Welcome to PatsFans.com

Iraq and the principle of cui bono

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by glecco, Apr 22, 2006.

  1. glecco

    glecco On the Roster

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2004
    Messages:
    91
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    An open question for all:

    Many of us have come to the conclusion that GB is not the brightest star to have come out of the Texas night; and whatever his motivation for deciding to create the current mess in Iraq will remain a mystery for most of us. Ultimately, his motivation doesn't really matter.

    The men surrounding him do not suffer this same lack of resource and it's reasonable to assume that whoever was pulling the strings was of sufficient intelligence to realize that the United States was not in the position to receive any benefit from the adventure in Iraq. Perhaps they were not so prescient to predict the extent of the struggle, but its fair to assume that they were intelligent enough to devise this scheme for some beneficiary. The question remains - who did they percieve to be the eventual beneficiary?

    glecco

    ------------------------------------------------

    Cui bono
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    "Cui bono ("Good for whom?", or "Who benefits?") is a
    Latin adage which means that the person or people guilty
    of committing a crime may be found amongst those who
    have something to gain, perhaps financially. Although
    the principle is useful in criminal investigations, the party
    with the most to gain may not always be obvious, or the
    guilty party may distract attention by diverting attention
    on to a scapegoat. The expression is said to have been
    coined by Roman consul and censor Lucius Cassius
    Longinus Ravilla."
     
    Last edited: Apr 22, 2006
  2. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    40,784
    Likes Received:
    231
    Ratings:
    +857 / 2 / -9

    Saddam fooled the world, he got rid of his sh!t. :bricks:
     
  3. scout

    scout Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    7,717
    Likes Received:
    30
    Ratings:
    +44 / 0 / -2

    #15 Jersey

    Great post.
    I have given it some thought, and although there was some revenge factors involved, I kept coming back to oil. Its been well documented that this administration was dividing up Iraq oil fields well before 9/11. I'm guessing that Halliburton Corporation has made the most money resulting from this war. Cheney is still associated with Halliburton and will probably take on some type of position once he leaves office. He also controlled, influenced and pulled a lot of strings that led to the war (frequent trips to the intelligence bureau). He may have not benefited as much in dollars as his corporation or even some defense contractors, but he had more to gain in the way of power and ego. I'll go with Cheney for $200.
     
  4. Turk

    Turk Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2004
    Messages:
    1,072
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    It was a power struggle between the USA and the EU.
    You may even throw Russia into the mix.

    Oil is the biggest reason, and when you have Saddam flirting shamelessly with the French, mainly France; well our conservative folk, with their newly re-found Jesus and all, would not have any of that public display of affection.

    It wasn't just Halliburton, or any one single military supplier, or any one single oil giant, it was all of them wanting to devour that little sovereign nation, or bring them democracy, whatever you may want to call it, for years to come.

    Great post, by the way, Glecco!
     
    Last edited: Apr 22, 2006
  5. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    40,784
    Likes Received:
    231
    Ratings:
    +857 / 2 / -9

    Now you guys have told us why Bush went to war, why did the Democrats want to go?

    :bricks:
     
    Last edited: Apr 22, 2006
  6. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,675
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    In the meantime, China sits by calmly collecting oil reserves with all the cash they have on hand from kicking everyone's but on manufacturing and trade using slaves. The US and Europe are exhausting themselves to get what oil they can. Meanwhile, US investment corporations buy up stocks of oil, holding them, and driving the prices up, all the while selling stock in energy sector funds.

    The money ignores the tens of thousands who die for the profit of these pigs.
     
  7. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,675
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    In the meantime, China sits by calmly collecting oil reserves with all the cash they have on hand from kicking everyone's but on manufacturing and trade using slaves. The US and Europe are exhausting themselves to get what oil they can. Meanwhile, US investment corporations buy up stocks of oil, holding them, and driving the prices up, all the while selling stock in energy sector funds.

    The money ignores the tens of thousands who die for the profit of these pigs. Free market, my a ss.
     
  8. gomezcat

    gomezcat It's SIR Moderator to you Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    3,551
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    That's a very good question, given that they all backed him. From what I have read, my guess is that they decided to go along with the war for fear of not looking tough. I don't know how much they actually believed the evidence and I don't think we will ever know. It is telling, though, that Clinton never invaded Iraq. In other words, he and the Dems presumably thought that Iraq was safely contained. So my guess is they backed the war due to moral cowardice.
     
