This is topic Is it about oil? in forum The Flameboard at Flare Sci-Fi Forums.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/11/1107.html

---

Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
 
First, Omega, feel free to dismantle this topic.
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
That guys a naive, knee-jerk simpleton.
 

---

Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
 
Seeing as it looks like Bush is going to attack Iraq (I made a rhyme!) whether or not the UN agrees, then why doesn't he just get on with it.

And while he's at it why doesn't he just attack North Korea, AND START WORLD WAR THREE!! I could sure go for some thermonuclear destruction raining down on my head!

Ahem...Sorry for the sarcasm. But I'm cranky this morning. Coffee's gone...

This lady just figured out that the US is after Iraqi oil?

She's worse than a niave, knee-jerked simpleton.
 

---

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
 
She says it isn't just about oil, then she harps on the oil....

Last time the world placated a mad man he burned several million Jews....
 

---

Posted by E. Cartman (Member # 256) on :
 
How can Hussein be compared to Hitler when he has no navy or air force, and now has an army one-fifth the size of 12 years ago, which even then proved totally inept at defending the country?
 

---

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
 
In the land of fact, Iraq still has both a Navy and an Air Force, although its air force is small and its navy consists mostly of about 150 patrol boats.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/air-force-equipment.htm

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/ships.htm

Of course, if they loaded each of those patrol boats with dynamite, and tried a USS Cole-style attack, that's almost formidable.
 

---

Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
 
Except of course, Rob, that Hitler had a state of the art Navy and Air Force. Hussein has a run down military whose greatest threat is using patrol boats as kamikaze weapons. The comparission of Hussein to Hitler is still out of left field.
 

---

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
 
Of course, if the only way to compare people is the size of their militaries, then you and I are exactly the same.
 

---

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
 
Almost formidable?? The Iraqi "navy"?

Remembering that the USS Cole was in port and not "at war" when struck, an Iraqi partol boat no more threatens the might of the U.S. Navy than Snay in a bathtub.
 

---

Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
 

quote:

---

Almost formidable?? The Iraqi "navy"?

Remembering that the USS Cole was in port and not "at war" when struck, an Iraqi partol boat no more threatens the might of the U.S. Navy than Snay in a bathtub.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jay the Obscure:
Almost formidable?? The Iraqi "navy"?

Remembering that the USS Cole was in port and not "at war" when struck, an Iraqi partol boat no more threatens the might of the U.S. Navy than Snay in a bathtub.

---

quote:

---

How can Hussein be compared to Hitler when he has no navy or air force, and now has an army one-fifth the size of 12 years ago, which even then proved totally inept at defending the country?

---

quote:

---

Or we could just lift the sanctions and have it at a much lower cost. Of course, this would hand Saddam the victory and guarantee that no reform ever takes place in Iraq...

We already have enough troops in Kuwait to take their oil.

---

quote:

---

It is remarkable how Iraq's huge oil reserves - second largest in the world - prove two key points.

First, just how desperately Saddam clings to his nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs. His refusal to scrap them 12 years ago, as he pledged, cost Iraq more than $100 billion in lost oil revenue, perhaps as much as $200 billion. That's a lot to forgo for a WMD arsenal. But it's WMD that Saddam values most. No price his people pay is too high for his personal ambitions.

Second, Iraq's having gobs of oil shows how principled America and England are. For unlike the French and Russians, our leaders - both Republican and Democratic, Labour and Conservative - have willingly sacrificed acquiring cheaper oil to force Saddam's scrapping his WMD arsenal.We had hope that this would be done through UN sanctions and inspection teams. It was a nice try, but that effort obviously hasn't worked. So force must now be used.

---

quote:

---

One last point on "blood for oil." Iraq's having substantial reserves - and the whole Middle East holding much of the world's oil supply - is a legitimate factor in our concerns in the region. Even the recent Noble Peace Prize winner, President Jimmy Carter, understood the importance of oil to the development world when president. In 1979, after the Soviets brutally invaded Afghanistan, President Jimmy Carter asserted the Carter Doctrine, which offered U.S. protection of Gulf states precisely because of their abundant oil.

