• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

What do you consider more importan the war on terrot or global warming?

What do you consider more important, the war on terror or Global warming?

  • War on Terror

    Votes: 18 60.0%
  • Global Warming

    Votes: 12 40.0%

  • Total voters
    30
Navy Pride said:
If I hear you liberals say one more time that you were mislead I will scream......I should post all the things people like Dean, Kerry, Clinton, and Pelosi said about Saddam before the war and why we should take him out...........

What is your point? That you perceive anybody who disagrees with Bush as liberal? Thanks for clarifying that.
 
Archon said:
Al-Qaeda is a product of the United States in origin.

No its not. Al-Qaeda was formed in reaction to the Soviet-puppet govt. in Afghanistan, and because it was anti-Soviet it recieved CIA arms and training. Now they don't like the US, because they feel it is invading the Mid-East. So it is more of started with the USSR, then increasingly become more attached with the US, now that the USSR is gone. Its more of a combination of the two countries.
 
Archon said:
Innocents are a casualty of war. Who mislead who in this war?

Who says there's any empathy for those who kill innocent people? Have you not realized that I am a pacifist who only adheres to the concept of war based upon the virtue of national security? You are talking against yourself, as you always do. However, as always, I thank you for your input.

You call running Boeing 727's into skyscrapers war? Well hey in that case why dont we just nuke the whole Middle East?

How am I talking against myself? I simply told you the importances of whats imperative and whats not. It seemed you were more worried on why terrorists are pissed off than how to alleviate this problem while they kill these innocents.

And your welcome.
 
Comrade Brian said:
No its not. Al-Qaeda was formed in reaction to the Soviet-puppet govt. in Afghanistan, and because it was anti-Soviet it recieved CIA arms and training. Now they don't like the US, because they feel it is invading the Mid-East. So it is more of started with the USSR, then increasingly become more attached with the US, now that the USSR is gone. Its more of a combination of the two countries.

Very well done comrade. Let me elaborate on this if I may. The reason why al qaeda hates us is not only were we intruding in their business, but we in a sense left al qaeda out to dry once the USSR dimantled. We basically just packed up and left without a contact because our objective was complete(which was getting rid of communism) and what this caused was the problem that before al qaeda was backed by the big dawgs and now they weren't so then the Russians got word of this that al qaeda are not sitting ducks without the US and so they ended up capturing some of these men and now al qaeda to say the least is a little mad at us for desserting them.

This is why they dont care for us too much. It was our lack of foreign policy and wanting to save a buck is what caused us this trouble.
 
SKILMATIC said:
We basically just packed up and left without a contact because our objective was complete(which was getting rid of communism)

The rest of your post I generally agreed with except this part.

Communism has not gone away, it never came, USSR, China, N. Korea, Cuba, are not communist societies, in order to do that they would need to: abolish classes, abolish private property and transform it to public property, and they couldn't have a govt., etc. etc.

But I'm not going to interrupt this thread with more of this.
 
Comrade Brian said:
The rest of your post I generally agreed with except this part.

Communism has not gone away, it never came, USSR, China, N. Korea, Cuba, are not communist societies, in order to do that they would need to: abolish classes, abolish private property and transform it to public property, and they couldn't have a govt., etc. etc.

But I'm not going to interrupt this thread with more of this.

This is true. However, we call it that popular term because it does hold alot of similarities. And so does socialism.
 
Saboteur said:
First of all I didn’t say the U.S. is exactly like Nazi Germany I just mentioned some of the parallels.



Excuse me, my father and ALL of my uncles were WWII veterans and in my admiration of them and my curiosity as to why my father would wake up screaming in the middle of the night encouraged me to obsess over WWII documentaries and factual books.

Well you didn't demonstrate this knowledge you possess in your initial post, and I apologize for misinterpreting what you said. I also commend your family for their service to our great country, I myself had a grandfather and several great uncles who served in Europe during WWII.




Saboteur said:
And to the Taliban, America is a seething breeding ground of infidels.

Are you suggesting we should have stayed out of Afghanistan and allowed the Taliban to remain in power?


Saboteur said:
Do I really need to remind you that during the Russian Afghani war we created Osama Bin Laden by sending CIA agents to train him and his people their tactics? We're the original terrorists.

The history of al Qaeda and Bin Laden can't possibly be summarized that easily. I won't insult your intelligence or waste my own time going into the details but our involvment in the Russian-Afghani war wasn't what created bin Laden and his allies.

Saboteur said:
BTW where is OSAMA?

Out of commission. Dead or alive, his influence is dead.


Saboteur said:
And you know that Saudi Arabia harbors and funds Islamic Extremists too right? There’re no plans the overthrow their government or demand to have them turn over the terrorist that was sitting right next to Osama laughing with him on the tape that confirms that Al Qaeda had a hand in 9/11. That’s right bucko they granted that terrorist amnesty and medical aid.

No ****, but unlike Afghanistan (and pre-2003 Iraq for that matter), Saudi Arabia is actually cooperating with diplomacy and reforms to their backward ways.


Saboteur said:
Anyway Hitler wasn't entirely about Genocide

Correct. He had many other insane ideals.


Saboteur said:
But we didn't run into Afghanistan solely to find Osama or over throw the Taliban, no we want control of the poppy fields for heroin production.

That belongs in the forum with topics like "Elvis is alive!" and "Who REALLY killed Kennedy."


Saboteur said:
I agree the Saddam is an A-hole and needed to be removed but he’s jus[t another one of our old friends that we funded to have a war with Iran. And who happened to have half of the Saudi oil supplies within Iraq’s border. Tell me where was the first place the Marines secured when they arrived? Never mind I know… The Oil Ministry!

Well, considering oil is the chief resource and foundation of Iraq's economy, securing their oil is a no-brainer. If we had allowed their oil infrastructure to be sabotaged, which was a very likely scenario, that country would be in shambles and make the current situation there now look like Disneyland.
I sure hope you're not suggesting we secured their oil ministry simply for our own needs because if you are, take it along with the rest of your wacky leftist theories to the conspiracy forum.



Saboteur said:
It’s nothing new I’ve been watching the likes of the drug addict hypocrite Rush Limbaugh, Fox N Friends, The Nazi Ann Coulter and the demon on earth Jerry Fallwell spread hate and lies about homosexuals, artists, politicians and liberals alike for years. It must frustrate you that it takes so many people to do to this country what Herman Gerbals did to Germany single handedly.

Once again, you seem oblivious to the insane partisanship on the left. There's really no difference to pundits on either end of the spectrum.



Saboteur said:
We are living in a different time but we are also turning onto a well traveled road… I do not understand our enemy and I don’t think many do. And yes it is very gravely wrong to stoop to the same level of our so called enemies and torture. After all isn’t it torture, murder, and rape that now justifies our ousting of Saddam Hussein? It’s certainly not based on the questionable intelligence Bush got from Chelaby and preferred over the CIA’s anymore.

I'll propose my question once again: Is it wrong to torture one terrorist to save the lives of many innocents? And please, don't try to put our tactics on the same level as Hussein's, that's just silly.


Saboteur said:
Jeez I guess I’m not the kind of person that believes that if it’s broken ‘oh well’ let just keep going. We need to reduce our emissions and lead the world in seriously developing alternative fuels.

And what exactly are oil/energy companies like BP, GE and countless others doing? Billions upoin billions are already being pumped into that exact cause. Converting over to alternate fuels doesn't happen overnight when we've been dependant on the same basic ones for more than a century.



