that requires a huge amount of upfront capital (5-10 billion)
And this misdirection is what gets you all tied up in knots here. Boeing did not start with manufacturing 747s. But because over many decades of existence of Boeing the marketplace evolved to the point when such planes are required, Boeing adapted from their wood and piano strings origins to match. No corporation, regardless of size would at this point be able to enter the 747 sized plane market. Only a government assisted entity could, which Airbus was. And there is only two of 747 sized commercial plane makers on the planet, if you do not count the Russian remnants of Soviet-created companies. Simply, in the present system, no one can enter that market because the barrier to entry is so steep as to be unscalable.
What I am talking about is a smaller group, starting with Cessna sized planes and slowly, over decades, just like Boeing did, acquiring the required expertise and mix of participants.
But you wish for that final state to occur instantly, and furthermore, claim that it is happening every day with multi-national corporations, which of course is patenrly false.
I contend it can't be done without a powerful central authority the way a corp is run, if it can't be done as efficiently in a large group of small companies, then it is SOCIALLY IRRESPONSIBLE to do it because it wastes resources, and we get less safe planes that cost more and get here later.
And I contend, that your contention is patently false. If it were so, an authoritarian dictatorship (which a corporation is as far as employees are concerned) would outperform a democracy (which, to a certain degree, a conglomerate is) every time. You are simply opposed to the idea because -- I suspect -- you believe that authocratic men of "vision", leading boldly, driven by ego and greed, are what drives all of the progress. I contend that they are, for the most, part thieves, crooks, demagogues and posturers and it is the unglamorous labour and patience over long period of time which is the cornerstone of progress. That is why you insist that for "efficiency" reasons one must insist on authoritarian, kingdom-like, structures.
And I contend that because NO ONE has done it, it must therefore be less efficient, because if it were more efficient, people would be doing it and making money. Since they aren't, it must be less efficient, and therefore SOCIALLY IRRESPONSIBLE, and wasteful.
And here is the confirmation of your total lack of understanding how things work. "Efficiency" is a code word for social injustice and greed run amok. Of course, there would be a decrease in "efficiency" in my scenario, to be offset by social gains. "Efficiency", taken the way you do it, is an enemy of society. Consider this: a 100% efficient company, is one which owns all of its supply chains all the way to harvesting of natural resources, has 0 employees and 100% automation (self-repairing). In a world of 100% "efficient" companies, there is not a single customer who is capable of buying a product, beause all wages are expense and thus "inefficiency". Only shareholder profit is allowed. The state I described is the "optimal" from the point of view of "efficiency" but I doubt you would like to live in a place like that. Not to mention that rise of 100% "efficient" companies would signal the end of capitalism. So please do not use "efficiency" in this argument as while efficiency is a factor to measure relative performance in some areas, it is also a propaganda term brandied about by proponents of laissez-faire, unrestricted, dog-eat-dog libertarian solutions as a club to badger people who do not quite grasp the equations. Capitalism, like any other economic system, is supposed to serve society, not the other way around, even if it involves some not getting rich and powerful, although these few claim otherwise, complete with veiled insinuations of divine authority, which are getting more and more fashionable in some American busine
if I was approached by another small business who was interested in working with me in a quasi-partnership the way you are talking, I would say "no lets just merge" cause I don't have the budget or time to deal with an ongoing contract negotiation, and that's what your scheme calls for.
I don't know where you live, but here in Canada, that would be ridiculous. The reason lawyers get away with being such leeches on society is that businessmen like you let them. If any sort of cooperation required 1000-page long contracts (as you previously suggested), nothing would ever get done. You neglected to realize that traditional brand-representation relationships also are of nearly identical scope. I don't recall paying a $400/hour lawyer when we signed up to represent the brands we do. Neither did we do so with some of the people who can only be described as our sub-contractors. All of these are pre-made, standard forms, whereby you just fill in your company name and perheaps, on the outside, add a few lines of specifics. I do not know what sort of busienss you are in, but I am getting a strong vibe of you exaggerating hyperbolically to make your case.
Furthermore, "no, lets just merge" is a response I can understand from an ego perspective, whereby one looks for excuses to enlarge his/her little empire and remain in charge of it. I would assume that "lets merge" would result in you retaining the executive post and the owners of the other busienss stepping aside, no?
Also, 2 or 3 small businesses don't have the capital to do anything big
That depends what do you mean by "big". Initiating planning for a large or sometimes very, very large project? Tell that to achitectual firms who routinely design projects which then take hundreds of contractors to complete. Such firms are relatively very small in size. How about small investment/finance firms who regularly manage hundreds of millions to billions of dollars? A small group of companies can start a project, plan its generics, seek investment from other companies and coopt them, as well as manage the operation of such conglomerate, just like they manage massive construction projects today.
This is a red herring.
And you can't start working on making an airplane until you have all 150-200 companies, and the capital to do it, because otherwise, all of your energy in a small business is focused on making enough money to pay the bills and make payroll.
That is why it takes all of the sub-contractors, all of the investment, all of the supplies to be standing idly by already paid for, before an architectual firm can start planning a 130 story skyscraper, no?
Small businesses don't have this huge reserve of cash just sitting there to spend on R&D.
Of course they do. Most tiny tech outfits are nothing but R&D for years, vapour, until they find something worth peddling to investors or potential partners. Sigh.
Economics 101 teaches you that (the main benefit of monopolies is that they have extra cash for R&D, and yes there are benefits to monopolies, they just generally don't outweight the negatives)
There are apparently financial "benefits" to war too, for some. Not an example I would use though to further my argument.
And that means "invasion" in your books. No other options like, say, targeted action against the leadership? Of course not! It could have only meant a bombing campaign followed by an invasion which the likes of you had a hard-on for for a very long time, no?
You're demonstrably wrong again. But I know that won't stop you.
Let's dwell on this one for a minute as it is a cornerstone of your "thinking". You quote some piece from the web, which can have multiple interpretations, sometimes even different, contradicting, versions, following which you claim that it proves only one: yours. When I point out the alternatives, you claim that I am "generalizing it" in order to attack some strawman I created. Does this method of "polemic" work for you very often with people you can't shoot when they disagree?
So coming back to the first disingenuous assault of yours again: UN threatens "serious consequences", leaving itself all sorts of doors open, and yet people like you start jumping up and down screaming "Kill!! Yea! They want us to go in and start shooting everybody who disagrees! Yeehah!". And you call it a "reasonable behaviour"?
Actually, no they don't. You're quoting a different article. Another pathetic attempt at misdirection.
See? Here you go again. I dug up your quote, which you insisted was Annan's, and found it to be attributed to Powell by the very CNN you cited as your source. So what do you do? You claim that because I am quoting "a different article", that somehow nullifies the obvious fact that the quote you provided is at least suspect, and since my article was later then yours, most likely Powell's as CNN corrected itself.
So if you claim that rape is not sufficiently prevented, I can debunk your position by showing that law enforcement stopped one rape last year?
Here we go! Yes! This is how you build a proper strawman! Nice one! Let's analyse: you claim that, quote, "Nobody takes action against sanctions" (emphasis mine). Note the term "nobody". That means not a person. Not a single one. Yet when I provide an example of a group of people doing so, you then turn around and produce this "allegory" of your position (putting me in a position of a proponent, no less): "... rape is not sufficiently prevented... " (emphasis mine). Note the difference: an absolute claim of no action in one and a claim of insufficient action in the other. Building and attacking mis-representations of your opponents position has a name: "attacking strawmen". Which you excel at, may I add!
The fact of the matter is that there was no serious, organized effort to stop sanctions, or to find some other solution to the Iraq problem.
This depends on your subjective interpretation of words "serious" and "organized". Was it not "serious" enough that people demonstrated? Wrote letters, editorials, books even? Was it not organized for these demonstrations to occur? What you are complaining about is that from your subjective perspective there were, nebulously, "not enough" of both, to exceed some arbitrarily set by you level, for your satisfaction. This is again a crucial element of your "psyche". You assume that your arbitrary perceptions are the only way things could possibly work and thus anything not fitting your delusions must be wrong. In your "mind", if you decide there was "not enough" of something, this automatically becomes an objective, universal, humanity-wide determination and thus anyone disagreeing must be mad.
Another basic flaw with your argumentative style: you mention one of the possible reasons for something, then jump to the conclusion that it is the cause for the action.
