Showing posts with label World"s stories. Show all posts
Showing posts with label World"s stories. Show all posts

Friday, March 14, 2008

The $3 trillion war in Iraq


Only two winners have emerged from the conflict: oil companies and defence contractors

Mar 12, 2008 04:30 AM
Joseph Stiglitz


With March 20 marking the fifth anniversary of the United States-led invasion of Iraq, it's time to take stock of what has happened.

In our new book The Three Trillion Dollar War, Harvard's Linda Bilmes and I conservatively estimate the economic cost of the war to the U.S. to be $3 trillion, and the costs to the rest of the world to be another $3 trillion – far higher than the Bush administration's estimates before the war.

The Bush team not only misled the world about the war's possible costs, but has also sought to obscure the costs as the war has gone on.

This is not surprising. After all, the Bush administration lied about everything else, from Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction to his supposed link with Al Qaeda. Indeed, only after the U.S.-led invasion did Iraq become a breeding ground for terrorists.

The Bush administration said the war would cost $50 billion. The U.S. now spends that amount in Iraq every three months.

To put that number in context: For one-sixth of the cost of the war, the U.S. could put its social security system on a sound footing for more than a half-century, without cutting benefits or raising contributions.

Moreover, the Bush administration cut taxes for the rich as it went to war, despite running a budget deficit. As a result, it has had to use deficit spending – much of it financed from abroad – to pay for the war.

This is the first war in American history that has not demanded some sacrifice from citizens through higher taxes; instead, the entire cost is being passed onto future generations.

Unless things change, the U.S. national debt – which was $5.7 trillion when Bush became president – will be $2 trillion higher because of the war (in addition to the $800 billion increase under Bush before the war).

Was this incompetence or dishonesty?

Almost surely both.

Cash accounting meant that the Bush administration focused on today's costs, not future costs, including disability and health care for returning veterans.

Only years after the war began did the administration order the specially armoured vehicles that would have saved the lives of many killed by roadside bombs.

Not wanting to reintroduce a draft, and finding it difficult to recruit for an unpopular war, troops have been forced into two, three or four stress-filled deployments.

The administration has tried to keep the war's costs from the American public. Veterans groups have used the Freedom of Information Act to discover the total number of injured – 15 times the number of fatalities.

Already, 52,000 returning veterans have been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder. The U.S. government will need to provide disability compensation to an estimated 40 per cent of the 1.65 million troops that have already been deployed.

And, of course, the bleeding will continue as long as the war continues, with the health-care and disability bill amounting to more than $600 billion (in present-value terms).

Ideology and profiteering have also played a role in driving up the war's costs. America has relied on private contractors, which have not come cheap.

A Blackwater Security guard can cost more than $1,000 per day, not including disability and life insurance, which is paid for by the government.

When unemployment rates in Iraq soared to 60 per cent, hiring Iraqis would have made sense; but the contractors preferred to import cheap labour from Nepal, the Philippines and other countries.

The war has had only two winners: oil companies and defence contractors. The stock price of Halliburton, Vice-President Dick Cheney's old company, has soared. But even as the government turned increasingly to contractors, it reduced its oversight.

The largest cost of this mismanaged war has been borne by Iraq. Half of Iraq's doctors have been killed or have left the country, unemployment stands at 25 per cent and, five years after the war's start, Baghdad still has less than eight hours of electricity a day.

Out of Iraq's total population of around 28 million, 4 million are displaced and 2 million have fled the country.

The thousands of violent deaths have inured most Westerners to what is going on: A bomb blast that kills 25 hardly seems newsworthy anymore.

But statistical studies of death rates before and after the invasion tell some of the grim reality. They suggest additional deaths from a low of around 450,000 in the first 40 months of the war (150,000 of them violent deaths) to 600,000.

With so many people in Iraq suffering so much in so many ways, it may seem callous to discuss the economic costs.

And it may seem particularly self-absorbed to focus on the economic costs to America, which embarked on this war in violation of international law. But the economic costs are enormous, and they go well beyond budgetary outlays.

Americans like to say that there is no such thing as a free lunch. Nor is there such a thing as a free war. The U.S. – and the world – will be paying the price for decades to come.



Joseph Stiglitz, winner of the 2001 Nobel Prize in economics, is professor of economics at Columbia University and co-author, with Linda Bilmes, of The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Costs of the Iraq Conflict.

Tuesday, February 26, 2008

peoples investigation into 9/11


The spectacular and brazen attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon on Sept. 11 shocked the citizens of the United States. Within hours, the Bush Administration, U.S. Intelligence and the corporate media were already naming Osama Bin Ladin as the mastermind behind the attacks. Within just a couple days, a list of alleged suspects was made public by the FBI, and a general outline of how they guess the attacks were carried out was presented.

The list of suspects has since proven to be inaccurate, the official story has numerous holes and glaring inconsistencies, and the FBI itself has admitted, after 8 months of investigation, that it does not have one single piece of hard evidence linking the people they said did it to the planning of the attacks.

The blunt fact is, there is no proof at all that the FBI's alleged suspects, or even Arabs in general actually did carry out the attacks. From the first day, one set of suspects and a theory has been pursued with no success. An honest person would admit that they had made a major mistake by deciding who did it first, and then looking for the evidence to prove the decision correct, rather than openly collecting all the evidence, and looking where it led, no matter where that was.

This of course is assuming that the Bush Administration and the Intelligence community are honestly trying to find out what happened. Given the history of Bush and his Iran/Contra cronies and the track record of the CIA it is not only highly possible that they knew and let the attacks happen, but also that they might have initiated the attacks. There is plenty of evidence of coverup, and no possibility should be ruled out.

With Congress also having a poor record of investigation into governmental crime, it is up to people in this country to lead the way. With the US and other nations using the 911 attacks as an excuse to dominate and kill across the globe, it is the responsibility of the people to set the record straight.

Keeping an open mind to examine all information, wherever it may lead, and courageously pursuing basic investigative questions such as who had motive, who had means, and who benefitted are the means to uncover the truth.



A few unanswered questions

why are there no Arab names on the flight lists?
why when numerous names on the FBI list of 19 alleged hijackers are proven false, has no subsequent list been released by the FBI?
why has no action been taken on the insider stock trades which prove exact foreknowledge? You cannot make anonymous stock trades. . .the identities of those who placed the put options must be known.
why is the FBI dragging its feet in the anthrax case
why is the discrepancy between the quotes from the flight instructors indicating poor piloting skills, and the quotes from civil and miliatry authorities indicating that the pilots of the hijacked planes had to be skilled, never addressed? This one point invalidates the entire FBI scenario
why were the alleged hijackers waltzing around using their own names, when we are being told that it was super secret cells of terrorists who did this?
what were the false names they used? when did they switch from using their real names, to using false names? (remember they were supposed to have used fake names)
who killed the woman the day before she was supposed to testify on her connections to obtaining fake drivers licenses? why was she killed?
Why did the US fake the video of Osama? (not one single person who was shown side by side photos of Osama and the person in the video said they were the same. . .the nose is not even close)


Links to other informative websites

http://www.questionsquestions.net
http://www.copvcia.com
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com
http://www.communitycurrency.org/9-11.html
http://www.communitycurrency.org/MainIndexMX.html