Saboteur said:
There are so many things that are wrong with this statement. It will be a pleasure to proceed. First of all you elitist, classist, racist snob;

First of all, I have many friends of African and Latino descent so don't EVER call me a racist. And classist, elitist? Well, if being an advocate of capitalism makes me an elitist then guilty as charged.


Saboteur said:
The average unemployed person isn’t what you think. They’re not poor, they’re not black, they’re not Hispanic, they’re not homeless or drug addicts. They are mostly educated, white, middle class folks that are wondering why the companies that they put so much time and energy into shipped their jobs to India, China and Mexico.

The majority (but certainly not all) of jobs outsourced are low-skill, low-education positions. On a grander scale, outsourcing opens up MORE oppurtunities for the educated middle class in our country.


Saboteur said:
I wish I could tell each and every one of the 30,000 GM employees that just got laid off where you live.

I'm saying this as a realist, not someone without a heart, but I hope those GM employees were smart enough to see the problems with that company overflowing and take the necessary precautions.


Saboteur said:
Furthermore you may have gotten a big fat tax cut because you’re already rich but guess what, for me, $20.00 is now about as valuable as $5.00 was 10 years ago.

That's a gross exaggeration of the inflation in our country which actually has been quite low for some time now. And I didn't get jack ****, I'm 19 years old for Christ's sake. Spare me the bullshit, Bush's tax cuts weren't soley aimed at the super-rich in this country. My uncle owns a small computer repair business and he's now able to provide health insurance for his employees on top of being able to hire several new workers because of the decreased tax burden. You lefties need to wake up and realize the government with all it's red tape and bureaucratic bullshit isn't the answer to most of our problems. Jefferson and the rest of our founding fathers would be spinning in their graves if they saw the size of our government and it's out of control taxation.


Saboteur said:
And as far as social work programs for employment… well that would just be another WWII coincidence. I’ll bet the next Democrat President will have to implement them after Bush gets done putting the U.S. back in a depression.

Last I checked, Bush brought us OUT of a recession that began before he even entered office.


SABOTEUR said:
Remember Roosevelt? Ever hear of the W.P.A. or the C.C.C.?

I'm actually quite familiar with the New Deal and Roosevelt's presidency as I find it one of the most interesting periods of American history. You are aware that unemployment hovered around 25% when those programs were initiated, aren't you? When unemployment hits double digits, then maybe we can start worrying about social programs but until then, I'd like to keep the already rampant government spending in check.

Saboteur said:
Ignorance ought to win you a spot in hell with the greedy and the traitors.

Greedy? If you actually knew me you'd know I'm the quite the opposite. I'm a firm believer in private charities and if everyone did their part we wouldn't need the government to extend it's tentacles where they don't belong.
I've donated more of my own money toward hurricane relief than the average American, I can guarantee you that. I don't hesitate to drop a $20 bill on a Salvation Army bell ringer and I persoanlly go to my local Salvation Army to donate food and clothes. I don't say this to be self-righteous, it just pisses me off to no end when I hear mindless accusations like that.

And a traitor?! Well, I love my country and wouldn't want to live anywhere else in the world. That's why I enlisted in the Navy. Please, don't EVER attack my character when you know next to NOTHING about me.

If ignorance is a ticket to hell then I'll deffinitely be seeing you along with the rest of humanity there as well.
 
Last edited:
The Real McCoy said:
Well you didn't demonstrate this knowledge you possess in your initial post, and I apologize for misinterpreting what you said. I also commend your family for their service to our great country, I myself had a grandfather and several great uncles who served in Europe during WWII.






Are you suggesting we should have stayed out of Afghanistan and allowed the Taliban to remain in power?




The history of al Qaeda and Bin Laden can't possibly be summarized that easily. I won't insult your intelligence or waste my own time going into the details but our involvment in the Russian-Afghani war wasn't what created bin Laden and his allies.



Out of commission. Dead or alive, his influence is dead.




No ****, but unlike Afghanistan (and pre-2003 Iraq for that matter), Saudi Arabia is actually cooperating with diplomacy and reforms to their backward ways.




Correct. He had many other insane ideals.




That belongs in the forum with topics like "Elvis is alive!" and "Who REALLY killed Kennedy."




Well, considering oil is the chief resource and foundation of Iraq's economy, securing their oil is a no-brainer. If we had allowed their oil infrastructure to be sabotaged, which was a very likely scenario, that country would be in shambles and make the current situation there now look like Disneyland.
I sure hope you're not suggesting we secured their oil ministry simply for our own needs because if you are, take it along with the rest of your wacky leftist theories to the conspiracy forum.





Once again, you seem oblivious to the insane partisanship on the left. There's really no difference to pundits on either end of the spectrum.





I'll propose my question once again: Is it wrong to torture one terrorist to save the lives of many innocents? And please, don't try to put our tactics on the same level as Hussein's, that's just silly.




And what exactly are oil/energy companies like BP, GE and countless others doing? Billions upoin billions are already being pumped into that exact cause. Converting over to alternate fuels doesn't happen overnight when we've been dependant on the same basic ones for more than a century.





First of all, I have many friends of African and Latino descent so don't EVER call me a racist. And classist, elitist? Well, if being an advocate of capitalism makes me an elitist then guilty as charged.




The majority (but certainly not all) of jobs outsourced are low-skill, low-education positions. On a grander scale, outsourcing opens up MORE oppurtunities for the educated middle class in our country.




I'm saying this as a realist, not someone without a heart, but I hope those GM employees were smart enough to see the problems with that company overflowing and take the necessary precautions.




That's a gross exaggeration of the inflation in our country which actually has been quite low for some time now. And I didn't get jack ****, I'm 19 years old for Christ's sake. Spare me the bullshit, Bush's tax cuts weren't soley aimed at the super-rich in this country. My uncle owns a small computer repair business and he's now able to provide health insurance for his employees on top of being able to hire several new workers because of the decreased tax burden. You lefties need to wake up and realize the government with all it's red tape and bureaucratic bullshit isn't the answer to most of our problems. Jefferson and the rest of our founding fathers would be spinning in their graves if they saw the size of our government and it's out of control taxation.




Last I checked, Bush brought us OUT of a recession that began before he even entered office.




I'm actually quite familiar with the New Deal and Roosevelt's presidency as I find it one of the most interesting periods of American history. You are aware that unemployment hovered around 25% when those programs were initiated, aren't you? When unemployment hits double digits, then maybe we can start worrying about social programs but until then, I'd like to keep the already rampant government spending in check.



Greedy? If you actually knew me you'd know I'm the quite the opposite. I'm a firm believer in private charities and if everyone did their part we wouldn't need the government to extend it's tentacles where they don't belong.
I've donated more of my own money toward hurricane relief than the average American, I can guarantee you that. I don't hesitate to drop a $20 bill on a Salvation Army bell ringer and I persoanlly go to my local Salvation Army to donate food and clothes. I don't say this to be self-righteous, it just pisses me off to no end when I hear mindless accusations like that.

And a traitor?! Well, I love my country and wouldn't want to live anywhere else in the world. That's why I enlisted in the Navy. Please, don't EVER attack my character when you know next to NOTHING about me.

If ignorance is a ticket to hell then I'll deffinitely be seeing you along with the rest of humanity there as well.


It is a typical ploy of our friends from the left when they lose a debate to attack the messenger with name calling and insults.....Look at Howard Dean for example...........
 
Navy Pride said:
It is a typical ploy of our friends from the left when they lose a debate to attack the messenger with name calling and insults.....Look at Howard Dean for example...........