A beauty of a strawman here again. Your request was (quote): "Perhaps you can explain why the US and Canada both provided materiel for the war before the US was attacked?". To which, regarding Canada, I provided the explanatio
and were wrong for a. not continuing with the invasion of Iraq after the first Gulf War
Err.. nope.
and b. not following through on their resolution to attack Iraq after weapons inspections failed.
Nope. Not only there was no such resolution (to "attack" Iraq) but they was clearly no reason to do so, as I have shown conclusively, multiple times, thanks to Mr. Ritter. Iraq was actually in the right to throw UNSCOM out after it has become a CIA operation and the UN knew it.
Not to mention all the other repercussions and highly unlikely positive outcomes of any such nonsensical military invasion.
Read: you are attempting to discredit a quote which obviously debunks your position, since you cannot support your position directly. Result: you lose.
The only thing this "obviously debunks" is your sanity. Beyond that, this is not a game and you are not a referee. Reserve these "You lose", "I am telling Mom" and similar missives for your fellow kindergarten classmates.
Actually quoted from CNN. So far you've claimed to know more than both CNN and the BBC. Pardon me if I disagree.
The CNN also disagrees with you. I am not sure if you realize this but quoting Powell from CNN and then insisting you are quoting Annan tells volumes about your mental state.
Your debate style is pathetic - when your ignorance is illustrated you either attempt to misdirect the conversation, claim to know more than the source that is being cited, or just go on ad hominem attacks.
Ah, another classic. Accuse your opponent of employing your own tactics. Do you really think this is going to work?
Interesting that you equate taking action with simply issuing a mission statement.
There were actual demonstrations which followed. The one I pointed you to was in New York, October 1, 1998 at the Times Square. Since you claimed that no protests occurred, even one example disproves your claim. If you think I will dig up every demonstration that occurred since then until the invasion, you are sorely mistaken. Google yourself.
The fact of the matter is nobody was taking out full-page ads, picketing in front of embassies, marching on Washington, calling their Congressmen, or burning flags over sanctions.
I am not sure about flag burning and full-page ads but the rest was definitely done. Multiple times.
Perhaps you can explain why the US and Canada both provided materiel for the war before the US was attacked?
Canada being part of the British Empire had little choice (I find that air of proprietorship of yours in regards to Canada telling by the way). As to the US, it did so at first for profit. There was absolutely no appetite for joining any silly European wars in the US. As a matter of fact, Herr Hitler had a number of admirers in high places in the US. But there were piles of money to be made on shipments of arms and supplies. Some were quite confused as to which side the shipping was to be made to. The business bonanza was followed by growing panic due to massive losses of -- then "neutral", even though they were carrying weapons and ammunition to war -- US merchant ships as they encountered U-boats. Lend Lease was not enacted until March 1941 after Hitler already occupied most of Europe and a good chunk of Africa. Followed by Pearl Harbor few months later. Which changed everything.
In fact, if the US were as evil as the fantasy you whack off to, wouldn't we have sided with the Germans? After all, then we could have had Anglo control of the world, including all the oil.
Reference please? The word "combatant" doesn't appear anywhere in the text of the Patriot Act.
I am sorry, I forgot, In theory, some Patriot Act provisions apply only partially to those born in the USA. All immigrants are however not so lucky as per Section 412 of the Act. However US citizens can still have their door busted down with no warrant being shown, as per Section 213 and be hauled away with no lawyer.
With apologies to Inigo Montoya, I do not think the Patriot Act says what you think it says.
Perheaps you should explain that to Yaser Esam Hamdi and José Padilla, both US citizens.
Why don't you say it in the open, that you think that London bombings are a provocation?
Of course they were! All terrorist acts are. The object of terror is either to frighten the public of an enemy to force their government to run away or, failing that, to provoke a collective punishment retaliation, which in turn stirs up hatred of the enemy and drives recruits to the terrorist cause. The language of terror is hate. The terrorists hate, they want to be hated by their enemy enough to cause the enemy to cease thinking rationally and impose draconian measures both on their own people and on those from whose ranks the terrorists originate. And they want the hate to grow in the moderate groups of their own camp to increase radicalism.
The way to fight terror is to refuse to take the bait, something you clearly do not grasp. Otherwise, you will simply follow the not so glorious path trailed before you by the likes of Adolf who played the hate like a flute in Germany.
I "corrected" your message in one place and it already sounded like something from an editorial of a Nazi newspaper in March of 1933. Which should be a dire warning to you that you are getting dangerously close to becoming that what you hate.
people who complain at every time some civil liberties
Let me correct your typos:
people who complain at every time some civil liberties are being curtailed in order to fight terrorism do not offer any other methods of fighting it. The burning of the Reichstag and all the other provocations prove that 'the old ways' are not working anymore. The system must be changed, and those who criticize their governments practically over everything they do in this situation seldom offer any propositions of their own.
You are allowed to refuse them access to your property or house until they get a warrant
This quaint, obsolete law has too been already superceeded by the Patriot Act, in order to keep the public safe, I am sorry to inform you. You have this right only of you are a drug dealer or perheaps a serial murderer. If the Homeland Security, on an arbitrary whim of some Agent Imbecillic decides you are a potential "Unlawful Combatant", not only will they bust your door down with no warrant but off you go to Gitmo in the middle of the night with a bag on your head, Lawyer? You gotta be kidding.
And then, it appears they will just throw the key away.
Now sing with me: Land of the brave... Land of the free...
love the way you avoided only 1 argument in my last post. If this is "So easy" and only requires 2 or 3 companies getting together to start,
Good grief! And how do you think these frist two get together?! Or do you think a man who starts a new company, coopts someone who does not want to be in the same business so that only that first individual can remain commited? What are you saying? 2 is the smallest number to form a group. We were disucssing a way to group small businesses, no? How do yo get a group of companies, people, anything made up of 1 element?!!
then WHY, in A FREE MARKET, has NOBODY EVER DONE IT?
What planet do you live on? The reason noone has done it because one can rape and pillage under the current corporate law. We are not disucssing the fastest ways to get filthy rich for some, such is the direction into which the current situation is evolving, only to get worse for an average person. We are discussing the most socially responsible ways to run capitalism. Under the current corporate (and other) laws, the fastest way to get filthy rich is to start a corporation, merge it with another, and another and another untill you have enough power to push around governments.
I have not thought about it in this way but I suspect that you are right. Wal-Mart ls like an Ebola virus. It will consume the host so feverently and with such zeal that the host dies so quickly as to unable to spread the disease far. In a few days everyone in the village is dead and the disease has defeated itself. Just too bad that we are to live through the process and the Wall-marts and the like have only one host civlization to consume.
All of the things you mention above are provided by SUPPLIERS not sub-contractors.
Not at all. I do work with these companies and know first hand. There are a massive number of specialty items, machined to specification just for Boeing. Noone else is using a 747 engine mounts, cockpit glass etc. The wiring hanresses for a Ford F150 engine might be used in some other Ford models but not in a Chrysler etc and so on. There are over a hundred small machine shops in my city alone, fabricating transmission covers, gears, shafts etc etc for specific models of tractors, cars, planes etc. They are all sub-contracted by the makers, with a specific CAD drawings being sent to the shops so they can machine the parts on request. These parts are useless for anyone else.
You just have a silly, and completely false, idea that "sub-contractor" means paid per-hour labour only, which is mostly applicable IT software projects.
The 747 is designed, engineered, and tested by Boeing EMPLOYEES, it is manufactured and sold by Boeing EMPLOYEES. Yes they get parts from other companies, but it is not a sub-contractor/general contractor relationship, it is a supplier/purchaser relationship.
The design, administration, logisistcs and final assembly is indeed done by Boeing. But even major sub systems of the plane are assembled before that by sub-contractors and delivered, shrink-wrapped, to the assembly plant on large trucks. You just have no clue about it.
The only entities who rely heavily on sub-contractors are those in the infrastructure business (roads, buildings, homes, the government, and NASA). Those projects are always woefully over budget and late.
They are late not because of sub-contracting, which is like any other business relationship. Theese have other inherent problems, primarily due to either massive bureaucracies (govt, NASA) or lack of competition (housing).
I sense that you have some sort of irrational fear of contractors, brought on perheaps by some crook who failed to build you a house.
How do you decide which company gets to R&D the wing and which gets the chair mount? Obviously the person doing the wing is going to make more money, so now you've got all your happy little companies in a bidding war against each other.
