From a Swedish paper:
A new profitable war
Do American pensioned servicemen give advices about the Iraqi war that benefit their own economic interests? That is the view of Consumer for Peace after they recently went through testimonys before the Congress (December 18th).
The pensioned four star general Barry McCaffrey, that have been advocating for an escalation ofthe war, sits for example on the boards of companies with billion dollar deals from the Pentagon: Dyncorp International, McNeil Technologies and HNBT.
Same thing is also done by the retired general John M Keane, who is considered to be the brains behind Bushes critisezed plan to send more troops to Iraq. Those who thought it was time to get the troops to come home were also the ones to have the least of economic interest in companies that work with the Pentagon.
The most war urging "hawk" within the Bush administration, Dick Cheney, gets a several hundred thousand dollar per year "pension" from Halliburton. