[drblow]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-10774002

The Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction says the US Department of Defence is unable to account properly for 96% of the money.

Out of just over $9bn (£5.8bn), $8.7bn is unaccounted for, the inspector says ...

Much of the money came from the sale of Iraqi oil and gas, and some frozen Saddam Hussein-era assets were also sold off.

Wow. So much for all the promises that Iraqi oil & gas money would be spent on helping the Iraqi people then.

According to the report, the Pentagon is unable to fully account for $8.7bn of funds it withdrew between 2004 and 2007, and of that amount it "could not provide documentation to substantiate how it spent $2.6bn".

Perhaps they ought to have a look in Dick Cheney's personal account?

How much more proof do people actually need that the US administration has been using the Iraq war as a cash-cow? How much more proof do people need that the interests of the Iraqi people are the last thing on the agenda?

[FarqBllX]

Errrrr

Are we going off on one of your CT's here blowjob?

[drblow]

In what way is the article above a "theory"? It's an article that states catagorically that the money has been lost ... there is no theory involved.

Does it suggest that it goes as evidence towards a "conspiracy" in regard to money going missing in Iraq ... er, yes.

But, of course, anything posted about Iraq has to be one of those loony conspiracy theories, right? Never mind that the content actually shows evidence to back up the loony theories.

Back to sleep.

[General Mike]

Quote:

Perhaps they ought to have a look in Dick Cheney's personal account?

Don't worry DB. When Cheney dies his total estate will be made public. Cheney is a multi-millionaire. If his estate runs into billions, you can start pointing that ever-pointing finger of yours.

[drblow]

Well then in that case I shall demand he is dug up and re-executed.

[Am_Fìobhach]

Quite often, I'd be hard pressed to account where 96% of my money goes. Not that there's any fiddling involved - it's just that I make some quite legitimate purchases (e.g. food and drink) and happen not to keep a record of it.

Whatever is in this, I suspect it owes more to lacunae in accounting systems than to out-and-out fiddling and I would venture the view that most of the money was spent in ways compatible with the intention.

[drblow]

Quote:

Quite often, I'd be hard pressed to account where 96% of my money goes.

I would say "well, thank goodness you aren't in charge of distributing finds in Iraq ... oh wait a minute".

So what? Your personal financial where-with-all has no bearing on whether a fund of 9 billion dollars of Iraqi money has been inappropriated.

Quote:

I suspect it owes more to lacunae in accounting systems than to out-and-out fiddling

96%? Losing track of 96% of funds made from the sale of Iraqi oil & gas, money ear-marked for the reconsturction of war-torn Iraq? You think that incompetence can explain it away?

Well, more fool you. However, if you stick to that assumption then surely you then ought to call for the people responsible for this incompetence to be summarily brought to bear for their mismanagement of money taken from a war-torn people and supposed to fund the reconstruction of the country which has been blown to shit and back by the same people who now have allegedly "lost track" of all the cash.

Quote:

I would venture the view that most of the money was spent in ways compatible with the intention.

How very generous of you. I would venture the view that most of it was divvied up between private US companies (probably all owned by Cheney) to conduct "reconstruction" which has yet to actually happen, or else has been done to such a shoddy standard that someone needed some documentation to disappear. Hell, maybe Dick needed some spending money.

[General Mike]

Quote:

I would venture the view that most of it was divvied up between private US companies

The US spent a great deal of money paying off various paramilitary and religious factions in Iraq just to affect a peace in the latter part of the time frame in which this money was 'lost' (although the article states it could just be a matter of achival retrieval of records). I think it's far more likely that a large portion of the money went in this kind of direction -- on the ground in Iraq to type of folks who don't give receipts.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 413200.ece

Any money that went to Halliburton or any of your other corporate bugbears could be recorded as reconstruction/nation building costs.

Quote:

(probably all owned by Cheney)

Just how many companies does Cheney own in your fantasy world, Blow? You think you'd take the time to actually learn something about the man you loath so comprehensively. He's spent about five in the corporate private sector in his entire career, a few years working at NGOs, but all the rest in government. Indeed, he's one of the US's longest-serving public servants -- and has never ever owned a company.

I mean if you are to spout paranoid suppositions in response to articles such as this, you could ensure they have at least one foot in reality.