---

quote:

---

To turn the protestors on their head: President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair don't act on the basis of "blood for oil." It's Saddam who's been on a clear path of "oil for blood." That now must end.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by First of Two:
How about a difference between Hitler and Saddam?

A few bright boys got together and stopped Saddam when he tried to take over his Sudetenland (Kuwait.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wraith:
Well, he annexed it then marched troops in which is an invasion in all but name. And it was so good to see America taking a moral stand and joining in as soon as we did get our act together in 1939. Oh, wait, you didn't.

---

quote:

---

But if Reagan and Rumsfeld were right to be cozying up to Hussein in 1983, when he was gassing Iranians and Kurds, does that mean President Bush and Rumsfeld are wrong today to be preparing a war against Iraq and citing such chemical attacks as one reason? Or was U.S. policy wrong then and right now?

U.S. presidents often present American positions in starkly moral terms, as Bush did in describing Hussein in the State of the Union address: "The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages. ... International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning."

But all those evils were well-documented in 1983.

At the time of Rumsfeld's visit, Hussein had invaded Iran, was seeking nuclear weapons and had used lethal mustard gas. He had harbored terrorists (though he had just expelled the infamous Abu Nidal) and had a well-established record of torturing and murdering domestic opponents.

The U.S. response? It dropped Iraq from the list of nations sponsoring terror, renewed diplomatic ties, and provided intelligence and aid to Iraq to prevent its defeat by Iran.

Joyce Battle, the National Security Archive analyst who assembled the previously secret U.S. documents, says they are a reminder that diplomacy is rarely a clear-cut campaign of good against evil.

"We published these documents as a response to the way the Bush administration is trying to describe this situation in black and white terms," says Battle. "In reality, that's not the way international relations are carried out."

---

quote:

---

Bush's reasons in his own mind are irrelevant....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sol System:
Speaking of differences between 1991 and today...

---

So, if the US had gone ahead and taken out Saddam, the Madrid conference would not have happened, hence the Oslo Accord would have never happened, hence...

That's where you lose me, as it doesn't appear that the Oslo Accrd has accomplished anything.

Or the alternative... if the US had gone ahead and taken out Saddam, the Palestinian terrorists would have been deprived of an important financial backer, hence...
 

---

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
 
Lose you? I'm not sure how, though where ever it is that you ended up is a long way from anywhere I had intended.
 

---

Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
 
Some things that I just have to note:

1) There are about 30 oil-well fires burning in Iraq right now. Why is the American government (as well as many American Oil Companies) so concerned about this?
2) Why was the government so concerned about Iraqis setting the oil wells on fire BEFORE the invasion started? Is GWB concerned about the riches of the Iraqi people, or mainly his own?
3) Why are oil companies predominant among applications to rebuild Iraq after the war?

I'd like to point out that Britain's position is less odious than the American position. After all, it would appear that Britain does not have as much at stake compared to what the Americans appear to be clamouring for.
 

---

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
1) The last number I heard was three, but that was at least half an hour ago. Under any circumstances, we're concerned because, in no particular order, a) it's wasteful, b) it's veryveryveryvery hard to put these fires out, and c) it's horribly polluting.

2) We were concerned about Sadaam setting the wells on fire because he did it before in Kuwait, and it was thus likely that he'd do it again. This is a Bad Thing for the reasons stated above.

3) Oil companies are so predominant among applicants to help rebuild Iraq because, well, oil's a good chunk of their economy. Alpo can't very well do it.
 

---

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 
I believe the number of burning oil wells was revised to seven.
 

---

Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
 
1) The last number I heard was three, but that was at least half an hour ago. Under any circumstances, we're concerned because, in no particular order, a) it's wasteful, b) it's veryveryveryvery hard to put these fires out, and c) it's horribly polluting.

Or is it because the American oil companies have a stake in it? Oil goes boom, no money for them, right? After all, Bush and Cheney basically headed up their own oil firms.

