have to look it up more carefully. Overall, though, ya, probably not the kind of slam dunk they'd need to give pause.

@Muertos Great points

step 1: is usually covered by lots of business contributing to political parties, and sometimes to both political parties. I'm not sure why they'd do the latter, if true. Could it be that they expect that party to generally act in a way that would be beneficial to them, and, worse, in the case of paying both parties, in a way that obligated the party? Though, admittedly, this is a broaded concept involving more than 1 company.

step 2: from that point is no investment

step 3: other companies are benefitting from other aspects and effects of the war

step 4: well, it seems they are able to get some contracts even with bad PR sometimes. Eg, suspicion of warmongering, Blackwater, etc.

--

Hey, I think you guys will get a kick out of this email exchange I had with an old college friend:

I had an otherwise very brilliant Anarcho-Syndicalist buddy in college that I met up with recently that is still arguing that the war was brought on by independent, not conspiratorial, influence of a certain international 'capitalist class', as he refers to it in his terminology. I'd love to get him on these forums himself, so that I don't have to guess at by what exact process he believes this corruption takes place, rather than imagine up all this crap to get it all knocked down for me to have as ammunition for our next encounter. So far, just the usual CT nonsense. It is interesting for me to see this brilliant guy in a new light now.

To him,

I've been wondering by what exact process you suppose the international 'capitalist class', represented in part by foreign (eg Chinese) oil companies, influence US politics to the point of starting large wars.

On Carlyle Group: Why would Rumsfeld cancel the $11 billion contract for Crusader missile system under the Carlyle Group if Bush was so interested in war profits for his old company?

On Halliburton: What do you suppose Cheney was receiving from Halliburton after stepping down from CEO in 2000, with a $36 million severance package, besides a puny 400k in deferred payments in 2004?

--
To me,
You're missing the forest for the trees. Political power is wielded by capitalists as a class not by individual capitalists. The State serves to repress popular dissent against Capital on behalf of the capitalist class. Sometimes that's military force; sometimes that's a New Deal; sometimes it's cancelling a contract. The US State is more resilient and more effective for Capital than less sophisticated kleptocracies.

--
To him,
"You're missing the forest for the trees"

It's funny, that's what conspiracy theorists (CTs) of all colors tell me all the time.

Then I ask them to produce a single shread of evidence.

Maybe there is something to your overall point of view, but at what point are you able to prove exactly how a particular event played out.

A lot of times these CTs, when I tear apart a 9/11 video, they just go on stating their overall vision of the forest, and point to a CT about some other event for which there is also no proof.

It's just not scientific.
--

We'll see if he comes back with anything good and I'll update you.

Geo, I totally disagree with the rebuttals you've raised.

Step 1: Endorsement of parties and candidates is usually covered by lots of companies, not just 1 company. It is interesting that they sometimes contribute to both political parties. At least, this perverts democracy, and beyond that, it tends to obligate the parties.

But what does it obligate the parties to do? Nothing even remotely specific or sinister as starting a specific war against a specific country. What is the point of these contributions? Generally companies contribute to political candidates hoping that there will be some general climate of favoritism from the government if those candidates should be elected. If it's ever more specific than that, it's stuff like the meat packers' consortium saying, "Gee, Candidate X, if you get elected president it'd be really great if you would rescind regulations 665 and 666 governing beef inspections." This is a far, FAR cry from a specific plan to start a war to benefit a specific company.

If any company (or group of companies) ever was foolish enough to come up with such a plan, why would a candidate put himself or herself in political danger by accepting those contributions? All it takes is one disgruntled campaign staffer to write a kiss-and-tell book to blow the whole thing open. "Halliburton bought Bush with contributions so he would start a WAR!!!!!" A company would never communicate an agenda with such specificity, and any candidate would be nuts to accept contributions on that basis. Plus, what happens if the candidate doesn't get elected? You don't hear CT's out there claiming that Halliburton was giving campaign contributions to Gore in 2000 also to get him to start a war in Iraq if he should have beaten Bush.