What have I lost?
 
The Real McCoy said:
Saboteur said:
But we didn't run into Afghanistan solely to find Osama or over throw the Taliban, no we want control of the poppy fields for heroin production.


That belongs in the forum with topics like "Elvis is alive!" and "Who REALLY killed Kennedy."

That's a gross exaggeration of the inflation in our country which actually has been quite low for some time now.

Last I checked, Bush brought us OUT of a recession that began before he even entered office.

I'm actually quite familiar with the New Deal and Roosevelt's presidency as I find it one of the most interesting periods of American history. You are aware that unemployment hovered around 25% when those programs were initiated, aren't you? When unemployment hits double digits, then maybe we can start worrying about social programs but until then, I'd like to keep the already rampant government spending in check.

It's not a simple coincidence that Poppy production in Afghanistan is at an all time, record high (no pun intended), AFTER US occupation and liberation from the Taliban. (Mind you I support legalization of drugs in an open market, not increased production for sale in criminal markets, with their associated Corruption and Violent Crimes).

Regarding Inflation, oh you better believe it is quite high. Typical policy was to control inflation to about 1% or less. Right now, it's well over 2%, close to 2.5 really.. That's well about 150% increase target levels. If you look at the GDP reports nearly $1 trillion of the GDP growth in the last five years, is because of inflation alone. That is not real production, and that deceases standard of living. Furthermore, in the overview of the 2006 Federal Budget, an increase is noted at 2.1% and compared as lower than projected inflation.

Keeping Spending in Check, you know that is SOOOO not going to happen with this President right? He's has added over 25% to the federal budget since his first budget for 2002, and the projected budget is over THREE TRILLION by 2010. That's a 50% increase in federal spending, EXCLUDING THE WARS, in 8 years (FY2002 to FY2010). His Budget Proposal, prior to the Sept 11th attack, and the war, was the first over In fact, the excessive spending by the US government is the source of inflation, and is used to mask what may otherwise be a lower growth, if not a decline, in the US GDP.
 
The Real McCoy said:
Are you suggesting we should have stayed out of Afghanistan and allowed the Taliban to remain in power?

No I'm just trying to get you to think. You should realize that the "Bad Guys" don't think they're bad guys.

The Real McCoy said:
The history of al Qaeda and Bin Laden can't possibly be summarized that easily. I won't insult your intelligence or waste my own time going into the details but our involvment in the Russian-Afghani war wasn't what created bin Laden and his allies.

Unfortunately it can be summarized that easily and I don't think you have any details.

The Real McCoy said:
No ****, but unlike Afghanistan (and pre-2003 Iraq for that matter), Saudi Arabia is actually cooperating with diplomacy and reforms to their backward ways. Well, considering oil is the chief resource and foundation of Iraq's economy, securing their oil is a no-brainer. If we had allowed their oil infrastructure to be sabotaged, which was a very likely scenario, that country would be in shambles and make the current situation there now look like Disneyland.

What current situation? Mission Accomplished!

The Real McCoy said:
I sure hope you're not suggesting we secured their oil ministry simply for our own needs because if you are, take it along with the rest of your wacky leftist theories to the conspiracy forum.

Soooo tired of being called wacky when I have a theory. You do realize that the word theory is defined as an EDUCATED GUESS right? It does not mean crazy B.S. and as far as conspiracy, is there some thing you right wingers aren't telling us? I mean you guys are the one's who get all shrill and rabid when someone suggests that exhibit B is a direct result of exhibit A.

The Real McCoy said:
Once again, you seem oblivious to the insane partisanship on the left. There's really no difference to pundits on either end of the spectrum.

Let’s see… The only ‘liberal’ news I know of is on public radio and when someone like Terry Gross is interviewing say Bill O’Riley , she asks a valid question and he starts screaming his head off and leaves. If that’s what you call partisan bashing then I don’t think it’s us on the left wearing dresses as your side likes to say.


The Real McCoy said:
I'll propose my question once again: Is it wrong to torture one terrorist to save the lives of many innocents? And please, don't try to put our tactics on the same level as Hussein's, that's just silly.

I TOLD you, yes it is very wrong to stoop to our enemy’s level. We are not just torturing one terrorist. Some Iraqis that were being held are now coming forward saying that they were held for a year, beaten and humiliated every day and were never asked a question about terrorists or insurgents. You think it’s silly that HUMAN BEINGS are being tormented with German Shepard’s? You think it’s silly that they forced men to penetrate each other’s anis? You think it’s silly to hold a person’s head under water until they’re almost dead then hoist them up to get a little air before going back under? You are aware that it has been said that torture is not an effective way of getting accurate information aren’t you?

It’s always okay until it happens to our own huh? We need to take the high ground and rise above it.


The Real McCoy said:
And what exactly are oil/energy companies like BP, GE and countless others doing? Billions upoin billions are already being pumped into that exact cause. Converting over to alternate fuels doesn't happen overnight when we've been dependant on the same basic ones for more than a century.

The U.S. is one of the most industrialized countries in the world we have the means to speed it up. But our government is just concentrating on getting control of the oil so we can use it all first. We also need to be looking for a replacement for coal. But President Bush and his administration are just going for as much money as they can get regardless of how this country will come out when their done. They are not planning for a peaceful and abundant future.


The Real McCoy said:
First of all, I have many friends of African and Latino descent so don't EVER call me a racist.

I don’t care who your friends are, until you’ve thrown rocks at the participants of the Neo-Nazi/KKK parade in Polaski TN you’ve got nothing on me. Why don’t you explain what your comment about the average unemployed person was supposed to mean?

The Real McCoy said:
And classist, elitist? Well, if being an advocate of capitalism makes me an elitist then guilty as charged.

What I mean is I think you assume that people who are unemployed are less than equal to you. And yes being a capitalist does make you greedy.


The Real McCoy said:
The majority (but certainly not all) of jobs outsourced are low-skill, low-education positions. On a grander scale, outsourcing opens up MORE oppurtunities for the educated middle class in our country.

Sure, sure, tell that to my computer programmer friend who’s currently working in the mailroom at Wal-Mart. I hope you’re going to college to be a lawyer or for marketing.


The Real McCoy said:
I'm saying this as a realist, not someone without a heart, but I hope those GM employees were smart enough to see the problems with that company overflowing and take the necessary precautions.

Right, so this is the philosophy that people use to fool themselves into believing that all these job losses don’t have anything to do with a consumer driven economy. Face it, our country is in trouble and just because the president is on your team you have to support him.


The Real McCoy said:
That's a gross exaggeration of the inflation in our country which actually has been quite low for some time now. And I didn't get jack ****, I'm 19 years old for Christ's sake.

No it’s not… I been around and EVERYTHING costs more. When I break a 20 on gas and cigarettes I’m lucky if I get $2.00 back!

The Real McCoy said:
Spare me the bullshit, Bush's tax cuts weren't soley aimed at the super-rich in this country.

Oh, okay then explain the fact that only the wealthiest 2% of our population got the tax cuts?

The Real McCoy said:
My uncle owns a small computer repair business and he's now able to provide health insurance for his employees on top of being able to hire several new workers because of the decreased tax burden.

Funny… the company I work for has been reducing our benefits every year this administration has been in control. And companies just as big keep on cutting jobs. Tell your uncle to stay small and nimble.


The Real McCoy said:
You lefties need to wake up and realize the government with all it's red tape and bureaucratic bullshit isn't the answer to most of our problems.