  9. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    42,362
    Likes Received:
    235
    Ratings:
    +562 / 15 / -29

    That is a good question, but I suspect it had to do with looking soft on "terrorism" and not doing their homework, had they been united and done their homework they may have opposed...however if they opposed they would have looked weak and suffered in the polls. It is a damned if you do and damned if you don't thing, the failure to unite the Dems and lack of leadership is obvious. If I remember there was a groundswell of popularity at the time based upon what our illustrious leader was selling, even they had info contrary to it...if they had opposed it at the time they would have looked weak, but if they had come back with a completely different plan to fight terrorism and control the borders they would have looked strong...the lack of consistent message and poor leadership provided a missed opportunity.

    The Cui Bono thing, two people were supposed to benefit..

    Neo Cons..their philosophy, if things went smoother, would have benefitted immensely

    Specific Corporations..Blackwater, Haliburton, Custer Battles....all of which have made gargantuan profits from this skirmish, which is the power base of the Republican Party.
     
  10. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,098
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Good post. Follow the money, I like the latin version, Cui bono, better.
     
  11. glecco

    glecco On the Roster

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2004
    Messages:
    91
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I dont think it's Iran

    I see the point about big oil and money, but I was thinking on a geopolitical dimension - and I believe that the protagonists were thinking along these lines as well. It appears that Iran and al Qaeda may benefit from the war in Iraq, but I assume that these were unintended consequences. So who may have been among the targeted beneficiary or beneficiaries?
     
  12. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,529
    Likes Received:
    239
    Ratings:
    +390 / 15 / -14

    It's Orwell's 1984. The military-industrial complex, as Eisenhower called it, has every motivation to promote a perpetual state of war away from our borders. This increases the likelihood that the same clique can stay in power and creates enormous economic opportunity for certain businesses. As we know, many generals have consistently opposed the decision to send so few troops to Iraq, but if we had not done that, there was a risk we might have won the war too quickly. I believe our soldiers are fodder for an economic machine.
     
  13. glecco

    glecco On the Roster

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2004
    Messages:
    91
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Any thoughts?

    I am going to rejuvenate this thread in light of a recent post which raises the question of the influence of the Israel Lobby on US policy in the Middle East, and especially wrt the events leading to the invasion of Iraq.
     
  14. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    25,200
    Likes Received:
    124
    Ratings:
    +316 / 9 / -13


    Your inabilty (along with most of the rest of the left) speaks more to your lack of understanding than that of the POTUS.

    I would also note for the record that GWB's SAT
    s were higher than J Kerry's or Dollar Bill Bradley, to of the dems 'intellectual' pols.
     
  15. PATSNUTme

    PATSNUTme Paranoid Homer Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2005
    Messages:
    15,331
    Likes Received:
    106
    Ratings:
    +270 / 2 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    It is amazing how people still have a pre-9/11 mentality. The world as we knew it changed forever on that day but the thinking of many did not.
     
  16. Turd Furguson

    Turd Furguson Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2004
    Messages:
    1,245
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0


    "See, they're comparing 9/11 with Iraq, Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11" - The left


    They're so simple minded on this. They cant see 3 dimensionally in a GLOBAL war on terror.
     
  17. sdaniels7114

    sdaniels7114 Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    5,742
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    I happen to think that GWB was convinced that he could turn Iraq into a stalwart ally of the United States. That he worked from the assumption that it would be a land of sunshine and lollipops by now and that the American way would continue to march across the ME effortlessly. The idea that people would reject Democracy and the free market, even for stupid reasons, never entered into his righteous mind. People who think God is on their side tend to do that.

    So I happen to think its not very useful to think in terms of 'who benefited' because things have gone so much differently that what those who wished to 'benefit' intended.
     
  18. OhExaulted1

    OhExaulted1 In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2005
    Messages:
    2,704
    Likes Received:
    159
    Ratings:
    +469 / 17 / -29

    #15 Jersey

    The right is simple minded on this issue, not the left. Saddam Hussein is an unacceptable consilation prize for 9/11.

    Osama Bin Laden inspired, masterminded and claimed responsibility for killing 3,000 Americans on our own soil, and almost 5 years later he still remains at large taunting the families of the victims and all Americans with video and audio tapes.

    The only people that are safer as a result of the Iraq war are the Oil Sheiks of Saudi Arabia. It certainly isn't making Americans, and especially Iraqi's, any safer.

    The difference between the right and the left is the right beleives this is acceptable to the American people. They would be wrong.
     
  19. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,907
    Likes Received:
    353
    Ratings:
    +756 / 11 / -7

    I like how the post's originator had an "answer" in mind -- "Of course, it's all for Israel's benefit!" -- but nobody who pays attention to world politics jumped for the bait.

    It's kind of refreshing.