This is all post-hoc thinking, and none of it is even remotely logical.

Step 2: From that point there is no further investment for the candidates themselves. The candidates do what they can to forward an array of agendas beneficial to their sponsors and revolving doors.

This totally misses my point. In order to get a war, Halliburton or these other companies have to jump through a lot of hoops. They have to get Congress to authorize it or at least put up the money for it, and they have to get the military to go along with it too. Why on earth would they risk their investment in (for sake of argument) Candidate George W. Bush knowing that it's a crap shoot whether GWB actually could convince Congress to authorize the war? Suppose GWB turned out to be politically inept once in office and Congress turned against him and decided not to authorize the war in the first place? All of Halliburton's lavish contributions have gone right down the toilet in that case. Where's the guarantee that GWb could have gotten Congress, the press, the military, and some semblance of international opinion on his side sufficient to make a war possible? The fact that he did is irrelevant, because hindsight is 20/20. How could Halliburton have seen that this was a likely enough outcome to risk everything--not just money, but their entire business reputation--on a perilous gamble to try to bring it about?

Again, post-hoc thinking. Totally illogical.

step 3: Various sponsoring companies benefit from various aspects and effects of the war

Misses my point completely. This observation is meaningless unless you can also demonstrate that the companies would have benefited from war to a much greater degree than they would have benefited from any other business decision (if you assume that manipulating policy to cause a war is a business decision, which is essentially what CTs are alleging). Unless Halliburton is rolling in cash that they absolutely would not have made from ANY OTHER circumstance than starting a war in Iraq, pointing out that "various companies benefit from various aspects and effects from the war" tells us absolutely nothing about the motivation of those companies.

Example: Kathryn Bigalow made a movie about the Iraq war. Kathryn Bigalow's movie production company certainly benefited from various aspects and effects of the Iraq war. By the logic you just presented, Kathryn Bigalow caused the Iraq war.

See how silly this is?

step 4: It seems many companies are able to get some contracts even with bad PR sometimes. Eg, suspicion of warmongering, Blackwater, etc.

Yeah, but we're not talking about bad PR in the sense of, some ugly news stories about rapes or murders that some of their people have committed in Iraq. We're talking about the story of the century that, if proven, would likely result in the impeachment of a US President and international war crimes charges. Again--why would anybody credit Halliburton and Blackwater with a crystal ball so unimpeachably clear on all points that they were 100% certain everything would go so well that they'd definitely get the reconstruction contracts, and that this certainty justified the staggering financial, political and reputational risk to bring about that result?

It's loony. Absolutely loony. Nobody in business thinks this way, or in politics either. And this "see the forest for the trees" argument is bullshit too, merely intended to divert attention away from these very significant gaping logic holes and obfuscate the whole issue.

The "war for profit" motive is simply nonsensical.

I have to concur with Geo on his last statement. It's really nothing new, nor any kind of CT on the part of the backers or beneficiaries. It's just business. Plain and simple.

@Muertos, I agree. Maybe I didn't express myself clearly in the steps 1-4 above.

I merely meant this:

"My take on it is that this doesn't prove money from sponsor A caused event X, but it seems money from sponsors A,B,C tends to bring on events X,Y,Z." If there was no such tendency, A,B,C would probably stop its sponsorship.

Where, say A is Halliburton and X is Iraq.

Previously on this thread, I forwarded the claims some make that A caused X so that we can try to knock this down, and we did.

@Muertos Agreed! That is why it was so interesting for me to track down my super-intelligent friend from college's semi-CT opinion on this!

Was watching The RACHEL MADDOW show for first time tonight.

She was awesome. She brought down
-the supposed "wave against the incumbents" - all of which won except for 1 now in a run-off.
-some Arizona nutty women trying to run for office, who is against Fluoride in the water
-the Supreme Court for attempting to dismantle Arizona's otherwise great campaign finance laws so that we can be rules by our economic overloads, just like the Founding Fathers indended ... :)

Great and Funny stuff for msnbc!