So what is the government for? Spending Billions of dollars on a questonable war designed to make profits for the major players? That’s not what this country is about.

Funny that we’re the only country that thinks health care is a privilege and not a right.


The Real McCoy said:
Jefferson and the rest of our founding fathers would be spinning in their graves if they saw the size of our government and it's out of control taxation.

Exactly!

The Real McCoy said:
Last I checked, Bush brought us OUT of a recession that began before he even entered office.

Gee… Is it just me or did Clinton leave office with the country in surplus? I think the recession you’re talking about is still going and it started when there was a question about who actually won the 2000 election.




The Real McCoy said:
I'm actually quite familiar with the New Deal and Roosevelt's presidency as I find it one of the most interesting periods of American history. You are aware that unemployment hovered around 25% when those programs were initiated, aren't you? When unemployment hits double digits, then maybe we can start worrying about social programs but until then, I'd like to keep the already rampant government spending in check.



2,000,000 million jobs lost since Bush took office and still counting.


The Real McCoy said:
Greedy? If you actually knew me you'd know I'm the quite the opposite. I'm a firm believer in private charities and if everyone did their part we wouldn't need the government to extend it's tentacles where they don't belong.

Well the government just cut food stamps and that wasn’t very much anyway. Plus FEMA is pulling the money it promised to the states that took in survivors. Happy?

The Real McCoy said:
I've donated more of my own money toward hurricane relief than the average American, I can guarantee you that. I don't hesitate to drop a $20 bill on a Salvation Army bell ringer and I persoanlly go to my local Salvation Army to donate food and clothes. I don't say this to be self-righteous, it just pisses me off to no end when I hear mindless accusations like that.

So you can understand my anger when I read what you said about the average unemployed person. But good for you at least you try.

The Real McCoy said:
And a traitor?! Well, I love my country and wouldn't want to live anywhere else in the world. That's why I enlisted in the Navy. Please, don't EVER attack my character when you know next to NOTHING about me.

Well good luck. I hope you don’t get hurt. Must be rough though, sitting on the internet… Makes me proud. I suggest you take your own advice. What happens when you assume? If you're really Navy I think you have the answer.

The Real McCoy said:
If ignorance is a ticket to hell then I'll deffinitely be seeing you along with the rest of humanity there as well.

“Blessed are the poor in spirit” Matthew 5:1-3
 
Terorrists could kill millions. Global warming could kill billions.

This is a no brainer surely.

Terorism could kill millions in theory if they had fissile material.
Runaway global warming could kill billions.

The terror threat crap is hyped up by Fox news anyway.

During the cold war, the US media hyped up the threat from communism in Central & S America to keep the arms manufacturers happy because they sponsor politicians & spend millions in the pentagon lobbying in favour of wars & conflicts. Now they are hyping up the threat from terror so they get the fake war on terror in Iraq they wanted so as to make $billions in profit.

Far more have died in 'war on terror' since 911 namely 25000 innocent Iraqis & 2000 American soldiers, than from terrorist acts !

It's the 'War on terror' that people need to fear more than 'terror' itself !

Send Lawyers, Guns and Money:
Lobbying and the Merchants of Death
from the book Washington on $10 million a Day
by Ken Silverstein
Common Courage Press, 1998....

"... The vast sums allocated each year to the Pentagon-$260 billion in 1997- constitutes the largest gravy train for private interests in the history of mankind.
The scale of the plunder is not the only reason that military lobbyists deserve special scrutiny. When the weapons industry convinces Congress to dole out money for more tanks and planes, a de facto outcome is that less money is left for social programs. The choice truly is between guns and butter.
Yet eight years after the Berlin Wall came down, the defense budget sits at the same level, in real dollars, as it did during the 1950s, the coldest days of the Cold War. It has declined only 23 percent from its all time peak under Ronald Reagan. As of 1997, the U.S. was spending almost as much on defense as the rest of the world combined-and internal Defense Department studies show a doubling of the Pentagon's budget over the next twenty years.
The money now being spent on "defense" is completely out of proportion to any credible threat to national security. The United States accounts for about half of all military spending on the planet and with the Soviet Union gone, the gravest "threat" to national security is posed by "rogue" nations such as North Korea, Libya, Iran and Iraq.
The absurdity of this situation is matched only by the absurdity of the military industry's post-Cold War lobbying efforts, which have been greatly increased in order to fend off any threat to its money pipeline. Here's an example of just how ridiculous things have become: A few years ago, it appeared that Congress might kill off a relic of the Cold War, the V-22 Osprey, a vertical lift-off plane whose prime contractors are Boeing and Bell Helicopter. From the perspective of Pentagon porkers and arms makers, the V-22 has special appeal: since it is incapable of carrying any of the military's current inventory of fighting vehicles, it has opened the door to a subsidiary boondoggle, the armored dune buggy. Said buggy, which is capable of attaining speeds of 80 miles per hour, is being designed especially to fit on the V-22.
To help save the plane, lobbyists for the V-22 dreamed up Alyssa, Albert B the Magic Plane, a cartoon book that was distributed to members of Congress. The comic book opens with little Alyssa playing in her backyard with Albert, a stuffed animal who springs to life. The pair dream of attending the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta but grow despondent upon concluding that they won't be able to get to the games by bicycle (too far), truck (no drivers license), boat (no water near Atlanta), the Space Shuttle (not practical), or a variety of other means.
Just as the cuddly duo have reached the point of despair a V22-the "Magic Plane"-lands in the backyard to fly them to Atlanta. After "meeting people from all over the world and learning new games," Alyssa and Albert remember that "daddy would be done fixing the kitchen sink very soon and that they needed to get back home. Alyssa wished again for the Magic Plane to come take them home. And it did!"
The dramatic tale of Alyssa and other lobbying, combined with hefty campaign donations from Boeing and Bell, led Congress to save the V-22. Coming next: The arms makers sign up Barney the Dinosaur to lobby for Star Wars.
The Pentagon's Nightmare Scenario: Budget Cuts
Though the military budget remains in the stratosphere, life has become far more complicated for the arms lobby during the past decade. During the Cold War, the military-industrial complex needed only to point to the Soviet Union, and lawmakers would immediately sign over a check to cover yet another of the Pentagon's gold-plated boondoggles. With the Soviet Bear extinct and China and other future "threats" not yet on line, the public has grown somewhat more reluctant to tolerate Cold War levels of defense spending.
Hence, soon after the fall of the Berlin Wall the arms industry and the Pentagon began invoking the grave threat to national security posed by the "rogue" nations. But this strategy never galvanized the public. As Michael Klare has written in The Nation, "None of the prominent rogues have made any move in recent years to threaten U.S. interests seriously, and periodic claims of major breakthroughs by these states in acquiring nuclear or chemical weapons have rarely amounted to much....Only Iran now appears as a credible enemy...[but it] spends only about 1 percent of what the United States spends on defense [and its] poorly equipped military is a mere shadow of the force assembled by Saddam Hussein in 1990."
By 1997, the Pentagon had grown desperate to find a stand-in for the Red Army, as seen in a secret document prepared by the Air Force University that year and uncovered by journalist Andrew Cockburn. Peering into the second decade of the coming millennium, Air Force soothsayers were pointing to the emergence of a terrifying specter they called The Khan (as in Genghis). By this the "futurists" mean an aggressive China, enlarged by domination of the entire Korean Peninsula, not to mention Japan and possibly Vietnam. The Khan will be an economic superpower and thus able to develop and produce the most advanced forms of weaponry. It therefore follows that U.S. defense spending will have to rise commensurably to defend the West against this ominous Asian monster.
Elsewhere in the Pentagon officials are invoking the menace of "peer competitors," by which they mean China (though not yet grown to Khan dimensions) and, bizarrely, Russia. Yet others talk of GET, which stands for Generic Emerging Threat-a menace as yet undefined but against which the U.S. had better arm itself.
The Pet Rock Lobby
In addition to its failure to drum up a new "threat" to national security, the arms industry lobby is burdened by the shoddy nature of some of its wares. The primary cause here is that the chief mission of the U.S. defense industry is not to protect national security, but to inflate contractor profits.
This is seen in the case of McDonnell Douglas's hopeless C17 cargo plane. Like many current Pentagon projects, the C-17 gained momentum following the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, when the Carter administration pushed for a wave of new defense spending to counter the Red Menace. The Pentagon initially planned to buy 210 C-17s for $32 billion-$152 million apiece-but in 1990 cut the order to 120 planes for $36 billion-$333 million apiece. In 1993, the program was further reduced to 40 planes, with the per copy cost soaring to $700 million.
Since the original justification for the aircraft has vanished, the Pentagon and McDonnell Douglas now insist that the cargo plane is essential to national security because of its alleged ability to move personnel and tons of equipment to distant combat zones. Just as important is the C-17's much hyped capacity to land on short, dirt airstrips, and thus handle the dangerous task of re-supplying advance troops.
In reality, the C-17 is a threat to national security, and to anyone who is forced to ride it. A 1992 Congressional Research Service report detailed a few of the problems experienced by this monstrous boondoggle, including multiple problems with the software for the C-17's nineteen on-board computers. The C-17 also has a mysterious center-of-gravity problem, which makes take-off extremely dangerous unless the plane is fully loaded. When the aircraft is empty, sources say, Air Force crews keep two 7,950 pound cement blocs-known as the "pet rocks"-in the craft's forward area to ensure safe take-off This means that the C-17 will either fly into action pre-loaded with nearly eight tons of cement or advance troops will be forced to tote along two "pet rocks" to load onto the plane after removing its cargo.
Even worse, the C-17 is incapable of carrying out its assigned task of forward re-supply. The enormous aircraft needs at least 4,000 feet of runway to land, 1,000 more than the Air Force claims. A former Pentagon official tells me that the C-17 cannot come down on a dirt airstrip because its jet engines will "ingest" earth. "You could land it on a concrete strip but if you try to put it down on dirt you'll end up with some very expensive repair hills," says this person, who points out that advance combat troops are not normally anywhere near a concrete landing strip.
This same person says that a used Boeing 747, which can be bought and modified for less than $100 million, can carry three times as much cargo as the C- 17 and twice as far. In fact, the Pentagon's old twin engine C-123, which was used in Vietnam, could perform the C-17's job perfectly well Unfortunately, the Pentagon hated that plane because it was inexpensive and lacked the glamour of a jet-engine aircraft. As the source points out, "this golden turkey represents a sizable chunk of the GNP and can be blown to smithereens by a $22 mortar shell.
 