You are building strawmen. "obviously"? You mean there is something "obvious" about making piles of money on R&D? As opposed to assembly? Each of these companies would have to earn entry into the conglomerate and in the most likely scenario would compete with other companies for the privilege. As to "MASSIVE" overhead, you clearly never visited HQ of any company larger then 1000 people. I fear this discussion is futile if you insist that black is white.
How are you going to get 150 companies to listen to your "small administrative companies"?
The same way you get them to listen to a CEO, who is supposedly a hireling of shareholders. Think shareholders = small business participants.
And then you get into serious redundancy with 7 different wing designs submitted from 7 different companies, 4 different fusalages, 3 cockpits, 7 tails, 3 engine mounts.. because every company thinks its the best at doing xyz (not to mention xyz pays better than what the administrative company assigned them), and why are they gonna listen to some administrator from outside their company?
Competition? Good. Selection done by the administarive or technical panels organized by core participants. Redundancy sometimes good too if there is a risk of failure of one supplier. More strawmen.
In the end you have a faction that breaks off and decides screw you guys we're gonna make our own plane... Well except they just took 150 million of your seed capital, and now noone has enough money to R&D a plane.
As opposed to a cabal of key employees getting up and starting their own company today? This is called a contractual obligation, and yes, lawyers are still nee
The only problem with the above state approach is the huge amount of LAWYERS you just gave jobs. If you think you can run a cabal of 150 small businesses who are pooling resources to achieve something like hydrogen fuel cell vehicles with anything near the efficiency of a GM or Toyota or Honda..
This is precisely what is happening today. Large automotive and aero-space corporations subcontract most of their work to literally thousands of sub-contractors.
Or did you seriously think that all the screws, washers, bolts, wires, connectors, lights, carpets, seat covers, tires, pipes, fluids etc etc etc on a 747 are made by Boing?
The rest of your argument is self defeating really in the light of this.
That is why corporations are necessary.
The old-fashioned corporate public charter would quite suffice. As administration could be done by a number of small businesses specializing in... administration of large projects. R&D by R&D outfits etc. Budgets are merely a function of the number of participants in the prooject.
You are labouring under a completely mistaken impression that large companies are efficient. They are in fact gigiantic hives of bureaucracy, redundancy and waste. That is one of the reasons they remain so large, they need a critical mass to be able to sustain their inefficency (which increases with size and levels of managment) by anti-competetive means, lest they collapse. The only thing they have an advantage in is bargraining power with suppliers due to size of orders. Which a cooperative of small businesses, similiar in size, would also have.
...while Ford and Chrystler are not criticized at all?
That would not be me. I already, repeatedly, indicated that both France and USSR were immoral in their dealings with Iraq. The position I take is that the US was more immoral for many reasons, one of them being that it pretends to be the moral judge of others, granting itself powers of arbitratry investigation, prosecution, and execution of, quoting Shrub, "evil doers".
Is it not fair to point out that Ford and Chrystler did far more to support the gangsters than GM?
Unfortunately that would not be true, which I already elaborated on many times, as the amounts of grants by the US approached the amounts of loans by the others.
Sadly, some people's views are so twisted by their hatred for America that they are unable to see anything America does as anything but wrong.
There are many great things about America, I for one hold some of the brilliant ideas of the Founding Fathers in utmost respect. But there are also a great many things to despise about it, most of them doing of men blinded by greed and power who have been in charge of the USA for very long stretches of time. The recent record of US activity abroad is abysmal, to put it gently. And I do not see any improvement on the horizon. Many other countries do stupid and evil things, but due to some inexplicable disease of utter narcissism, hubris and at the same time "perpetual victim" psychosis which has gripped America, combined with her sheer power, she is commiting misdeeds so spectacular and frequent that the others are simply totally eclipsed. That is why it seems like noone is talking about what others do. Anything France might have done messing around in Africa for example, is simply a tempest in a teapot compared to, say, the raging hurricane in Iraq.
and guaranteeing loans that banks made to Saddam for the purpose of buying grain (as the US did)
This is higly misleading as the reason for the "loans" and the guarantees was to aid Iraq's military effort by freeing his funds elsewhere. We know this from Rumsfeld's (among other neo-cons) personal involvement in the negotiations. The critical difference, the guarantees, is what makes the US's stance worse (besides the raging hyporcrisy) because these guarantees were from the outset intended to be fulfilled, turning them into grants. It is a simple equation: Grants are more potent then loans. France, USSR = loans; US = grants.
but in the case of France and the Soviets, for a much greater amount,
The US guarantees reached $5 billion, which is comparable with the levels of loans by France and USSR. The difference again is that the US offered grants in disguise (among other things).
the article says nothing to contradict the fact that the Soviet Union and France, and not the US, supplied Saddam with the vast majority of his arms
The part which I was refering to is the calculation of total guarantees given to Saddam. The supply of WMD materiel is but a bonus.
While I admit that the article has a rather strong bias, I am sure the sources he quoted for the calculations can be checked.
To simplify this discussion: imagine you have a ganster getting caught and he goes to trial. The investigation discovers that he had 3 accomplices, two of whom loaned him money, which they knew he will use in criminal activity but expected him to pay it back, and the third gave him a similar amount for "lunch" with a wink and a pat on the back while pointing meaningfully at his sworn enemy. Enemy who was later shot by the gangster. Which of these 3 accomplices is most deceitful and immoral? I will even skip the bit about the third one claiming to be a self appointed policeman, investigator, judge, jury and executioner... and a priest.
Unless you'd like a future where everything is basically owned and run--to a far greater extent than it already is--by a very small number of tremendously rich individuals, corporations are a good thing.
This is actually not true. What is needed is a two-pronged approach: putting the corporation back to its original form, as a social charter to allow a number of small businesses to pool their resources and reduce a risk of a large project and at the same time, massive increase in progressive business taxation on businesses in order to massively reduce their maximum profitable size and to increase the number of such businesses.
This achieves two things: increases competition since there are now hordes of small businesses competing over the same thing but at the same time allows for large coopearative projects. By reducing business size you reduce social risks of individual business failures and you reduce power of individual businesses to lobby governments. By not allowing corporate protection for basic business, you also ensure personal responsibility at this level. Add to this a massive, progressive inheretance tax to kill multi-generational accumulation of wealth and power and you are statring to approach the capitalism as it was meant to be: working for the society, not the other way around.
This still allows personal greed and wealth accumulation to function but on a much reduced scale. People will still be motivated to work harder just that the maximum reward ceiling would be significantly lowered, which is a good thing unless you believe that a CEO salary being 500+ times (and growing yearly) that of an average employee in the same company, as we have it now, is healthy. Unless you believe that all the outsorcing maddness is healthy. Unless you believe that corporations having wealth and power exceeding that of small countries is healthy.
Corporations can be useful but they are instruments of extrarodinary power which should be reserved for extraordinary projects and also be object of extraordinary scrutiny.
Speaking of the USSR, the US supported Stalin which is infinitely worse than helping Saddam kill Iranians. Then we rebuilt Europe.
Real, unvarnished truth. People in power controlling US were always looking for their own interests first. As they do in any other country. So when it was pragmatic to help Stalin, US did it. When it was pragmatic to rebuild Europe, in hopes of preventing another WWII but with nukes, US did it. That does not mean that there were not many, many people in the US, who then, like now, also truly believed that it was the right and just thing to do. Only that the elites in power are nowhere near so idealistic and instead think greed and power on a continuous basis. As in any other country.
Where the main problem with the US comes from is its posturing and self-aggrandizement. And hubris. If the US would not try to paint itself as the navel of the world and also its saviour, noone would be trying to measure it up to that standard.
Now that was a huge mistake.
From the perspective of noble people, rebuilding was a just thing to do. From the perspective of elites in power (whose opinion mattered more) it was a pragmatic thing to do, allowing not only to create a new market for their wares (at least for a while) but also to prevent the repeat of the kind of war which can be potentially really bad for business: nuclear world-wide one. Not to mention to fend off a really, really scary for business aristocracy proposition: the commies.
France and the USSRs loans weren't guaranteed by their respective taxpayers?