Again, why aren't we attacking North Korea, who also has a demented leader, and is definitely trying to obtain nuclear weapons. Is it because that North Korea doesn't have any valuable resources like Iraq does?

http://www.markfiore.com/animation/dictator.html

[ March 21, 2003, 12:09 PM: Message edited by: Saltah'na ]
 

---

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
Or is it because the American oil companies have a stake in it? Oil goes boom, no money for them, right?

Um... well, yeah, that would be a true statement. But since all the other stated reasons are definitely valid, you have no reason to believe that yours is the sole reason, or even an important one in the minds of the policy-makers. The destruction of that oil is bad for everyone, from every possible perspective. (Always excepting the Amish, perhaps.) Sure, it's bad for the oil companies, they're a subset of "everyone", but... well, so what? That hardly makes it a conspiracy or something.

Again, why aren't we attacking North Korea, who also has a demented leader, and is definitely trying to obtain nuclear weapons.

You know, I bet you'd be saying the same thing about Iraq were we attacking North Korea.

Under any circumstances, good as we are, fighting major wars on multiple fronts is a Bad Idea, especially when North Korea's army is as big as it is. We can use overwhelming force, but not in two theatres at once. So it could simply be a flip of a coin. Two insane, dangerous dictators with grudges against us that are trying to obtain WMDs. Can't hit 'em both at the same time, so why NOT Iraq?

Further, Iraq helps establish precident, and displays the irrelevance of the UN in such matters. We can also, to some degree, count on China to keep N. Korea in line, at least for the time being.
 

---

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
 
Yeah, I really see everyone else on the same level as oil executives in access to Mr. Bush and in the policy making process of this administration.
 

---

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
Well, you can see the universe as you please, just don't expect the rest of us to believe that your views actually reflect reality without some evidence.
 

---

Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
 
Re: Burning oil wells

quote:

---

a) it's wasteful, b) it's veryveryveryvery hard to put these fires out, and c) it's horribly polluting

---

Amen to that!
Burning oil wells are very wasteful and horribly polluting. Burning oil is a horrible crime. The US's new found enthusiasm in fighting the Axis of Pollution is very admirable.
The evil of combustion must be brought to an end, and God is on our side.
Once this Middle Eastern adventure is over, the US will of course bring the same determination, morality, and environmental righteousness to the streets and highways of the western world.
May God be with us, and our nation.
 

---

Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
 
You know, I bet you'd be saying the same thing about Iraq were we attacking North Korea.

No. The way I see it, we know North Korea is trying to obtain nukes. The burden of proof in North Korea is stronger than in Iraq. We have:
- the banishment of UN inspectors fron NK,
- the deactivation of UN monitoring equipment,
- the startup of an illegal reactor that can make nuclear weapons (the abilities of Iraq are still somewhat circumstantial),
- the staunch non-cooperation by Kim Jong Il (whereas there was at least some cooperation from Iraq, although disturbingly minimal),
- the additional deployment of troops to the border with South Korea and recent military showcases.

I see more reason to "liberate" North Korea from a "treacherous dictator" who threatens to use "weapons of mass destruction" against "civilization".

And didn't GWB warn NK that it CAN fight two wars at once? So why isn't this happening. I'll only give little credit to Bush in the sense that he was blindsided by the defiance of Kim Jong Il while he was trying to keep a lid on Saddam.

But really, the only differences between SoDammed Insane and Kim with a Little-Dong Ill is that Iraq is more malnourished than NK is, and that Iraq has oil. NK doesn't. They are both insane dictators. But what NK does have that Iraq doesn't is the proven ability AND the resources to make WMDs. Can you say "Taepo Dong"? One of their missiles actually crossed Japan itself and smacked into the Pacific Ocean. Not the Sea of Japan, but the openness of the ocean itself.

Besides, the peaceniks are all over with the arguments "No Blood For Oil" and "Livelihood may cost money, but Lives are Priceless". They'd be fumbling over what argument to make if the U.S. attacked North Korea.
 