Last edited:
Cont'd
In the Belly of the Beast
If the post-Cold War environment has left arms makers exposed, the industry still has plenty of assets when it comes to getting its way in Washington. Chief among them is that weapons makers, to an even greater extent than other industries, have especially tight links to the government bureaucracy. When the Pentagon in 1997 needed a team to prepare a report on "reshaping the U.S. military for the 21st century," it picked for the job a task force headed by Philip Odeen, president of BDM, one of the country's big defense companies. Odeen was ably assisted by other hacks for the weapons lobby including Robert Riscassi, a former Army general who now serves as a vice president at Lockheed. The task force, known as the Quadrennial Defense Review, predictably concluded that force levels should be cut further, but the Pentagon's procurement budget should be increased, thereby ensuring future profits for the arms industry.
The Pentagon's Defense Policy Advisory Committee on Trade provides confidential recommendations to the Secretary of Defense on the sale of weapons abroad. Members have included CEOs from Lockheed, Boeing, Northrop Grumman and McDonnell, as well as a number of former Pentagon officials who now serve as consultants to the arms industry.
Needless to say, the Advisory Committee invariably favors elimination of any barrier to foreign sales and the introduction of a host of new public subsidies to arms companies. Then there's the Pentagon's Defense Science Board, where Defense Department officials and industry executives join hands to lard out vast sums of money to fund research on future boondoggles. Past members at the science board have included former Defense Secretary William Perry; former CIA chief John Deutsch, and Paul Kaminski, the assistant secretary for defense.
Worthy of more detail is the Defense Trade Advisory Group (DTAG), the panel set up by the State Department to offer counsel in regard to the Direct Commercial Sales (DCS) program, by which defense contractors make private sales to foreign military and police forces. Details about the DCS program are hard to come by, since only deals worth more than $14 million must be reported to Congress. In theory, State allows the sale of weapons destined for a "defensive" role. It will not vend arms to an "aggressor" nation.
In practice, State authorizes sales to virtually any nation capable of paying for its purchases. Of some 20,000 requests for licenses made by vendors in 1994, State rejected just 209. During the Clinton years, State has sanctioned the sale of tank engines to Israel, trainer aircraft to Taiwan, and Black Hawk helicopters to Mexico. Also approved were deals with Guatemala, El Salvador, Colombia and Saudi Arabia.
None of this is surprising after examining the roster of DTAG, State's advisor on these deals. In 1995, 57 of the 60 panel members came from the arms industry. The group was headed at the time by William Schneider, a veteran of the military-industrial complex who served as undersecretary of state for security assistance during the Reagan/Bush years.
One especially enthusiastic DTAG member is Joel Johnson of the Aerospace Industries Association. Reflecting the judicious approach he brings to the committee, Johnson once told the Los Angeles Times that he "would feel more guilty selling sugar-coated breakfast cereal to kids" than he does about selling weapons abroad. After the Chinese government carried out its bloody crackdown at Tienanmen Square, Johnson fretted that the U.S. government might prevent arms companies from cutting new deals with Beijing. "If we get out of the Chinese market now, we could lose out on sales well into the next century," he told William Hartung, an analyst at the World Policy Institute. In any case, he added, Tiananmen was no big deal. "For the Chinese, whether it was 200 or 2,000 deaths, it's just a blip on the radar screen. It's like their version of Kent State."
The three non-industry members of DTAG are two lawyers and Janne Nolan, a polite centrist from the Brookings Institution. When former Arkansas Senator David Pryor questioned State Department officials about the objectivity of the group, they pointed to Nolan as providing balance.
DTAG is not a policy-making body, but it has lobbied the Clinton administration on proposals it reviews, such as revisions in export regulations and conventional arms transfer policy. "DTAG has frequent, high-level access to the people who are making policy," says Lora Lumpe of the Federation of American Scientists. "People from the arms control community are completely shut out of that loop."
Opening a New Front in the Lobbying Wars
The end of communism convinced the arms lobby that Congress could no longer be counted on to rubber stamp every new weapons program put in front of it by the military-industrial complex. Hence, many big defense firms greatly stepped up their beltway lobbying efforts following the fall of the Berlin
A first step taken by many companies was to move corporate offices to Washington, or to beef up existing D.C. operations. The rush to the beltway began in earnest in 1991, when Grumman (later bought by Northrop, which in 1997 was purchased by Lockheed) moved from St. Louis to Falls Church in northern Virginia. As then-CEO William Anders told the New York Times, the move was made so as to bring the company's "leadership closer to our principal customers and policy makers." Other companies followed suit, including the nation's biggest defense contractor, Lockheed, which moved from Calbasas, California, to Bethesda, Maryland, after its merger with Martin Marietta in 1995. "There are no longer plenty of programs to go around," John Harbison, a vice president at Booz-Allen & Hamilton, told Defense News in 1996 in explaining the eastward march.
The arms makers dramatically increased their spending on lobbying programs as well. In 1987, GE was considered to be the defense industry's lobbying powerhouse, with 19 lobbyists working in Washington. Raytheon, Hughes and United Technology didn't have a single influence peddler registered with Congress. Lobbying expenditures by the big defense firms averaged about $40,000 per year. As late as 1991, the ten biggest defense companies had a total of 108 lobbyists registered in Washington.
As of mid-1997, Lockheed Martin alone has 87 lobbyists registered with Congress, 26 working out of the company's own offices and 61 at outside firms that the company had on retainer. Lockheed's total lobbying expenditures for 1996 totaled $3.8 million, 10 times more than the combined lobbying expenditures for the ten biggest defense contractors in 1985.
While Boeing has fewer lobbyists on its payroll-70-it spent more than Lockheed, shelling out $5.2 million for lobbying in 1996. Other arms makers have similarly huge efforts, with Northrop employing 58 lobbyists and McDonnell Douglas 53.
The merchants of death have also stepped up their pace of campaign contributions. In 1987, political contributions by weapons companies averaged a few hundred thousand dollars a year. In 1996, Lockheed Martin ponied up $2.3 million in PAC and soft money contributions to the big parties. All told, defense makers delivered more than $11 million to friends in high places during the 1996 presidential and congressional campaigns.
To build further political support on Capitol Hill, arms makers have begun promoting weapons systems as being not only vital to national security but jobs programs to boot. To make the jobs pitch work, defense makers spread out contracts and subcontracts across the nation, thereby giving every state- and more importantly, most members of Congress-a stake in a given arms program.
Rockwell made especially smart use of this tactic in lobbying for its B-1 bomber, the hideously expensive plane deemed so unreliable that the Air Force didn't dare send it into combat during the Gulf War (and now put out to pasture with the National Guard, which will presumably use the craft to conduct urgent national security tasks such as bombing marijuana plantations). Some 5,000 companies in all 48 contiguous states worked on the B-1. The wings were made in Nashville, the tail assembly in Baltimore, engines near Cincinnati, wheels in Akron and electronic units in Nashua, New Hampshire. "From the standpoint of efficiency, to try to make a [weapons system] in as many congressional districts as possible is nuts," former Rep. Patricia Schroeder told the New York Times a few years back. "But from a lobbying standpoint it's incredibly sophisticated."
An Army of Lobbyists:
The Pentagon's Job Placement Program
The arms lobby's firepower is further augmented by the nonstop revolving door between the Pentagon and the defense industry. Common Cause published a study some years ago which showed that between 1983 and 1985, 3,745 officers with the rank of major or above, along with top level civilian employees at the Pentagon, had gone to work for arms contractors. The revolving door is spinning just as fast today, with thousands of Cold War veterans-both bureaucrats and soldiers-now serving as consultants and lobbyists to the arms industry, as well as on the boards of directors of the big weapons makers.
Until 1997, Lockheed was headed by Norman Augustine, a former secretary of the army. The company's board includes retired Gen. Riscassi, mentioned above as a member of the Pentagon panel that issued a report on future defense priorities. Among the top lobbyists at the company's corporate offices in Bethesda, Maryland, are Alan Ptak, a former Navy deputy secretary of defense, and Jack Overstreet, ex-chief of weapons systems at the Air Force.
 