    The desire for the common man to see enemies everywhere is becoming more and more apparent, and there's no better way to create enemies than to engage in a protracted state of warfare.

    I maintain that 9/11 was an act of war, but it was gang war. Al Qaeda is nothing more than an international gang of thugs, motivated primarily by ideology rather than money or turf. We're making them something they're not, by fighting a "war" without a nation-state we can call the "enemy." We end up making enemies of the nation states we fight within, and end up fighting whole countries rather than gangs plotting criminal actions.

    Basically, it wasn't Hussein's fight, until we brought it to him. Now the war on terror is fused in many Iraqis' minds with the war to win back their country. We may be right, we may have a better values system, we may be a lot of things, but we're still foreign occupiers. Most people will adopt a screwy homegrown philosophy over one imposed from outside by force, regardless of relative merit. This is the sticking point we face in Iraq.

    And so as Patters says, we are in an Orwellian campaign to create and maintain a constant state of war paranoia and wartime compliance with the State. Bush has even attempted to call the "War on Terror" the "Long War," meaning, "don't think your civil liberties are coming back any time soon... you had too many to begin with."

    I do believe it benefits the State at the expense of its people, to curtail civil liberties. I further believe that the U.S. was founded on the notion that any rights not absolutely needed by the state default to the individual (hence the word "liberty.") A constant state of war is handy for reining in civil liberties the republicans are not "fans" of (such as Ann Coulter's recent statement that she is "not a fan of the first amendment.")

    Double plus uncool.

    PFnV
     
  20. glecco

    glecco On the Roster

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2004
    Messages:
    91
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    When I had originally submitted a theory of cui bono for consideration, I suspected that Israel was a prime candidate for the most important beneficiary for the engagement with Iraq; and a purpose I had in mind was to "wring it out of this group". I was looking for confirmation from others who took interest in the cause of the War of Iraq. There was no confirmation, and I made no further reference to this argument before coming across the same conclusion but derived from a different direction in another thread discussing the influence of the Israel Lobby.

    Though there was no confirmation, there's nothing I have learned since which has altered this judgment. After all, if one simply looks at the map, lists the nations "closest to the ball" and asks the most obvious questions, then it is a compelling possibility - if this war is not being fought for the sake of Israel, then for whose sake? It’s certainly not being fought for the benefit of the United Sates. Nor is it being fought for the benefit of Iraq, which has no influence in this country. I have great misgivings believing that this is an altruistic enterprise, and is being done for the sake of the Iraqis. Nations, this nation for instance, don’t act in that way - nor should they. This should be obvious to all but the most naive.

    It has occurred to me that wide-spread public exposure of this idea, if this should ever come to pass, presents serious difficulties for the party in power and for the Washington establishment in general. This is particularly true for the current administration. A significant portion of its constituency views an attack on Iraq for the benefit of Israel in a positive light. My superficial understanding of this concept is that coming to the aid of Jerusalem is a Biblically mandated responsibility among some of the most extreme from the Religious Right. And to others, the attack of Iraq has the side benefit of supporting the sole military ally in the area and as such, might be viewed as a component of a "Neo-Manifest" Destiny for the theoreticians of the Neocons.

    To be sure the minority party has little support from these constituencies, but has no immunity from the potential of public displeasure. I interpret Clinton's hawkish stance on Iraq at least in part out of respect for the importance of the Jewish vote which a Senator from New York needs to survive. There are many others in Congress from both parties who see a potential mine field ahead related to this issue.

    I have seen or heard virtually no discussion of this by the parochial press in this country, although by now it is old news in the rest of the world. I have viewed one staid conversation on CSPAN and have heard two short discussions of this on NPR. One of these was a call-in program where the caller was summarily dismissed by the moderator as soon as the implication became clear to him.

    For its part, the mainstream press will not on its own raise the possibility that the interests of a third party nation could be a significant contributor to the events surrounding the decisions that lead to the invasion of Iraq. The press has little interest in academic debates or historical potentiality. Such a discussion will only take place in the American press if it comes up in a newsworthy context. This could be a Congressional or campaign debate. I don’t think the hard political realities engender such a debate at this time.

    This silence may in part be because much of the public could be repelled by the very idea of what they might justifiably interpret as goon like behavior by the United States. The public at large may ask itself more self interested and practical questions. Questions such as "Well, now what?" and "Where's the payoff for the US?" These are dangerous questions from the perspective of the Washington establishment. Because of this potential, there's very little impetus to have this issue bubble to the surface and instead for it to be dismissed by the establishment as a crackpot or anti-Semitic notion.
     

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>