---

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
Well, I already mentioned that N. Korea has China to keep it somewhat in check. There's the possibility that Sadaam was closer to developing a WMD than Korea is, but that's playing the "hidden information" card. It may also serve to force Iraq's neighbors to lighten up a bit, whereas invading North Korea probably isn't going to do much for China.

But even if we pretend the obvious differences don't exist, well, what's wrong with making the decision around oil, then? If the only difference is that rebuilding one country is going to help our economy and theirs, whereas rebuilding the other isn't going to help ours quite so much, and all other things are equal, of course we should pick the one that helps us more.

Come on, Eric, if you're gonna make a baseless argument, at least make one that holds together.
 

---

Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
 
One person's theory based on their analysis of facts is always another person's baseless argument.

"But even if we pretend the obvious differences don't exist, well, what's wrong with making the decision around oil, then?"

Because it is a decision based on (corporate) greed? Which would make it a BAD decision? And the fact that both Bush and Cheney could be influenced by this? Then the quest to liberate the people of Iraq appears to become secondary. Oil first, human lives second. It gives credence to the peacenik argument "No Blood for Oil". The U.S. becomes the conquerors rather than the liberators.

So do you agree that the decision for war was based on oil then? I guess we have nothing else to discuss, unless anyone has a beef with that.

Yes, maybe Saddam would have been closer to building a WMD before North Korea is. But surely the U.N. would have found something to signify this. AFAIK, the U.N. inspectors got zero help from the U.S. intelligence agency (unless someone corrects me).

"Well, I already mentioned that N. Korea has China to keep it somewhat in check."

A Communist nation to keep another Communist nation in check? Now that's interesting. Especially from a guy who dislikes (and distrusts) the Chinese government. Now THAT'S a baseless argument.
 

---

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
 

quote:

---

Well, you can see the universe as you please, just don't expect the rest of us to believe that your views actually reflect reality without some evidence.

---

Show me the list of people involved in the formation of energy policy by as headed up by Cheney.
 

---

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
*GASP*

You mean he formulated an energy policy with the advice of people who knew something about energy!? How DARE he!

Just who do you suggest should have been on that committee, instead?

Because it is a decision based on (corporate) greed?

Again, baseless. This is all hypothetical, of course, seeing as there are many obvious differences between Korea and Iraq, but IF there weren't, and IF we operate on the false assumption that [trying to turn a profit == greed == bad], just what's wrong with corporations trying to make money? Just how do you think the vast majority of the people in this country get paid? How do you think this or any other economy, including the future Iraqi economy, exists? Because, horror of horrors, private companies organize peoples' skills in an efficient manner, use those skills to make money, and pay those employees for their services! What you call greed is actually legitimate economic activity. What alternative do you propose, anyway? That the oil goes forever undeveloped, and that all the potential increases in living standards it could bring to the Iraqi people never happen? 'Cause unless you have another option, that's exactly what's going to happen if you get what you seem to want.

Then the quest to liberate the people of Iraq appears to become secondary

Again, baseless, and increasingly absurd. We already control the oil, and we're still moving towards Baghdad. And before you ask the obvious dumb question, "Why did we save the oil first?", it's because the oil was under immediate threat from Hussein, and the civilians in Baghdad aren't.

So do you agree that the decision for war was based on oil then?

No. Only in a hypothetical universe that has nothing to do with reality, as I stated.

Yes, maybe Saddam would have been closer to building a WMD before North Korea is. But surely the U.N. would have found something to signify this.

Like all those SCUDs they found? The inspectors were utterly useless, and Sadaam himself proved it better than we ever could. Deal with it.

A Communist nation to keep another Communist nation in check? Now that's interesting. Especially from a guy who dislikes (and distrusts) the Chinese government. Now THAT'S a baseless argument.

And that was rather incoherant. If there's some great brotherhood among so-called communist governments, somebody'd better go back in time and tell the USSR and PRC that. And further, what does my trusting or liking the PRC have to do with anything? Of course I don't trust the Chinese government, to do what they say they'll do, to keep the peace, to just generally be a decent government from any possible perspective. But I trust them to be who they are, and they don't like North Korea. I thus trust their presence on Kim's ass to keep them in check to some degree.
 

