[Kaminyu]

Originally Posted by Khairan

It's pretty clear that the U.S. as a whole is losing a great deal of money from this endeavour, and it's military entrenchment in Iraq is impeding it's ability to challenge Iran right now. It is simply not true that the U.S. is actively benefiting from what has been happening in Iraq -- the Bush administration and the GOP have suffered political backlash in the country, the nation has lost worldwide credibility, and Americans are mired in an expensive war which is sapping their resources and misdirecting their military power.

I'm not saying there hasn't been a great deal of corruption involved in the "rebuilding," and individual people have certainly profited from what has gone on there. However, the U.S. as a whole is not gaining anything through this -- there is no reason why Americans would want to perpetuate this mess indefinitely just for the sake of spiting muslims when they have far more opportunities to profit from a stable Iraq.

Indeed. They have lost a great deal of taxpayer money, but who have they lost it too? The money they spend on the Iraq war is going into somebody's pocket. If the Neocons who started this war (and keep it going) work for these individuals, then wouldn't that benefit them?

Remember, this isn't about the interests of the United States, it's about the interests of the MIC and the international bankers, first and foremost.

Originally Posted by MossadConspiracy

According to your article the reason that "Beamer" created the problems in Iraq (its a stretch to blame it all on Beamer or even on Bremer) is because the "MIC" would make alot of money from privatization, reconstruction contracts, oil, and the expenses of the US military adventure itself. Well, the first three things on that list generate alot more money than the fourth and they cant be done in a chaotic failed state. Notice how reconstruction contracts are no longer being renewed, no companies (MIC or otherwise) are interested in investing in southern or central Iraq or buying government assets there, and so on. While in the North, the Kurds are enjoying peace, stability, and all the foreign investment into the oil and services sectors that they want (by evil MIC corporations). Stability allows people to do business, anarchy prevents it

First, I don't think the Kurds are enjoying peace, with their conflict with Turkey. Second, the one thing that all of the Iraqis agree on, is that the oil should not be privatized by foreign corporations. The occupiers are funnelling the oil into Israel, and if stability returns, the Iraqis regain control of their oil. The military corporations within the MIC make money by selling their military hardware. If there's no war, who's going to buy it?

There is virtually little-to-nothing gained by a united, stable Iraq, by the MIC and the IBs. Dividing Iraq into 3 cantons with permenant US military bases, and the money all going to the MIC, is what they really want. How can they justify dividing Iraq up into 3, if there's no internal conflict? How can they justify permenant military bases, if a lasting peace is achieved? How would the war profiteers profit, if there's no war to profit from?

it could be that you disagree with the author and his conspiracy theories regarding Beamer and the MIC. It would seem so by your comment. In which case, you and I are on the same page about this

I don't disagree with him. I just don't think you've read through it all to really understand what he's saying.