Cont'd
Then there's SAIC, a huge high-tech firm, which receives more contracts from the government than any other company. It translates and decodes intercepts for the NSA, provides the CIA with computer software to analyze intelligence data, and has a variety of contracts working on the Star Wars missile defense program. SAIC's board members have included two former defense secretaries-William Perry and Melvin Laird- and three former heads of the CIA-John Deutsch, Bobby Ray Inman, and Robert Gates. Most top positions at the firm are filled by retired military officials, spooks, former Congressional staffers and employees of federal agencies
In the years immediately following World War 11, military officers did not commonly go to work for defense companies upon retiring from active duty (with the exception of the Air Force, which has always been the most corrupt service branch). There was a social stigma about using influence and knowledge attained while serving one's country as tools of profiteering. Today, such inhibitions have all but disappeared.
Ernie Fitzgerald is the Air Force official who was fired by President Nixon because he blew the whistle on cost overruns on Lockheed's G130. Fitzgerald sued to get his job back and was reinstated four years later following a long court battle. Fitzgerald is still at the Pentagon and is as crotchety as ever about the corruption there. Here's how he explains the inner workings of the revolving door
Military officers for the most part are forced to retire when their family expenses are at a peak-they've got a couple of kids in college and they're still paying a mortgage. They won't starve on their retired pay. But at the same time they can't keep up their lifestyle. What happens in our system is that the services see one of their management duties as placing their retired officers, just like a good university will place its graduates. And the place the services have the most influence at is with the contractors.
If you're a good clean-living officer and you don't get drunk at lunch or get caught messing around with the opposite sex in the office, and you don't raise too much of a fuss about horror stories you come across-when you retire, a nice man will come calling. Typically he'll be another retired officer. And he'll be driving a fancy car, a Mercedes or equivalent, and wearing a $2,000 suit and Gucci shoes and Rolex watch. He will offer to make a comfortable life for you by getting you a comfortable job at one of the contractors.
Now, if you go around kicking people in the shins, raising hell about the outrages committed by the big contractors, no nice man comes calling. It's that simple.
Sell, Sell, Sell: Lobbyists and Foreign Arms Sales
A particularly illuminating case of the revolving door in action is that of retired Lt. Gen. Howard Fish. A former Pentagon staffer I interviewed says Fish worked in the Pentagon for decades but always as a staff officer. "He never commanded anything in his life," this person says. "He was one of the all-time champions of service in the Pentagon, always holding ass-kissing positions."
During the Nixon and Ford administrations, Fish headed the Defense Security Assistance Agency (DSAA), the Pentagon bureau that handles foreign military sales and one of the more corrupt components of the military establishment. The DSAA has a field staff of about 1,000 people who work out of the U.S. embassy in some 15 countries. They offer everything from briefings on weapons systems to demonstrations of major aircraft, in addition to arranging the financing needed to close a deal.
The DSAA receives a 3 percent commission per sale- which provides about 80 percent of its operating budget-and agency personnel are promoted on the basis of the* ability to move weaponry. Due to this dynamic, says a 1991 report from Congress's now defunct Office of Technology Assessment, "there is powerful incentive for DSAA personnel to make as many sales as possible."
As head of the DSAA, Fish was an exuberant promoter of selling weapons to any and all buyers. According to William Hartung of the World Policy Institute, Fish played a key role in watering down the Arms Export Control Act of 1976, which would have placed a ceiling on total foreign arms sales and given Congress the right to veto sales on human rights grounds.
During the early 1970s, Fish was among several officials who were found to have passed sensitive information about contractual matters to several big arms makers, including Lockheed and LTV Aerospace & Defense. The information was of great use to the arms makers, as it involved plans for overseas sales and information about what weapons systems might be targeted for cuts. The affair caused a huge scandal inside the Pentagon, but Fish escaped censure.
At roughly the same time Fish became heavily involved in sales to Iran, then headed by the Shah. Iran was seen as an enormous cash cow for the Pentagon and the arms makers. The environment surrounding the arms trade was so corrupt that even the Shah became incensed, especially about American "brokers" for U.S. companies who were running around Iran and receiving huge commissions on deals they arranged. When the Shah sought to eliminate bribes and fees paid to these brokers, Fish fought him every inch of the way, claiming that this would impinge on the flexibility contractors needed to close deals.
Later in the decade Fish began to take a keen interest in Egypt, as that nation was coming on-line as a major buyer of U.S. weaponry. As a result of the 1978 Camp David accords, Egypt was to receive $1 billion per year in military aid. To ship weapons to the Egyptians, the Pentagon signed an exclusive contract with a company called Eatsco, which was formed by an Egyptian government official named Hussein K. Salem and a retired CIA official named Thomas Clines, who later played a prominent role in the Iran-Contra scandal. A third principal, though a silent one, was Edwin Wilson, the retired CIA agent who at the time was living in Libya and providing military equipment and training to the government of Muammar Quaddafi. Wilson is currently serving a 52-year prison term for arranging shipments of explosives to Quaddafi, and for subsequent attempts to kill witnesses against him.
It later turned out that Eatsco had overbilled the Pentagon by $8 million on shipments to the Egyptians. In one case, Eatsco billed the government $1.3 million for a shipment that cost about half that much. The mark-up increased further on a $46,409 shipment for which Eatsco billed the government $210,904.
It also turned out that Eatsco had two additional principals, both silent partners who worked inside the government. The two were Fish's closest cronies at the Pentagon, Richard Secord, later another big player in the Iran-Contra affair, and Erich von Marbod, who served as Fish's second in command at the DSAA. Secord and von Marbod were forced to retire from the Pentagon as a result of the Eatsco affair, though the cause was hushed up.
Fish's work at the Pentagon provided him with the perfect resume when he decided to retire from government in the late 1970s. He quickly found work with LTV-one of the two firms he had provided classified information to a few years earlier. Within months of his resignation he turned up in Malaysia, where he was hawking A-7 fighters. Fish also hired von Marbod to work at LTV's Paris offices.
Fish later worked as the head of international marketing for Loral, another big weapons maker, and then took charge of the American League for Exports and Security Assistance (ALESA) in the late 1980s. The latter outfit is one of the many powerful trade groups formed by arms makers-others include the Aerospace Industries Association and the American Defense Preparedness Association-to lobby for higher military outlays at home and greater U.S. military involvement abroad.
One of Fish's chief missions has been promoting the sale of weapons to the Middle East, especially to Saudi Arabia where Fish has intimate connections (he kept a picture of Saudi King Fahd on a bookcase at his office). Back in 1989, Fish met with chief of staff John Sununu and National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft in a successful effort to convince the Bush administration to sell frontline tanks and supersonic fighters to Arab countries.
An impressive display of the ALESA's efforts came in the early 1990s, when at the behest of weapons makers it helped form the Middle East Action Group to press for deals then in the pipeline with the Saudis. Other members of the coalition included GE, Ford, Bechtel, Boeing, and the U.S.-Arab Chamber of Commerce
In addition to Fish, the Action Group also retained the services of a number of high-powered consultants with links to the Saudis. These include:
Dov Zakheim, a former deputy defense undersecretary for Reagan, chief defense adviser to Bob Dole during the 1996 presidential campaign and head of a consulting firm called SPC International. Zakheim is an ordained rabbi with close ties to the American Jewish community. His great credibility with the pro-Israel lobby makes Zakheim especially useful to arms makers lobbying for sales to Arab countries.
Sandra Charles served on the National Security Council as director for Middle East Affairs during the Bush years. After retiring, she formed a consulting firm, C&O Resources, which handles foreign policy analysis, business development, and arms sales to the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia."
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Political_Corruption/LobbyingMerchantsDeath.html
 