In the case of France, I think we are talking of private enterprises extending loans which subseqently went bad, and shifting the burden of collecting onto the government. To my knowledge, France's government did not offer any sort of aid to Iraq, it offered aid to their own companies who foolishly sold things to Iraq. In the case of USSR, everything they did ended up being a state affair as all the arms manufacturers were also state owned. But at the same time, due to their dire economic troubles, USSR was increasingly eager to earn hard currency and weapons sales are just the way to do it. In other words, USSR was (and Russia still is) unable to afford to give away $8 billions worth of weapons. That is why they hang onto the loans until the end.
Let me get this straight: the USSR and France supplied Saddam with vastly, vastly more arms than did the US. But to you, the US is still worse.
It is for many reasons. One, unlike the others, it did plan to give the money to Saddam from the outset to control him, the others did it for profit (although I am sure they hoped for some degree influence as well as a bonus). That does not absolve them from being immoral but the US is worse by its own standards! If the US was going about claiming that it opportunistically helps any old tinpot dictator for profit, I would just claim it to be as bad as the rest of them but not worse morally. But the USA claims to be the "cop of the planet", "leader of the free world" etc. and then proceeds to attempt to control nations in the interest of power over others and profit for not even the entire nation but a few members of its aristocracy.
The USSR and France loaned Saddam more money than the US. But to you, the US is still worse.
In terms of money US was right up there with them. In terms of the intent, the US was aiming for control, France for profit. USSR possibly for both, but we are not comparing the morality of USSR here to the USA, are we? Again, US, by its own standards, is worse then these other two, one a profiteer and the other a Stalinist Empire. The US then proceeded to beat USSR at the Villany Olimpics and fabricated pretexts to outright take over Iraq.
After overthrowing Saddam, the US immediately moved to forgive Iraqs debts to America. France and Russia as well as Germany and several Middle East nations, however, dragged their feet until finally, under US pressure, agreeing to forgive about 80% of Iraqi debts.
For one, many of the US loans were intended as handouts and were forgiven long ago, as I repeatedly explained. Also as I indicated none of these others countries were aiding Iraq but were trying to make money trading with it. Subsquently they were ill prepared to lose their shirts on the deal.
You say you are "skeptical." It appears to me from your statements and your illogical reasoning that your antipathy towards the US is emotional, and I doubt that any amount of evidence will sway you.
Truthfully, you would have to present some evidence so strong as to offset the mountain of data casting USA's foreign policy in a quite damnable light. Nowhere more spectacularly so then in Iraq.
The SIPRI report is highly credible, particularly since it comes from a left-leaning institute with no reason to favor the US.
The numbers are probably right in some way. But as Mark Twain once said: "There are lies, Damned Lies and Statistics". I have no idea if the criteria used to compile that report are proper, the assignment by country of manufacture actually meaningful, how the weapons shipped were really measured etc. As to left-leaning SIPRI as they are basically peaceniks, I would expect them to be upset about anyone shipping any arms anywhere. If the report was titled "Total Support for Saddam by country" and included all the other factors I mentioned, we could have a discussion.
It's a link to small, amatuer-appearing website produced by a group called the "Foundation for Democracy in Iran," whose "About Us" link is broken....
The site is of no consequence, I pointed you there because the original copy of the article is inside pay-per-view archive of the Wall Street Journal. The author is Kenneth R. Timmerman, an expert on Middle-East affairs who used to publish in WSJ. This particular article is I think available in his $1100 a year newsletter for executives.
ll it says is that North Korea and China sold arms to Iran, both of whom at the time had large arsenels of old Soviets weapons available for sale, and neither of whom was by any means under the thumb of the Soviets at the time.
No it actually says much more then that, it describes the shift of the USSR's sympathies.
Also, to wit, you should note that Iran never officially supported the Taliban and in fact at one point in time appeared to be gearing to go toe-to-toe with them (or according to some, it did). That is because even though Iran sports an Islamic Theocracy, it is a brand of Islam hostile to that of Wahhabism to which Taliban subscribed. That is why Osama is finding traction in the Sunni areas of Iraq but not in the Shia ones.
This does not mean that various individuals within Iran did not attempt to communicate or even aid Taliban, but it is contrary to your assertion of great animosity between USSR and Iran.
The truth is that: a) the USSR and France both sold Saddam massive amounts of arms, far, far more than the amount of arms and "high tech equipment" he got from the US; b) The USSR and France both loaned Saddam massive amounts of money (far more that the agricultural loans the US made to Iraq
Cool. So that is why US loans were guaranteed and covered by taxpayers by definition and France's and USSR's had to be nullified by the US invasion? Or am I missing something?
The facts don't matter to people like you. You will always see the US as wrong and make excuses for other countries like France and the USSR.
Right. The reason we are so skeptical about the USA's policies is because they have been revealed to be the heights of double-talking connivery time after time. I have no illusions that other countries have agendas and are involved in all sorts of bad things. The difference is that the USA claims to be "the leader of the free world" and beyond reproach, while engaging in deceptions, lies and all sorts of other villany so underhanded that it makes the others look like rank amateurs.
As to facts, it its the believers in divine destiny of the USA who are immune to them not me. If a report like this is published, which contradicts some of the things I know, I will be skeptical and you will have to show more evidence other then the singular report to convince me otherwise.
You "wonder" about SIPRIs figures, but you can't cite anything to rebut them.
The USSR certainly did not back Iran in the Iran-Iraq war. Iran was violently anti-communist, and was a major supporter of the the mujahadeen resistance to the USSR occupation of Afghanistan.
The USSR happily supplied Saddam all the arms could buy
Since the Islamic Revolution, Iran has turned to Soviet block suppliers for an increasingly large share of its arms purchases. In 1982, North Korean weapons accounted for 40% of all Iranian arms purchases. By late 1986, the Reagan Administration claimed that China had become Iran's chief source of weapons. And the USSR was delivering weapons to Iran as well. As Iraqi Defense Minister, General Adnan Khairallah, would remark bitterly in 1985: "Eighty percent of the weapons we capture today (from Iran) are of Soviet origin" (2).
And the arms deals began on the very first day of the war, when the USSR ordered an emergency airlift to Tehran of jet fuel from Soviet bases, followed by 130 mm artillery pieces, tank engines and ammunition from Syria. Favors of this kind proposed by Soviet Ambassador Vladimir Vinogradev in the difficult opening days of the war led to the signing of two military cooperation agreements in July 1981 between Iran and the USSR (3).
That's because none of those countries were then, or are now, manufacturers of advanced weapons systems.
While its true, its misleading to count the manufacturers as "aiding" Iraq. In the same fashion I could claim Ford was aiding gansgters when they kill someone in drive-by-shooting. While I do not deny that USSR and others were supplying Iraq at one time or another, what I am skeptical about is how this report was compliled and is presented.
The fact is that the Soviet Union was a strong supporter of Saddam's regime, as was France, his other great arms supplier. The United States did not even have diplomatic relations with Saddam's regime until 1984, and had little trade, let alone arms deals with it.
Yes thats true, but I was describing what happened as the Iraq-Iran war progressed. The frantic efforts at stopping Iran, US involvnent and subsequent shifting of interests of USSR happened during the second half of the war, when Iraq started to suffer a number of major military setbacks.
Aha! I think I know where the chickanery is. The SIPRI people, very disingenuosly, counted all Soviet made weapons as Soviet aid. While in fact they were being purchased (sometimes quite a while before that) by Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and then shipped into Iraq, an action directly encouraged, and partially financed by Washington. Look at that report and you will notice that none of the Arab countries, which are beyond any doubt known to have assisted Iraq against Iran with arms shipments, are on the list.
Which makes me really wonder about this SIPRI report and its accuracy. USSR was backing Iran and not Iraq in the war. Saddam was loudly criticising USSR action in Afghanistan. etc. Soviet arms shipments to Iraq are known to have turned into a trickle by then. In the early 1980's some 3000 Soviet advisors went to Iran. Saddam and the USSR were no longer great buddies, but some Russian interests still remained, primarily in the oil sector.
Care to cite some FACTS to back up your "repeated" assertion? You can't, because the reality is that the Saddam's financing, like his arms supplies, came from many countries, and in both cases the U.S. was FAR down the list.
In fact, it was by far German & other EUROPEAN firms that happliy sold Saddam the majority of his his chemical weapons precursors.
They were all selling him crap but none other then the US gave Saddam loan guarantees. That is, they were all peddling him their wares on credit (and got stung when he fell), but the US was financing him. I hope you grok the difference.
