Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

**Pooeypants** · Jun 10, 2008, 02:18 pm

Quote:

A BBC investigation estimates that around $23bn (£11.75bn) may have been lost, stolen or just not properly accounted for in Iraq.

For the first time, the extent to which some private contractors have profited from the conflict and rebuilding has been researched by the BBC's Panorama using US and Iraqi government sources.

A US gagging order is preventing discussion of the allegations.

The order applies to 70 court cases against some of the top US companies.

Source

These findings don't shock me but I am surprised at how long it took for the BBC to lift the lid on this.

Thanatos · Jun 10, 2008, 08:49 pm

You think that's bad? I'm annoyed because I have to go to the BBC for investigative journalism about the United States.

**Pooeypants** · Jun 11, 2008, 02:47 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Thanatos

You think that's bad? I'm annoyed because I have to go to the BBC for investigative journalism about the United States.

As the article states, the US gov't have got a gagging order in place to stop your media from spreading this news. I'm surprised that hardly anyone has responded to this news, if only to say that they knew about it already etc!

Charlatan · Jun 11, 2008, 03:17 pm

The mismanagement of funds is because of U.S. influence in the area. Notice that it was top American companies that got involved, then you will make ties with the people that associate with them, and then you see a gagging order, makes snes to say that it was like a bonus for the American top dogs to do business there. The fact that the funds went 'missing' means that they were not going to share it with the rest of the people involved, that there is corruption amoung a select few people that got involved, those with power over attributing the costs to wherever, and most likely the upper management, and also the people that handle the deployment of these companies, and the politicians that got them the work. Then there are those that turned a blind eye and did not check the documents thoroughly, because they would notice deviations in prices for building. The fact that the BBC uncovered the mess was because they are not getting paid on the side, but would rather have a good story.

What else influenced the corruption? It is a new government and with new governments people get brought in in a hurry, to fill the vacant spaces that occur when the government is forming. These people might know each other from before hand, so that might mean that they have a bond of trust, which is dangerous for governments. If none of the politicians knew each other, then there would be none of the off the record meetings that might occur, as off the record meetings between friends sounds like a bit of mischief to me. When you are watching your own back with one of these deals you don't trust anyone, so I'd say that this happened because there is too much familiarity between parties, and that makes for a bad equation regaurding corruption.

Think about walking into a new shop, you get what you pay for. Think if you know the owner, you might get a discount. How about if you know the owner well? You might get a bigger discount. How about if you are related to the owner? You might get it for or nearly nothing. So to stamp out corruption would mean alienating everyone from one another, but that never happens. Politicians make deals - for the people, we suppose - all the time because they know and rub shoulders with those parties, always for a better deal, and stopping that would mean that good deals become a lot harder to make, meaning that the deals might not close, which is bad for the country. This abuse of who you know is good and bad.

grandpa · Jun 12, 2008, 11:12 am

Quote:

Quote by: Charlatan

The mismanagement of funds is because of U.S. influence in
the area.
Notice that it was top American companies that got involved,
then you will make ties with the people that associate
with them, and then you see a gagging order, makes
snes to say that it was like a bonus for
the American top dogs to do business there.

I highly doubt these billions were simply "misplaced." But either way, it's more fodder for the history lesson.

Grandpa h.

kharvel · Jun 20, 2008, 02:03 am

Quote:

Quote by: bbc.co.uk

the extent to which some private contractors have profited from the conflict and rebuilding

Greed is Good™

ironeagle · Jun 28, 2008, 07:26 pm

Nothing about America's government suprises me anymore.

Jun 10, 2008, 08:49 pm	#2 (permalink) (top)
Thanatos Arbiter of Weird Location: New Hampshire Posts: 1,744	You think that's bad? I'm annoyed because I have to go to the BBC for investigative journalism about the United States. Destroying America one Volconvo post at a time. The brain is like a muscle. When it is in use we feel very good. Understanding is joyous.

Jun 11, 2008, 03:17 pm	#4 (permalink) (top)
Charlatan Igneous Magma Location: Cape Town South Africa Posts: 363	The mismanagement of funds is because of U.S. influence in the area. Notice that it was top American companies that got involved, then you will make ties with the people that associate with them, and then you see a gagging order, makes snes to say that it was like a bonus for the American top dogs to do business there. The fact that the funds went 'missing' means that they were not going to share it with the rest of the people involved, that there is corruption amoung a select few people that got involved, those with power over attributing the costs to wherever, and most likely the upper management, and also the people that handle the deployment of these companies, and the politicians that got them the work. Then there are those that turned a blind eye and did not check the documents thoroughly, because they would notice deviations in prices for building. The fact that the BBC uncovered the mess was because they are not getting paid on the side, but would rather have a good story. What else influenced the corruption? It is a new government and with new governments people get brought in in a hurry, to fill the vacant spaces that occur when the government is forming. These people might know each other from before hand, so that might mean that they have a bond of trust, which is dangerous for governments. If none of the politicians knew each other, then there would be none of the off the record meetings that might occur, as off the record meetings between friends sounds like a bit of mischief to me. When you are watching your own back with one of these deals you don't trust anyone, so I'd say that this happened because there is too much familiarity between parties, and that makes for a bad equation regaurding corruption. Think about walking into a new shop, you get what you pay for. Think if you know the owner, you might get a discount. How about if you know the owner well? You might get a bigger discount. How about if you are related to the owner? You might get it for or nearly nothing. So to stamp out corruption would mean alienating everyone from one another, but that never happens. Politicians make deals - for the people, we suppose - all the time because they know and rub shoulders with those parties, always for a better deal, and stopping that would mean that good deals become a lot harder to make, meaning that the deals might not close, which is bad for the country. This abuse of who you know is good and bad. Poison for the system!

Jun 28, 2008, 07:26 pm	#7 (permalink) (top)
ironeagle Ncp Rights Activist Location: Iowa Posts: 987	Nothing about America's government suprises me anymore. Saving the empovershed by empoverishing their counterparts will empoverish the whole.