[B5JMS] And So It Begins...

[b5jms at cs.columbia.edu]

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: warlock at es.co.nz (Matthew Vincent)
Date: 28 May 2003 22:27:23 -0700
Lines: 50

Jonathan Biggar <jon at floorboard.com> wrote: 

JMS wrote: 

>>So defense of the nation does not benefit the citizens?
>
>It does benefit the citizenry *as a whole*, but not John 
>Doe more than Joe Blow. 

*Defense* of the nation does indeed benefit the citizenry as a whole.
However, invading another country in order to pillage its oil and to
secure a strategic foothold in the area is not *defense*. The recent
invasion of Iraq only benefits a very small minority of US citizens,
i.e. those with financial or/and political interests in the area. The
money that Bush has diverted from social services will cause far more
damage to the US public overall than any benefit they will see from
this war; overall, this war is decreasing the average happiness level
of the 270 million or so people in the US.

>It's hard to believe that you are forgetting that the US Government
>*gets* something in return for the money it pays to contractors. 

The US government would get plenty in return for providing a more
adequate welfare system. For a start, there'd be less criminal justice
related expenses due to poverty-based crime. In the long run, an
adequate welfare state is actually beneficial to the economy. (I point
this out because some people are sufficiently selfish that they are
only interested in the financial aspects.)

>>Funds I pay in taxes are being paid to a Halliburton subsidiary 
>>to go in and rebuild and control the Iraqi oil industry, which 
>>will benefit the Halliburton board of directors to the tune of 
>>billions of dollars. 
>>
>>Where, may I ask, do I go to get my money back on that one? 
>
>In lower costs of future defense because we don't have 
>Saddam to bug us any more. 

How about higher costs of future military spending because the US
government has caused a lot of diplomatic friction with its
unauthorised invasion of Iraq, and with the future military actions
(which probably won't be ethically justified either) that the US
military will most likely pursue with their foothold in the
Middle-East. I imagine that Bush may try to start another war before
the next election in order to keep the US public distracted from his
abysmal failure to take care of domestic issues.

Matthew


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: jmsatb5 at aol.com (Jms at B5)
Date: 29 May 2003 06:08:58 GMT
Lines: 34

>>It's hard to believe that you are forgetting that the US Government
>>*gets* something in return for the money it pays to contractors. 

And just for fun, let's take a good look at this for a second, shall we?

On May 24th, two days ago, the Pentagon -- after being lobbied by Boeing which
is looking for some more assignments -- entered into a deal with Boeing, to
wit:

The Pentagon (with taxpayer money) will pay $16 billion to lease 100 used
planes from Boeing to modify into refuelling tankers.

They're leasing these planes for $131 million each, with the proviso that the
Government can buy them in a few years for *another* $4 billion.  

This, incidentally, is far, FAR more than each plane would cost to buy them.

Even McCain is bugged by this one, saying (per the NY Times) it was a
profligate waste of taxpayer's money, adding: "In all my years in Congress, I
have never seen the security and fiduciary responsibilities of the federal
government quite so nakedly subordinated to the interests of one defense
manufacturer.''

Just for the record, to be filed under caveat emptor.
 jms

(jmsatb5 at aol.com)
(all message content (c) 2003 by synthetic worlds, ltd., 
permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine 
and don't send me story ideas)