robin said:
Cont'd
Then there's SAIC, a huge high-tech firm, which receives more contracts from the government than any other company. It translates and decodes intercepts for the NSA, provides the CIA with computer software to analyze intelligence data, and has a variety of contracts working on the Star Wars missile defense program. SAIC's board members have included two former defense secretaries-William Perry and Melvin Laird- and three former heads of the CIA-John Deutsch, Bobby Ray Inman, and Robert Gates. Most top positions at the firm are filled by retired military officials, spooks, former Congressional staffers and employees of federal agencies
In the years immediately following World War 11, military officers did not commonly go to work for defense companies upon retiring from active duty (with the exception of the Air Force, which has always been the most corrupt service branch). There was a social stigma about using influence and knowledge attained while serving one's country as tools of profiteering. Today, such inhibitions have all but disappeared.
Ernie Fitzgerald is the Air Force official who was fired by President Nixon because he blew the whistle on cost overruns on Lockheed's G130. Fitzgerald sued to get his job back and was reinstated four years later following a long court battle. Fitzgerald is still at the Pentagon and is as crotchety as ever about the corruption there. Here's how he explains the inner workings of the revolving door
Military officers for the most part are forced to retire when their family expenses are at a peak-they've got a couple of kids in college and they're still paying a mortgage. They won't starve on their retired pay. But at the same time they can't keep up their lifestyle. What happens in our system is that the services see one of their management duties as placing their retired officers, just like a good university will place its graduates. And the place the services have the most influence at is with the contractors.
If you're a good clean-living officer and you don't get drunk at lunch or get caught messing around with the opposite sex in the office, and you don't raise too much of a fuss about horror stories you come across-when you retire, a nice man will come calling. Typically he'll be another retired officer. And he'll be driving a fancy car, a Mercedes or equivalent, and wearing a $2,000 suit and Gucci shoes and Rolex watch. He will offer to make a comfortable life for you by getting you a comfortable job at one of the contractors.
Now, if you go around kicking people in the shins, raising hell about the outrages committed by the big contractors, no nice man comes calling. It's that simple.
Sell, Sell, Sell: Lobbyists and Foreign Arms Sales
A particularly illuminating case of the revolving door in action is that of retired Lt. Gen. Howard Fish. A former Pentagon staffer I interviewed says Fish worked in the Pentagon for decades but always as a staff officer. "He never commanded anything in his life," this person says. "He was one of the all-time champions of service in the Pentagon, always holding ass-kissing positions."
During the Nixon and Ford administrations, Fish headed the Defense Security Assistance Agency (DSAA), the Pentagon bureau that handles foreign military sales and one of the more corrupt components of the military establishment. The DSAA has a field staff of about 1,000 people who work out of the U.S. embassy in some 15 countries. They offer everything from briefings on weapons systems to demonstrations of major aircraft, in addition to arranging the financing needed to close a deal.
The DSAA receives a 3 percent commission per sale- which provides about 80 percent of its operating budget-and agency personnel are promoted on the basis of the* ability to move weaponry. Due to this dynamic, says a 1991 report from Congress's now defunct Office of Technology Assessment, "there is powerful incentive for DSAA personnel to make as many sales as possible."
As head of the DSAA, Fish was an exuberant promoter of selling weapons to any and all buyers. According to William Hartung of the World Policy Institute, Fish played a key role in watering down the Arms Export Control Act of 1976, which would have placed a ceiling on total foreign arms sales and given Congress the right to veto sales on human rights grounds.
During the early 1970s, Fish was among several officials who were found to have passed sensitive information about contractual matters to several big arms makers, including Lockheed and LTV Aerospace & Defense. The information was of great use to the arms makers, as it involved plans for overseas sales and information about what weapons systems might be targeted for cuts. The affair caused a huge scandal inside the Pentagon, but Fish escaped censure.
At roughly the same time Fish became heavily involved in sales to Iran, then headed by the Shah. Iran was seen as an enormous cash cow for the Pentagon and the arms makers. The environment surrounding the arms trade was so corrupt that even the Shah became incensed, especially about American "brokers" for U.S. companies who were running around Iran and receiving huge commissions on deals they arranged. When the Shah sought to eliminate bribes and fees paid to these brokers, Fish fought him every inch of the way, claiming that this would impinge on the flexibility contractors needed to close deals.
Later in the decade Fish began to take a keen interest in Egypt, as that nation was coming on-line as a major buyer of U.S. weaponry. As a result of the 1978 Camp David accords, Egypt was to receive $1 billion per year in military aid. To ship weapons to the Egyptians, the Pentagon signed an exclusive contract with a company called Eatsco, which was formed by an Egyptian government official named Hussein K. Salem and a retired CIA official named Thomas Clines, who later played a prominent role in the Iran-Contra scandal. A third principal, though a silent one, was Edwin Wilson, the retired CIA agent who at the time was living in Libya and providing military equipment and training to the government of Muammar Quaddafi. Wilson is currently serving a 52-year prison term for arranging shipments of explosives to Quaddafi, and for subsequent attempts to kill witnesses against him.
It later turned out that Eatsco had overbilled the Pentagon by $8 million on shipments to the Egyptians. In one case, Eatsco billed the government $1.3 million for a shipment that cost about half that much. The mark-up increased further on a $46,409 shipment for which Eatsco billed the government $210,904.
It also turned out that Eatsco had two additional principals, both silent partners who worked inside the government. The two were Fish's closest cronies at the Pentagon, Richard Secord, later another big player in the Iran-Contra affair, and Erich von Marbod, who served as Fish's second in command at the DSAA. Secord and von Marbod were forced to retire from the Pentagon as a result of the Eatsco affair, though the cause was hushed up.
Fish's work at the Pentagon provided him with the perfect resume when he decided to retire from government in the late 1970s. He quickly found work with LTV-one of the two firms he had provided classified information to a few years earlier. Within months of his resignation he turned up in Malaysia, where he was hawking A-7 fighters. Fish also hired von Marbod to work at LTV's Paris offices.
Fish later worked as the head of international marketing for Loral, another big weapons maker, and then took charge of the American League for Exports and Security Assistance (ALESA) in the late 1980s. The latter outfit is one of the many powerful trade groups formed by arms makers-others include the Aerospace Industries Association and the American Defense Preparedness Association-to lobby for higher military outlays at home and greater U.S. military involvement abroad.
One of Fish's chief missions has been promoting the sale of weapons to the Middle East, especially to Saudi Arabia where Fish has intimate connections (he kept a picture of Saudi King Fahd on a bookcase at his office). Back in 1989, Fish met with chief of staff John Sununu and National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft in a successful effort to convince the Bush administration to sell frontline tanks and supersonic fighters to Arab countries.
An impressive display of the ALESA's efforts came in the early 1990s, when at the behest of weapons makers it helped form the Middle East Action Group to press for deals then in the pipeline with the Saudis. Other members of the coalition included GE, Ford, Bechtel, Boeing, and the U.S.-Arab Chamber of Commerce
In addition to Fish, the Action Group also retained the services of a number of high-powered consultants with links to the Saudis. These include:
Dov Zakheim, a former deputy defense undersecretary for Reagan, chief defense adviser to Bob Dole during the 1996 presidential campaign and head of a consulting firm called SPC International. Zakheim is an ordained rabbi with close ties to the American Jewish community. His great credibility with the pro-Israel lobby makes Zakheim especially useful to arms makers lobbying for sales to Arab countries.
Sandra Charles served on the National Security Council as director for Middle East Affairs during the Bush years. After retiring, she formed a consulting firm, C&O Resources, which handles foreign policy analysis, business development, and arms sales to the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia."
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Political_Corruption/LobbyingMerchantsDeath.html