If you're implying the $200M from the US was used exclusively for chemical weapons and other WMD, then I'd love to see a source.
You gotta be kidding. I am not gonna waste a day looking for primary sources, I will point you instead to this report, they cite their sources, go check them yourself. They mention figures totalling over $5 billion.
USSR sold weapons to Saddam as he was not part of the Warsaw Pact and USSR was in no position to give him stuff. As a matter of fact when Saddam fell, he was $8 billion or so in debt to USSR/Russia for all that junk.
Note that while the US money was earmarked for weapons, it was funnelled through various covers like the agriculture department. This is a standard practice with clandestine military aid, serving among other things to hide it from the taxpaying public.
Also from the article:
The Soviet government had refused to deliver arms to Iraq as long as Baghdad continued its military offensive against Iran.
and
The US government approved 771 licenses [only 39 were rejected] for the export to Iraq of $1.5 billion worth of biological agents and high-tech equipment with military application...
Look, I'm not excusing the fact we provided this materiel to Iraq, only that we were hardly alone, and weren't nearly the worst offender.
The difference is that all the other participants were just trying to peddle their wares to Saddam (which still makes them covered in blood snakes) although of course they had their agendas. Particualry amusing is the fact that Saddam was falling out with the USSR over his war with Iran, which is what made him such a great buddy of the US. But unlike even the USSR (although they did sell him arms on credit - which ended up costing them dearly), the US was actively funding him during his attrocities, which is worse. Doubly so now, when the hypocrisy is of cosmic proportions, with all the "liberation" and search for WMDs crapola.
Slashdot Mirror
And this misdirection is what gets you all tied up in knots here. Boeing did not start with manufacturing 747s. But because over many decades of existence of Boeing the marketplace evolved to the point when such planes are required, Boeing adapted from their wood and piano strings origins to match. No corporation, regardless of size would at this point be able to enter the 747 sized plane market. Only a government assisted entity could, which Airbus was. And there is only two of 747 sized commercial plane makers on the planet, if you do not count the Russian remnants of Soviet-created companies. Simply, in the present system, no one can enter that market because the barrier to entry is so steep as to be unscalable.
What I am talking about is a smaller group, starting with Cessna sized planes and slowly, over decades, just like Boeing did, acquiring the required expertise and mix of participants.
But you wish for that final state to occur instantly, and furthermore, claim that it is happening every day with multi-national corporations, which of course is patenrly false.
I contend it can't be done without a powerful central authority the way a corp is run, if it can't be done as efficiently in a large group of small companies, then it is SOCIALLY IRRESPONSIBLE to do it because it wastes resources, and we get less safe planes that cost more and get here later.
And I contend, that your contention is patently false. If it were so, an authoritarian dictatorship (which a corporation is as far as employees are concerned) would outperform a democracy (which, to a certain degree, a conglomerate is) every time. You are simply opposed to the idea because -- I suspect -- you believe that authocratic men of "vision", leading boldly, driven by ego and greed, are what drives all of the progress. I contend that they are, for the most, part thieves, crooks, demagogues and posturers and it is the unglamorous labour and patience over long period of time which is the cornerstone of progress. That is why you insist that for "efficiency" reasons one must insist on authoritarian, kingdom-like, structures.
And I contend that because NO ONE has done it, it must therefore be less efficient, because if it were more efficient, people would be doing it and making money. Since they aren't, it must be less efficient, and therefore SOCIALLY IRRESPONSIBLE, and wasteful.
And here is the confirmation of your total lack of understanding how things work. "Efficiency" is a code word for social injustice and greed run amok. Of course, there would be a decrease in "efficiency" in my scenario, to be offset by social gains. "Efficiency", taken the way you do it, is an enemy of society. Consider this: a 100% efficient company, is one which owns all of its supply chains all the way to harvesting of natural resources, has 0 employees and 100% automation (self-repairing). In a world of 100% "efficient" companies, there is not a single customer who is capable of buying a product, beause all wages are expense and thus "inefficiency". Only shareholder profit is allowed. The state I described is the "optimal" from the point of view of "efficiency" but I doubt you would like to live in a place like that. Not to mention that rise of 100% "efficient" companies would signal the end of capitalism. So please do not use "efficiency" in this argument as while efficiency is a factor to measure relative performance in some areas, it is also a propaganda term brandied about by proponents of laissez-faire, unrestricted, dog-eat-dog libertarian solutions as a club to badger people who do not quite grasp the equations. Capitalism, like any other economic system, is supposed to serve society, not the other way around, even if it involves some not getting rich and powerful, although these few claim otherwise, complete with veiled insinuations of divine authority, which are getting more and more fashionable in some American busine
So do I.
if I was approached by another small business who was interested in working with me in a quasi-partnership the way you are talking, I would say "no lets just merge" cause I don't have the budget or time to deal with an ongoing contract negotiation, and that's what your scheme calls for.
I don't know where you live, but here in Canada, that would be ridiculous. The reason lawyers get away with being such leeches on society is that businessmen like you let them. If any sort of cooperation required 1000-page long contracts (as you previously suggested), nothing would ever get done. You neglected to realize that traditional brand-representation relationships also are of nearly identical scope. I don't recall paying a $400/hour lawyer when we signed up to represent the brands we do. Neither did we do so with some of the people who can only be described as our sub-contractors. All of these are pre-made, standard forms, whereby you just fill in your company name and perheaps, on the outside, add a few lines of specifics. I do not know what sort of busienss you are in, but I am getting a strong vibe of you exaggerating hyperbolically to make your case.
Furthermore, "no, lets just merge" is a response I can understand from an ego perspective, whereby one looks for excuses to enlarge his/her little empire and remain in charge of it. I would assume that "lets merge" would result in you retaining the executive post and the owners of the other busienss stepping aside, no?
Also, 2 or 3 small businesses don't have the capital to do anything big
That depends what do you mean by "big". Initiating planning for a large or sometimes very, very large project? Tell that to achitectual firms who routinely design projects which then take hundreds of contractors to complete. Such firms are relatively very small in size. How about small investment/finance firms who regularly manage hundreds of millions to billions of dollars? A small group of companies can start a project, plan its generics, seek investment from other companies and coopt them, as well as manage the operation of such conglomerate, just like they manage massive construction projects today.
This is a red herring.
And you can't start working on making an airplane until you have all 150-200 companies, and the capital to do it, because otherwise, all of your energy in a small business is focused on making enough money to pay the bills and make payroll.
That is why it takes all of the sub-contractors, all of the investment, all of the supplies to be standing idly by already paid for, before an architectual firm can start planning a 130 story skyscraper, no?
Small businesses don't have this huge reserve of cash just sitting there to spend on R&D.
Of course they do. Most tiny tech outfits are nothing but R&D for years, vapour, until they find something worth peddling to investors or potential partners. Sigh.
Economics 101 teaches you that (the main benefit of monopolies is that they have extra cash for R&D, and yes there are benefits to monopolies, they just generally don't outweight the negatives)
There are apparently financial "benefits" to war too, for some. Not an example I would use though to further my argument.
And that means "invasion" in your books. No other options like, say, targeted action against the leadership? Of course not! It could have only meant a bombing campaign followed by an invasion which the likes of you had a hard-on for for a very long time, no?
You're demonstrably wrong again. But I know that won't stop you.
Let's dwell on this one for a minute as it is a cornerstone of your "thinking". You quote some piece from the web, which can have multiple interpretations, sometimes even different, contradicting, versions, following which you claim that it proves only one: yours. When I point out the alternatives, you claim that I am "generalizing it" in order to attack some strawman I created. Does this method of "polemic" work for you very often with people you can't shoot when they disagree?
So coming back to the first disingenuous assault of yours again: UN threatens "serious consequences", leaving itself all sorts of doors open, and yet people like you start jumping up and down screaming "Kill!! Yea! They want us to go in and start shooting everybody who disagrees! Yeehah!". And you call it a "reasonable behaviour"?
Actually, no they don't. You're quoting a different article. Another pathetic attempt at misdirection.
See? Here you go again. I dug up your quote, which you insisted was Annan's, and found it to be attributed to Powell by the very CNN you cited as your source. So what do you do? You claim that because I am quoting "a different article", that somehow nullifies the obvious fact that the quote you provided is at least suspect, and since my article was later then yours, most likely Powell's as CNN corrected itself.
So if you claim that rape is not sufficiently prevented, I can debunk your position by showing that law enforcement stopped one rape last year?