---

Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
 
"You mean he formulated an energy policy with the advice of people who knew something about energy!? How DARE he!"

At best, I think that energy policy should be formulated by both sides of the coin (traditional and alternative sources). I also think Jay is saying that this is not the case. That the committee is stacked with oil interests only, and nothing else. It is also easy to make the connection from the interests of the committee to Iraq itself.

I agree that the concept of war for oil is hypothetical. I'm not sure I believe it myself yet. But the issue here is not whether there is a conflict of interest, but the APPEARANCE of conflict (lookie ma, I just made a Law and Order reference). Looking at what we see here, it's hard to say that the war is NOT about oil as Bush and co will say otherwise.

"Because, horror of horrors, private companies organize peoples' skills in an efficient manner, use those skills to make money, and pay those employees for their services!"

Efficient? Just ask Enron. And WorldCom. The way I see it, profits come first before paying their employees for their services. I've heard many companies laying off employees even though they make decent profits. That's efficiency, right?

"it's because the oil was under immediate threat from Hussein, and the civilians in Baghdad aren't."

You already stated that the war against Iraq was to free the citizens from an oppressive regime. So why are you now saying that they are not under "immediate threat" from Hussein?

"Like all those SCUDs they found?"

So I hear that the SCUDs were illegal. Fine. But none had any trace of WMDs in it. I'd like to see them being used before I believe it.

"But I trust them to be who they are, and they don't like North Korea. I thus trust their presence on Kim's ass to keep them in check to some degree."

Shouldn't we trust Iran then? "The Enemy of my enemy is my friend?"
 

---

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
At best, I think that energy policy should be formulated by both sides of the coin (traditional and alternative sources).

Fascinating, then, that as I recall, the Bush administration is requiring the conversion to fuel cells by, what, 2012?

Looking at what we see here, it's hard to say that the war is NOT about oil as Bush and co will say otherwise.

Funny, then, that that's exactly what I've been saying. Not hard at all. Bush & co.s reasons as stated are entirely valid, and thus far the only reason anyone would see an appearance of oil interests dominating is if they want to.

Efficient? Just ask Enron. And WorldCom. The way I see it, profits come first before paying their employees for their services. I've heard many companies laying off employees even though they make decent profits. That's efficiency, right?

You mean those companies that are out of business, and thus will not be involved in the reconstruction of Iraq? And companies can be making overall profits and still have unprofitable sectors, you know. So yes, laying off the employees whose skills don't provide services for anyone would be efficient.

You already stated that the war against Iraq was to free the citizens from an oppressive regime. So why are you now saying that they are not under "immediate threat" from Hussein?

Do you grasp the concept of an "immediate threat"? He's not holding a gun to their head, threatening to kill them RIGHT THIS SECOND. Of course, the possibility of his being dead might have something to do with that...

So I hear that the SCUDs were illegal. Fine. But none had any trace of WMDs in it. I'd like to see them being used before I believe it.

So there are no WMDs found or used (yet). He's still in violation of the imposed rules.

Shouldn't we trust Iran then? "The Enemy of my enemy is my friend?"

No, because the enemy of my enemy is still my enemy. Unlike North Korea, Iraq hasn't been actively threatening its neighbors recently (Oh, look! Another difference!), so Iran can't very well apply pressure to help keep it from carrying out those threats. If anything, I'd almost expect Iran to invade themselves. Iraq has oil, after all.

Actually, on that note: why haven't they, anyhow? Or Saudi Arabia, for that matter? Turkey? There's a whole lot of oil down there, and Iraq barely had a military. Was Iraq under UN protection? Or are all the surrounding militaries just as sucky as Iraq's was until three days ago?
 

---

Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
 
Fascinating, then, that as I recall, the Bush administration is requiring the conversion to fuel cells by, what, 2012?

A little slow. We already have some prototype electricity based vehicles. Some cars being produced are hybrids. We need more. On a side note, I hear that the oil companies are pressuring Bush to delay the proposal to later than 2012.