[Redcarpet]

Quote:

The US spent a great deal of money paying off various paramilitary and religious factions in Iraq just to affect a peace in the latter part of the time frame in which this money was 'lost' (although the article states it could just be a matter of achival retrieval of records). I think it's far more likely that a large portion of the money went in this kind of direction

Yes, because Bush, and now Obama, only want to use a small portion of total US firepower. And only apply it daintily. They suffer the delusion that you can wage wars where only a few of the enemy die, the military and political leaders, no civilians die and no Western forces die. Lol, wars are ultimately no different from the Battle of the Bulge if necessary. fight quickly and overwhelmingly to defeat the enemy and leave.

But they don't want to, they want to occupy and change other societies.

[General Mike]

Quote:

nd only apply it daintily. They suffer the delusion that you can wage wars where only a few of the enemy die, the military and political leaders, no civilians die and no Western forces die. Lol, wars are ultimately no different from the Battle of the Bulge if necessary. fight quickly and overwhelmingly to defeat the enemy and leave.

The combination of tactics used by the US during the Surge is actually one of the most successful counter-insurgency strategies employed in recent times. The aim is not to 'win' but rather to create the conditions where the political situation can move forward - as indeed it has, albeit falteringly. It's far more difficult to bring peace to deeply factionalised societies than to win a conventional war -- it's nothing to do with any delusions about war; it's to do with a realistic appraisal of the limitations of traditional military strategy in these circumstances.

[political_animal]

All that cash probably went the same way as the other, previous, missing billions...

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/feat ... ions200710

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/p ... 438372.stm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/mar/20/usa.iraq

[Redcarpet]

Quote:

The combination of tactics used by the US during the Surge is actually one of the most successful counter-insurgency strategies employed in recent times.

The decline in Iraqi violence post-2007 had nothing to do with the surge. But the Sunni Awakening Movement and Sadr's unilateral ceasefire;

Quote:

Security role of US surge 'modest'
ANDREW MACK
25/08/2008 9:49:00 AM


The three developments that were most effective in driving down the fatality rate in Iraq had little to do with the deployment of thousands of extra US troops.

First was the security impact of forced population movements. The good news about declining civilian deaths, particularly in Baghdad, was due in part to the bad news about ''ethnic cleansing''. Sectarian violence continued to drive people from their homes in the Iraqi capital throughout the surge build-up in the first half of 2007. Areas controlled by the Shi'ites expanded in the north of the city, while the Sunnis, who were mostly on the losing side, consolidated in the south.

The sharply redrawn sectarian boundaries that were the result of ethnic cleansing created more defensible space for both communities, while far fewer vulnerable, mixed neighbourhoods meant that there was less territory to fight about.

The second factor was the unilateral ceasefire put into effect in August 2007 by the leader of the powerful, but deeply factionalised Mahdi Army, Moqtada al-Sadr. In mid-November last year the US military reported that the ceasefire had been a significant factor behind the drop in attacks in Baghdad. The ceasefire had nothing to do with the surge.

Finally, there was the surprising alliance formed between the US military and its former Sunni insurgent enemies against the terrorist group al-Qaeda In Iraq. This too had little to do with the surge.

[drblow]

political_animal wrote:

All that cash probably went the same way as the other, previous, missing billions...

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/feat ... ions200710

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/p ... 438372.stm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/mar/20/usa.iraq

Indded, it's almost uncanny. You would think that something as important as fund for rebuilding a war-torn country would be under the strictest of supervision. But the company given control of the allocation of funds turns out to be mothing more than a postal box address, and has been connected with some dodgy off-shore dealings.

Wow. Anyone would think there was some kind of conspiracy going on to syphon money out of the US treasury.

Redcarpet wrote:

The decline in Iraqi violence post-2007 had nothing to do with the surge. But the Sunni Awakening Movement and Sadr's unilateral ceasefire;

Much as Mike would love to derail this thread away from the topic, try not to encourage him. This thread is about the monies missing from the Iraq rebuilding fund. Keep it on track, eh?

[General Mike]

Quote:

The decline in Iraqi violence post-2007 had nothing to do with the surge.

Complete rubbish, like your statements on the Resolution 661. Even the article (an opinion piece) you linked to doesn't say that. The timing of the Sunni awakening, the Sadr ceasefire and the change in US tactics was far from a coincidence. Indeed, the so-called 'Sunni awakening' was heavily lubricated with US funds and payoffs (part of Petraeus's strategy), as I referenced earlier on this thread.

Obviously the surge having an effect was a great blow for you and all the other insurgency cheerleaders, but it doesn't change the fact that it did.