Subject:
|
Re: If I were a conspiracy nut...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 25 Mar 2003 19:35:11 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
140 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> If there are only 3 or 4 (and I don't know if that's true, I haven't done
> the research... perhaps you could since you seem to be making the
> accusation) or only 1 or 2, is this an unexpected outcome?
Please be reasonable and THINK just for one moment. What are your standards
for proof?
In a court of law we would look at the accused and wonder if he had means,
motive, and opportunity based upon evidence. We look at a cocaine dealer
and decide whether he had a seller from which he optained his goods, the
money to buy the merchandise, and buyers from whom he could recognize a
profit -- the motive being the profit as I am sure you understand basic
capitalism. So that's all bases covered: means, motive, and opportunity --
it doesn't matter if the sellers were limited to a few, it doesn't matter if
the buyers were limited to a few. Counting the number of participants is
beside the point. That the crime is possible and likely under the
circumstances is all that matters -- the rest is predicated on actual evidence.
So, let's look at the accused -- the current administration, and decide
whether they have means, motive, and opportunity to get themselves a nice
chunk of change from their buddies in the oil industry. As I have pointed
out before, and it doesn't have to be dug out --it's right there on the
surface of things: the current administration is up to its eyeballs in the
"means" and "opportunity" to make a deal with the segments of the oil
industry with which the members of the administration have close
relationships. Cheney and Halliburton come immediately to mind. The only
thing we can argue as an unknown is profit motive -- but as Halliburton is
very large multinational corporation with offshore holdings, let's agree
that a profit motive would be fairly easy to conceal. Don't believe it if
that is your true inclination -- but to demonize it as foolish on its face
does a disservice to adherence to the truth, or possible truth, as an ethic.
We at least have means and opportunity -- I personally do not see the
possible profit motive as that much of a stretch. We at least know that
these companies contribute rather heavily to the republican party, and hedge
their investment with the democratic party as well. It doesn't matter to me
which party is in power all that much -- the fix is in.
Again, we don't examine too deeply whether there was variety amongst the
participants -- although on the open oil market, there are various possible
beneficiaries as you seem to admit up front, esp. if we look at the
international markets for such services. Arianna Huffington says the list of
possibilities was quite short on purpose. Somewhere I heard Arianna
Huffington described as the "darling of the right-wing" (maybe yes -- maybe
no), anyway read it and see what you think of what she has to say:
"Corporate America Divvies Up The Post-Saddam Spoils"
http://www.ariannaonline.com/columns/files/031903.html
-- Hop-Frog (the conspiracy nutter)
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: If I were a conspiracy nut...
|
| (...) Are there any other possible explanations? Or is patronage for certain the only reason this contract was awarded? Patronage sucks, I always hate to see it. But how many US companies are there (please excuse me if I leave out French, German, (...) (21 years ago, 25-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
5 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