Here we go! Yes! This is how you build a proper strawman! Nice one! Let's analyse: you claim that, quote, "Nobody takes action against sanctions" (emphasis mine). Note the term "nobody". That means not a person. Not a single one. Yet when I provide an example of a group of people doing so, you then turn around and produce this "allegory" of your position (putting me in a position of a proponent, no less): "... rape is not sufficiently prevented ... " (emphasis mine). Note the difference: an absolute claim of no action in one and a claim of insufficient action in the other. Building and attacking mis-representations of your opponents position has a name: "attacking strawmen". Which you excel at, may I add!
The fact of the matter is that there was no serious, organized effort to stop sanctions, or to find some other solution to the Iraq problem.
This depends on your subjective interpretation of words "serious" and "organized". Was it not "serious" enough that people demonstrated? Wrote letters, editorials, books even? Was it not organized for these demonstrations to occur? What you are complaining about is that from your subjective perspective there were, nebulously, "not enough" of both, to exceed some arbitrarily set by you level, for your satisfaction. This is again a crucial element of your "psyche". You assume that your arbitrary perceptions are the only way things could possibly work and thus anything not fitting your delusions must be wrong. In your "mind", if you decide there was "not enough" of something, this automatically becomes an objective, universal, humanity-wide determination and thus anyone disagreeing must be mad.
Another basic flaw with your argumentative style: you mention one of the possible reasons for something, then jump to the conclusion that it is the cause for the action.
A beauty of a strawman here again. Your request was (quote): "Perhaps you can explain why the US and Canada both provided materiel for the war before the US was attacked?". To which, regarding Canada, I provided the explanatio
Yup.
and were wrong for a. not continuing with the invasion of Iraq after the first Gulf War
Err.. nope.
and b. not following through on their resolution to attack Iraq after weapons inspections failed.
Nope. Not only there was no such resolution (to "attack" Iraq) but they was clearly no reason to do so, as I have shown conclusively, multiple times, thanks to Mr. Ritter. Iraq was actually in the right to throw UNSCOM out after it has become a CIA operation and the UN knew it.
Not to mention all the other repercussions and highly unlikely positive outcomes of any such nonsensical military invasion.
Read: you are attempting to discredit a quote which obviously debunks your position, since you cannot support your position directly. Result: you lose.
The only thing this "obviously debunks" is your sanity. Beyond that, this is not a game and you are not a referee. Reserve these "You lose", "I am telling Mom" and similar missives for your fellow kindergarten classmates.
Actually quoted from CNN. So far you've claimed to know more than both CNN and the BBC. Pardon me if I disagree.
The CNN also disagrees with you. I am not sure if you realize this but quoting Powell from CNN and then insisting you are quoting Annan tells volumes about your mental state.
Your debate style is pathetic - when your ignorance is illustrated you either attempt to misdirect the conversation, claim to know more than the source that is being cited, or just go on ad hominem attacks.
Ah, another classic. Accuse your opponent of employing your own tactics. Do you really think this is going to work?
Interesting that you equate taking action with simply issuing a mission statement.
There were actual demonstrations which followed. The one I pointed you to was in New York, October 1, 1998 at the Times Square. Since you claimed that no protests occurred, even one example disproves your claim. If you think I will dig up every demonstration that occurred since then until the invasion, you are sorely mistaken. Google yourself.
The fact of the matter is nobody was taking out full-page ads, picketing in front of embassies, marching on Washington, calling their Congressmen, or burning flags over sanctions.
I am not sure about flag burning and full-page ads but the rest was definitely done. Multiple times.
Perhaps you can explain why the US and Canada both provided materiel for the war before the US was attacked?
Canada being part of the British Empire had little choice (I find that air of proprietorship of yours in regards to Canada telling by the way). As to the US, it did so at first for profit. There was absolutely no appetite for joining any silly European wars in the US. As a matter of fact, Herr Hitler had a number of admirers in high places in the US. But there were piles of money to be made on shipments of arms and supplies. Some were quite confused as to which side the shipping was to be made to. The business bonanza was followed by growing panic due to massive losses of -- then "neutral", even though they were carrying weapons and ammunition to war -- US merchant ships as they encountered U-boats. Lend Lease was not enacted until March 1941 after Hitler already occupied most of Europe and a good chunk of Africa. Followed by Pearl Harbor few months later. Which changed everything.
In fact, if the US were as evil as the fantasy you whack off to, wouldn't we have sided with the Germans? After all, then we could have had Anglo control of the world, including all the oil.
US is not essentially evil. There are
I am sorry, I forgot, In theory, some Patriot Act provisions apply only partially to those born in the USA. All immigrants are however not so lucky as per Section 412 of the Act. However US citizens can still have their door busted down with no warrant being shown, as per Section 213 and be hauled away with no lawyer.
With apologies to Inigo Montoya, I do not think the Patriot Act says what you think it says.
Perheaps you should explain that to Yaser Esam Hamdi and José Padilla, both US citizens.
Of course they were! All terrorist acts are. The object of terror is either to frighten the public of an enemy to force their government to run away or, failing that, to provoke a collective punishment retaliation, which in turn stirs up hatred of the enemy and drives recruits to the terrorist cause. The language of terror is hate. The terrorists hate, they want to be hated by their enemy enough to cause the enemy to cease thinking rationally and impose draconian measures both on their own people and on those from whose ranks the terrorists originate. And they want the hate to grow in the moderate groups of their own camp to increase radicalism.
The way to fight terror is to refuse to take the bait, something you clearly do not grasp. Otherwise, you will simply follow the not so glorious path trailed before you by the likes of Adolf who played the hate like a flute in Germany.
I "corrected" your message in one place and it already sounded like something from an editorial of a Nazi newspaper in March of 1933. Which should be a dire warning to you that you are getting dangerously close to becoming that what you hate.
Let me correct your typos:
people who complain at every time some civil liberties are being curtailed in order to fight terrorism do not offer any other methods of fighting it. The burning of the Reichstag and all the other provocations prove that 'the old ways' are not working anymore. The system must be changed, and those who criticize their governments practically over everything they do in this situation seldom offer any propositions of their own.
Sig Hail!
This quaint, obsolete law has too been already superceeded by the Patriot Act, in order to keep the public safe, I am sorry to inform you. You have this right only of you are a drug dealer or perheaps a serial murderer. If the Homeland Security, on an arbitrary whim of some Agent Imbecillic decides you are a potential "Unlawful Combatant", not only will they bust your door down with no warrant but off you go to Gitmo in the middle of the night with a bag on your head, Lawyer? You gotta be kidding.
And then, it appears they will just throw the key away.
Now sing with me: Land of the brave... Land of the free...
Good grief! And how do you think these frist two get together?! Or do you think a man who starts a new company, coopts someone who does not want to be in the same business so that only that first individual can remain commited? What are you saying? 2 is the smallest number to form a group. We were disucssing a way to group small businesses, no? How do yo get a group of companies, people, anything made up of 1 element?!!
then WHY, in A FREE MARKET, has NOBODY EVER DONE IT?
What planet do you live on? The reason noone has done it because one can rape and pillage under the current corporate law. We are not disucssing the fastest ways to get filthy rich for some, such is the direction into which the current situation is evolving, only to get worse for an average person. We are discussing the most socially responsible ways to run capitalism. Under the current corporate (and other) laws, the fastest way to get filthy rich is to start a corporation, merge it with another, and another and another untill you have enough power to push around governments.
I have not thought about it in this way but I suspect that you are right. Wal-Mart ls like an Ebola virus. It will consume the host so feverently and with such zeal that the host dies so quickly as to unable to spread the disease far. In a few days everyone in the village is dead and the disease has defeated itself. Just too bad that we are to live through the process and the Wall-marts and the like have only one host civlization to consume.
Not at all. I do work with these companies and know first hand. There are a massive number of specialty items, machined to specification just for Boeing. Noone else is using a 747 engine mounts, cockpit glass etc. The wiring hanresses for a Ford F150 engine might be used in some other Ford models but not in a Chrysler etc and so on. There are over a hundred small machine shops in my city alone, fabricating transmission covers, gears, shafts etc etc for specific models of tractors, cars, planes etc. They are all sub-contracted by the makers, with a specific CAD drawings being sent to the shops so they can machine the parts on request. These parts are useless for anyone else.