Funny, then, that that's exactly what I've been saying. Not hard at all. Bush & co.s reasons as stated are entirely valid, and thus far the only reason anyone would see an appearance of oil interests dominating is if they want to.

In the absense of hard data. On both sides, I will concede.

You mean those companies that are out of business, and thus will not be involved in the reconstruction of Iraq? And companies can be making overall profits and still have unprofitable sectors, you know. So yes, laying off the employees whose skills don't provide services for anyone would be efficient.

1) I meant private corporations in general.
2) Enron and WorldCom are examples of companies who are concerned about profits more than their employees. And lookie where it got them. As one viewer on CNN said: "My faith in Corporate America will only be restored once Kenneth Lay is taken away in handcuffs". Mr. Lay is still walking, AFAIK, after possibly triggering one of the biggest corporate bombs in history.
3) There is such thing as reassignment. And even with getting rid of the useless employees afterwards doesn't explain the relative large number of layoffs by same corporations. Again appearance, that the companies are only interested in profits and share prices more for the welfare of its employees.

Do you grasp the concept of an "immediate threat"?

Yes I do. I'll admit, I was mincing words. . But I will also point out that I define the potential loss of life is always an "immediate threat", and should always be given first priority, not oil, in a war designed to "liberate" the people.

Unlike North Korea, Iraq hasn't been actively threatening its neighbors recently (Oh, look! Another difference!), so Iran can't very well apply pressure to help keep it from carrying out those threats.

I've never heard NK threaten China. I do know that they have been threatening South Korea. While China would be trying to stop a confrontation, I don't think China has any real interest in this conflict. Only when the U.S. steps in when they will likely join, but on NK's side. Have you noticed how China almost ALWAYS opposes the U.S. on foreign policy issues?

Actually, on that note: why haven't they, anyhow? Or Saudi Arabia, for that matter? Turkey? There's a whole lot of oil down there, and Iraq barely had a military. Was Iraq under UN protection? Or are all the surrounding militaries just as sucky as Iraq's was until three days ago?

It's called respect of International Law. Something that appears to be absent, nor sanctioned in this invasion.
 

---

Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
 
oops.
 

---

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
 
No, Omega, Cheney clearly didn't folulate energy policy with all the groups the know about energy.

Well, I can't say clearly, because they still haven't let out the list of who was at the meeting have they? Talk about running an open government.
 

---

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
 
Kosh, thank you, that was my point, gassing ones 'own people' just doesn't seem right.

I was wondering when we'd get in to trouble for trying to stay neutral during WW2. That is, possibly, where we learned our lesson on not trying to placate a fucking lunatic.

SH condems us for starting a war, saying that is is a bad thing, but he's invaded 2 countries, Iran and Kuwait, err, three, because he also sent troops in to Saudi Arabi, the SA Nation Guard and the Marines kicked them out.

SH says that trying to over throw him in a coup would be a cowardly act... Didn't he try to do the same thing in like 1967 and got shot doing it???

Also, someone made a remark here about the US having WsMD, but I don't recall any president gassing Salt Lake City because they were Mormons...

Why are oil companies the leading applicants for getting in to Iraq, Saltah'na, how's your sand box business doing???

Omega, Alpo should get in there, fattening up them dogs is essential....

Pick a number for an invasion by the US, Saddam had ticket number 1, NK has picked a number out of the hat, but they seem to be keeping the number hidden.

Hey, with all the attention focused on Iraq what forces are building in South Korea???

China may keep an eye on NKs nuke programs, since some dogs have turned and bitten the hand that has fed them....

This was fun, what is next....
 

---

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
 
Er, what?
 

---

Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
 

quote:

---

Efficient? Just ask Enron. And WorldCom. The way I see it, profits come first before paying their employees for their services. I've heard many companies laying off employees even though they make decent profits. That's efficiency, right?

You mean those companies that are out of business, and thus will not be involved in the reconstruction of Iraq? And companies can be making overall profits and still have unprofitable sectors, you know. So yes, laying off the employees whose skills don't provide services for anyone would be efficient.

---