Isn't there some forum rule about publishing books in a post?
 
There is hope...Judging by the results of the poll so far the majority of the people think winning the war on terror is impre important.............

That is great to see.........
 
Saboteur said:
Both are equally important.

The war on terror has taught the world that the United States is on the path that Hitler took Germany down during World War II.

It all started with nationalistic lies just like the Nazi political campaign. Our country then swiftly invaded 2 countries in German 'Blitzkrieg' fashion (we called it shock and awe). Now back home our so called 'liberal' media and the religious right is spreading hateful opinions of gays and democrats. Massacres of POW's in Afghanistan. The death of a very liberal senator, Paul Wellstone. The smear campaign of political opponents, I don't doubt that the Bush administration would kill these people if they could get away with it. The first appearance of prison camps were people are being held for being 'enemy combatants', though because they weren't wearing uniforms the Geniva Convention doesn't apply (of course it's an atrosity the second and a captive american get punched in the face). All ending up with secret prisons where torture is being performed (IMHO the most terrible act one human can perform on another).

Global warming is a sure sign of our environment being ruined by greenhouse gases. The climate will change and we can expect even more devestating storms in the future. It is currently being ignored by several countries including the U.S.. This could be changed, we currently have the technology and the unemployeed work force. We just happen to be under the rule of an idiot king and his conniving cabinet of ruthless scoundrels.

You have just entered the Twilight Zone

War on Terror is a real threat
Global Warming is real, but not a threat
the earth has heated and cooled throughout its history.
it is just the cycles of the planet
 
Navy Pride said:
There is hope...Judging by the results of the poll so far the majority of the people think winning the war on terror is impre important.............

That is great to see.........

EXACTLY. Anti-War on Terrorism advocates can spew all the garbage they want but the poll results speak for themselves. Then they (the minority) claim to be the only enlightened ones while everyone else has been brainwashed. Silly liberals, Trix are for kids!
 
Navy Pride said:
Isn't there some forum rule about publishing books in a post?
Oh yeah.. deal with the issues NP.
Not the content but some beaurocratic rule about quotes :roll:
Why don't you try reading it. Might open your eyes.
 
DeeJayH said:
You have just entered the Twilight Zone

War on Terror is a real threat
Global Warming is real, but not a threat
the earth has heated and cooled throughout its history.
it is just the cycles of the planet

I agree the war on terror is a real threat... To the rest of the free world! Considering that China is now helping us out with what another 100 billion? I wonder how much Bush will sell your organs to them for?

Hey ya wanted Twilight Zone.
 
DeeJayH said:
You have just entered the Twilight Zone

War on Terror is a real threat
Global Warming is real, but not a threat
the earth has heated and cooled throughout its history.
it is just the cycles of the planet

And no matter how much the whacko left wing environmentalists try and spin it, its not cause by the human race...............
 
The Real McCoy said:
EXACTLY. Anti-War on Terrorism advocates can spew all the garbage they want but the poll results speak for themselves. Then they (the minority) claim to be the only enlightened ones while everyone else has been brainwashed. Silly liberals, Trix are for kids!

Yeah thats what those right wingers do when they lose a debate... start spewing hate!
 
Navy Pride said:
And no matter how much the whacko left wing environmentalists try and spin it, its not cause by the human race...............


Hey, what's it caused by then?
 
Back
Top Bottom