During the elective USA invasion of Iraq circa 2005, some nearly $8 billion in cash, shrink wrapped, disappeared. Paul whoever, USA Procurator to Occupied Iraq, said he got a receipt for it. But wait -
Did anyone learn anything at the State Department? Yes, they learned if the Republicans can get away with $6 billion, they want $6 billion too. So under democratic watch -
We need truth commissions, nothing else will work.
Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.
"The mystery of $6 billion that seemed to go missing in the early days of the Iraq war has been resolved, according to a new report," CNN national security producer Charles Keyes reported Wednesday. "New evidence shows most of that money, $6.6 billion, did not go astray in that chaotic period, but ended up where it was supposed to be, under the control of the Iraqi government, according to a report from the office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction or SIGIR."Oh! OK, so later another story came out. It is all traced, according to new evidence, six years later. I wonder if I had $6.6 billion, cash, how much I'd have to spend to get that story to show up on a website. And not from 8 to 6.6 to 6, soon it will be millions, not billions...
Did anyone learn anything at the State Department? Yes, they learned if the Republicans can get away with $6 billion, they want $6 billion too. So under democratic watch -
The State Department has no idea what happened to $6 billion used to pay its contractors.Although technically we have a fascist political system, until the "Strong Man" shows up, we will remain a kleptocracy. Steal, steal, steal. Waste, fraud, abuse. $6 billion missing, and the fellows whose job is to curb waste fraud and abuse sends out a memo.
In a special “management alert” made public Thursday, the State Department’s Inspector General Steve Linick warned “significant financial risk and a lack of internal control at the department has led to billions of unaccounted dollars over the last six years.
We need truth commissions, nothing else will work.
Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.
6 comments:
What is the better alternative to the democratic government system that we have now? I don't see how anarchy would be an improvement realistically. What is to prevent a "strongman" or dominant group from arising under anarchy? I think that humans are social creatures that naturally coalesce into groups.
Democracy is probably the least worst of all other alternatives, like communism, socialism, anarchy, etc..
Only in democracy can you have the kind of mob rule where strongman or dominant group arises, in anarchy no one can vote themselves to lord over others. The largest, oldest group into which people have coalesced are voluntary, such as the Catholic church. Democracies are intolerant of the kind or voluntary associations that humans coalesce in to...
Almost ever single one of the 50 million people who died violently last century died at the hands of someone in a uniform representing a "democracy" of some form... socialist, capitalist, etc
I'm still not convinced that Anarchy would be better than a democracy with checks and balances. Democracy is not perfect, but it appears to be the least worst system (maybe a "direct" democracy is better?). Didn't tens of millions more people die under Stalin (in various purges), Mao (in the cultural Revolution), et al.? In anarchy, a strongman or dominant group in mob rule can still come into power by force or violence - what would prevent this? Anarchy does not rid society of violence I think. There will always be charismatic, ambitious people, it's in human nature. I believe that both systems, democracy and anarchy, can have this strongman problem. Also, in an anarchy system, a nation would need a military to defend itself from other countries. How would the military be managed and controlled? Does a country under an anarchy system exist or ever existed that has provided a stable society? Also, with the Catholic Church, they are tolerant of voluntary associations? What about the Spanish Inquisition?, conflict in Europe during the Protestant Reformation? The role of the Catholic church in the Spanish Conquest of the New World and subjugation of various native populations? I think the early Catholic Church was also political as well as any interest group (Kings justify their power using divine right of kings and support from the church I think).
I Found this interesting speech from James Madison:
"... If men were angels, no government would be necessary. ..."
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa51.htm
Anarchy means no+king, not no government. anarchists love government, as in the game of chess, voluntary agreements between and among, just not need for a state. Madison as pretty mixed up, "if men are not angles put them in charge?" How about, since men are not angels, and since we do not need a state, let's not put non-angels in charge of the rest of us.
As to the longer question, I'll answer it in detail later, as a post.
"Since men are not angels, we should not have them in charge." - very good point, but a viable and ethical solution to a stable society, with the exception of a democracy with checks and balances (again, the least worst system), eludes me.
"Anarchists love government." - I'm now even more confused.
Found this on Amazon (I have not read it though):
"People without government: An Anthropolgy of Anarchy" by H. Barclay and A. Comfort.
"This text seeks to show that anarchy, as the absence of government, is neither chaos nor some Utopian dream, but a system which has characterized much of the human past."
http://www.amazon.com/People-without-Government-Anthropology-Anarchy/dp/1871082161/ref=sr_1_15?ie=UTF8&qid=1396893279&sr=8-15&keywords=anarchy+government
See also "Anarchy, State and Utopia" by Robert Nozick.
Post a Comment