You just have a silly, and completely false, idea that "sub-contractor" means paid per-hour labour only, which is mostly applicable IT software projects.
The 747 is designed, engineered, and tested by Boeing EMPLOYEES, it is manufactured and sold by Boeing EMPLOYEES. Yes they get parts from other companies, but it is not a sub-contractor/general contractor relationship, it is a supplier/purchaser relationship.
The design, administration, logisistcs and final assembly is indeed done by Boeing. But even major sub systems of the plane are assembled before that by sub-contractors and delivered, shrink-wrapped, to the assembly plant on large trucks. You just have no clue about it.
The only entities who rely heavily on sub-contractors are those in the infrastructure business (roads, buildings, homes, the government, and NASA). Those projects are always woefully over budget and late.
They are late not because of sub-contracting, which is like any other business relationship. Theese have other inherent problems, primarily due to either massive bureaucracies (govt, NASA) or lack of competition (housing).
I sense that you have some sort of irrational fear of contractors, brought on perheaps by some crook who failed to build you a house.
How do you decide which company gets to R&D the wing and which gets the chair mount? Obviously the person doing the wing is going to make more money, so now you've got all your happy little companies in a bidding war against each other.
You are building strawmen. "obviously"? You mean there is something "obvious" about making piles of money on R&D? As opposed to assembly? Each of these companies would have to earn entry into the conglomerate and in the most likely scenario would compete with other companies for the privilege. As to "MASSIVE" overhead, you clearly never visited HQ of any company larger then 1000 people. I fear this discussion is futile if you insist that black is white.
How are you going to get 150 companies to listen to your "small administrative companies"?
The same way you get them to listen to a CEO, who is supposedly a hireling of shareholders. Think shareholders = small business participants.
And then you get into serious redundancy with 7 different wing designs submitted from 7 different companies, 4 different fusalages, 3 cockpits, 7 tails, 3 engine mounts.. because every company thinks its the best at doing xyz (not to mention xyz pays better than what the administrative company assigned them), and why are they gonna listen to some administrator from outside their company?
Competition? Good. Selection done by the administarive or technical panels organized by core participants. Redundancy sometimes good too if there is a risk of failure of one supplier. More strawmen.
In the end you have a faction that breaks off and decides screw you guys we're gonna make our own plane... Well except they just took 150 million of your seed capital, and now noone has enough money to R&D a plane.
As opposed to a cabal of key employees getting up and starting their own company today? This is called a contractual obligation, and yes, lawyers are still nee
This is precisely what is happening today. Large automotive and aero-space corporations subcontract most of their work to literally thousands of sub-contractors.
Or did you seriously think that all the screws, washers, bolts, wires, connectors, lights, carpets, seat covers, tires, pipes, fluids etc etc etc on a 747 are made by Boing?
The rest of your argument is self defeating really in the light of this.
That is why corporations are necessary.
The old-fashioned corporate public charter would quite suffice. As administration could be done by a number of small businesses specializing in ... administration of large projects. R&D by R&D outfits etc. Budgets are merely a function of the number of participants in the prooject.
You are labouring under a completely mistaken impression that large companies are efficient. They are in fact gigiantic hives of bureaucracy, redundancy and waste. That is one of the reasons they remain so large, they need a critical mass to be able to sustain their inefficency (which increases with size and levels of managment) by anti-competetive means, lest they collapse. The only thing they have an advantage in is bargraining power with suppliers due to size of orders. Which a cooperative of small businesses, similiar in size, would also have.
That would not be me. I already, repeatedly, indicated that both France and USSR were immoral in their dealings with Iraq. The position I take is that the US was more immoral for many reasons, one of them being that it pretends to be the moral judge of others, granting itself powers of arbitratry investigation, prosecution, and execution of, quoting Shrub, "evil doers".
Is it not fair to point out that Ford and Chrystler did far more to support the gangsters than GM?
Unfortunately that would not be true, which I already elaborated on many times, as the amounts of grants by the US approached the amounts of loans by the others.
Sadly, some people's views are so twisted by their hatred for America that they are unable to see anything America does as anything but wrong.
There are many great things about America, I for one hold some of the brilliant ideas of the Founding Fathers in utmost respect. But there are also a great many things to despise about it, most of them doing of men blinded by greed and power who have been in charge of the USA for very long stretches of time. The recent record of US activity abroad is abysmal, to put it gently. And I do not see any improvement on the horizon. Many other countries do stupid and evil things, but due to some inexplicable disease of utter narcissism, hubris and at the same time "perpetual victim" psychosis which has gripped America, combined with her sheer power, she is commiting misdeeds so spectacular and frequent that the others are simply totally eclipsed. That is why it seems like noone is talking about what others do. Anything France might have done messing around in Africa for example, is simply a tempest in a teapot compared to, say, the raging hurricane in Iraq.
This is higly misleading as the reason for the "loans" and the guarantees was to aid Iraq's military effort by freeing his funds elsewhere. We know this from Rumsfeld's (among other neo-cons) personal involvement in the negotiations. The critical difference, the guarantees, is what makes the US's stance worse (besides the raging hyporcrisy) because these guarantees were from the outset intended to be fulfilled, turning them into grants. It is a simple equation: Grants are more potent then loans. France, USSR = loans; US = grants.
but in the case of France and the Soviets, for a much greater amount,
The US guarantees reached $5 billion, which is comparable with the levels of loans by France and USSR. The difference again is that the US offered grants in disguise (among other things).
the article says nothing to contradict the fact that the Soviet Union and France, and not the US, supplied Saddam with the vast majority of his arms
The part which I was refering to is the calculation of total guarantees given to Saddam. The supply of WMD materiel is but a bonus.
While I admit that the article has a rather strong bias, I am sure the sources he quoted for the calculations can be checked.
To simplify this discussion: imagine you have a ganster getting caught and he goes to trial. The investigation discovers that he had 3 accomplices, two of whom loaned him money, which they knew he will use in criminal activity but expected him to pay it back, and the third gave him a similar amount for "lunch" with a wink and a pat on the back while pointing meaningfully at his sworn enemy. Enemy who was later shot by the gangster. Which of these 3 accomplices is most deceitful and immoral? I will even skip the bit about the third one claiming to be a self appointed policeman, investigator, judge, jury and executioner ... and a priest.
This is actually not true. What is needed is a two-pronged approach: putting the corporation back to its original form, as a social charter to allow a number of small businesses to pool their resources and reduce a risk of a large project and at the same time, massive increase in progressive business taxation on businesses in order to massively reduce their maximum profitable size and to increase the number of such businesses.
This achieves two things: increases competition since there are now hordes of small businesses competing over the same thing but at the same time allows for large coopearative projects. By reducing business size you reduce social risks of individual business failures and you reduce power of individual businesses to lobby governments. By not allowing corporate protection for basic business, you also ensure personal responsibility at this level. Add to this a massive, progressive inheretance tax to kill multi-generational accumulation of wealth and power and you are statring to approach the capitalism as it was meant to be: working for the society, not the other way around.
This still allows personal greed and wealth accumulation to function but on a much reduced scale. People will still be motivated to work harder just that the maximum reward ceiling would be significantly lowered, which is a good thing unless you believe that a CEO salary being 500+ times (and growing yearly) that of an average employee in the same company, as we have it now, is healthy. Unless you believe that all the outsorcing maddness is healthy. Unless you believe that corporations having wealth and power exceeding that of small countries is healthy.
Corporations can be useful but they are instruments of extrarodinary power which should be reserved for extraordinary projects and also be object of extraordinary scrutiny.
Real, unvarnished truth. People in power controlling US were always looking for their own interests first. As they do in any other country. So when it was pragmatic to help Stalin, US did it. When it was pragmatic to rebuild Europe, in hopes of preventing another WWII but with nukes, US did it. That does not mean that there were not many, many people in the US, who then, like now, also truly believed that it was the right and just thing to do. Only that the elites in power are nowhere near so idealistic and instead think greed and power on a continuous basis. As in any other country.
Where the main problem with the US comes from is its posturing and self-aggrandizement. And hubris. If the US would not try to paint itself as the navel of the world and also its saviour, noone would be trying to measure it up to that standard.
Now that was a huge mistake.
From the perspective of noble people, rebuilding was a just thing to do. From the perspective of elites in power (whose opinion mattered more) it was a pragmatic thing to do, allowing not only to create a new market for their wares (at least for a while) but also to prevent the repeat of the kind of war which can be potentially really bad for business: nuclear world-wide one. Not to mention to fend off a really, really scary for business aristocracy proposition: the commies.
In the case of France, I think we are talking of private enterprises extending loans which subseqently went bad, and shifting the burden of collecting onto the government. To my knowledge, France's government did not offer any sort of aid to Iraq, it offered aid to their own companies who foolishly sold things to Iraq. In the case of USSR, everything they did ended up being a state affair as all the arms manufacturers were also state owned. But at the same time, due to their dire economic troubles, USSR was increasingly eager to earn hard currency and weapons sales are just the way to do it. In other words, USSR was (and Russia still is) unable to afford to give away $8 billions worth of weapons. That is why they hang onto the loans until the end.
Let me get this straight: the USSR and France supplied Saddam with vastly, vastly more arms than did the US. But to you, the US is still worse.
It is for many reasons. One, unlike the others, it did plan to give the money to Saddam from the outset to control him, the others did it for profit (although I am sure they hoped for some degree influence as well as a bonus). That does not absolve them from being immoral but the US is worse by its own standards! If the US was going about claiming that it opportunistically helps any old tinpot dictator for profit, I would just claim it to be as bad as the rest of them but not worse morally. But the USA claims to be the "cop of the planet", "leader of the free world" etc. and then proceeds to attempt to control nations in the interest of power over others and profit for not even the entire nation but a few members of its aristocracy.
The USSR and France loaned Saddam more money than the US. But to you, the US is still worse.
In terms of money US was right up there with them. In terms of the intent, the US was aiming for control, France for profit. USSR possibly for both, but we are not comparing the morality of USSR here to the USA, are we? Again, US, by its own standards, is worse then these other two, one a profiteer and the other a Stalinist Empire. The US then proceeded to beat USSR at the Villany Olimpics and fabricated pretexts to outright take over Iraq.
After overthrowing Saddam, the US immediately moved to forgive Iraqs debts to America. France and Russia as well as Germany and several Middle East nations, however, dragged their feet until finally, under US pressure, agreeing to forgive about 80% of Iraqi debts.
For one, many of the US loans were intended as handouts and were forgiven long ago, as I repeatedly explained. Also as I indicated none of these others countries were aiding Iraq but were trying to make money trading with it. Subsquently they were ill prepared to lose their shirts on the deal.
You say you are "skeptical." It appears to me from your statements and your illogical reasoning that your antipathy towards the US is emotional, and I doubt that any amount of evidence will sway you.
Truthfully, you would have to present some evidence so strong as to offset the mountain of data casting USA's foreign policy in a quite damnable light. Nowhere more spectacularly so then in Iraq.
The SIPRI report is highly credible, particularly since it comes from a left-leaning institute with no reason to favor the US.
The numbers are probably right in some way. But as Mark Twain once said: "There are lies, Damned Lies and Statistics". I have no idea if the criteria used to compile that report are proper, the assignment by country of manufacture actually meaningful, how the weapons shipped were really measured etc. As to left-leaning SIPRI as they are basically peaceniks, I would expect them to be upset about anyone shipping any arms anywhere. If the report was titled "Total Support for Saddam by country" and included all the other factors I mentioned, we could have a discussion.
The site is of no consequence, I pointed you there because the original copy of the article is inside pay-per-view archive of the Wall Street Journal. The author is Kenneth R. Timmerman, an expert on Middle-East affairs who used to publish in WSJ. This particular article is I think available in his $1100 a year newsletter for executives.
ll it says is that North Korea and China sold arms to Iran, both of whom at the time had large arsenels of old Soviets weapons available for sale, and neither of whom was by any means under the thumb of the Soviets at the time.
No it actually says much more then that, it describes the shift of the USSR's sympathies.
Also, to wit, you should note that Iran never officially supported the Taliban and in fact at one point in time appeared to be gearing to go toe-to-toe with them (or according to some, it did). That is because even though Iran sports an Islamic Theocracy, it is a brand of Islam hostile to that of Wahhabism to which Taliban subscribed. That is why Osama is finding traction in the Sunni areas of Iraq but not in the Shia ones.
This does not mean that various individuals within Iran did not attempt to communicate or even aid Taliban, but it is contrary to your assertion of great animosity between USSR and Iran.
Cool. So that is why US loans were guaranteed and covered by taxpayers by definition and France's and USSR's had to be nullified by the US invasion? Or am I missing something?
The facts don't matter to people like you. You will always see the US as wrong and make excuses for other countries like France and the USSR.
Right. The reason we are so skeptical about the USA's policies is because they have been revealed to be the heights of double-talking connivery time after time. I have no illusions that other countries have agendas and are involved in all sorts of bad things. The difference is that the USA claims to be "the leader of the free world" and beyond reproach, while engaging in deceptions, lies and all sorts of other villany so underhanded that it makes the others look like rank amateurs.
As to facts, it its the believers in divine destiny of the USA who are immune to them not me. If a report like this is published, which contradicts some of the things I know, I will be skeptical and you will have to show more evidence other then the singular report to convince me otherwise.
The USSR certainly did not back Iran in the Iran-Iraq war. Iran was violently anti-communist, and was a major supporter of the the mujahadeen resistance to the USSR occupation of Afghanistan.
The USSR happily supplied Saddam all the arms could buy
Well, how about this?
From there:
While its true, its misleading to count the manufacturers as "aiding" Iraq. In the same fashion I could claim Ford was aiding gansgters when they kill someone in drive-by-shooting. While I do not deny that USSR and others were supplying Iraq at one time or another, what I am skeptical about is how this report was compliled and is presented.
The fact is that the Soviet Union was a strong supporter of Saddam's regime, as was France, his other great arms supplier. The United States did not even have diplomatic relations with Saddam's regime until 1984, and had little trade, let alone arms deals with it.
Yes thats true, but I was describing what happened as the Iraq-Iran war progressed. The frantic efforts at stopping Iran, US involvnent and subsequent shifting of interests of USSR happened during the second half of the war, when Iraq started to suffer a number of major military setbacks.
Aha! I think I know where the chickanery is. The SIPRI people, very disingenuosly, counted all Soviet made weapons as Soviet aid. While in fact they were being purchased (sometimes quite a while before that) by Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and then shipped into Iraq, an action directly encouraged, and partially financed by Washington. Look at that report and you will notice that none of the Arab countries, which are beyond any doubt known to have assisted Iraq against Iran with arms shipments, are on the list.
Which makes me really wonder about this SIPRI report and its accuracy. USSR was backing Iran and not Iraq in the war. Saddam was loudly criticising USSR action in Afghanistan. etc. Soviet arms shipments to Iraq are known to have turned into a trickle by then. In the early 1980's some 3000 Soviet advisors went to Iran. Saddam and the USSR were no longer great buddies, but some Russian interests still remained, primarily in the oil sector.
Sure, go read this.
In fact, it was by far German & other EUROPEAN firms that happliy sold Saddam the majority of his his chemical weapons precursors.
They were all selling him crap but none other then the US gave Saddam loan guarantees. That is, they were all peddling him their wares on credit (and got stung when he fell), but the US was financing him. I hope you grok the difference.
You gotta be kidding. I am not gonna waste a day looking for primary sources, I will point you instead to this report, they cite their sources, go check them yourself. They mention figures totalling over $5 billion.
USSR sold weapons to Saddam as he was not part of the Warsaw Pact and USSR was in no position to give him stuff. As a matter of fact when Saddam fell, he was $8 billion or so in debt to USSR/Russia for all that junk.
Note that while the US money was earmarked for weapons, it was funnelled through various covers like the agriculture department. This is a standard practice with clandestine military aid, serving among other things to hide it from the taxpaying public.
Also from the article:
and
Look, I'm not excusing the fact we provided this materiel to Iraq, only that we were hardly alone, and weren't nearly the worst offender.
The difference is that all the other participants were just trying to peddle their wares to Saddam (which still makes them covered in blood snakes) although of course they had their agendas. Particualry amusing is the fact that Saddam was falling out with the USSR over his war with Iran, which is what made him such a great buddy of the US. But unlike even the USSR (although they did sell him arms on credit - which ended up costing them dearly), the US was actively funding him during his attrocities, which is worse. Doubly so now, when the hypocrisy is of cosmic proportions, with all the "liberation" and search for WMDs crapola.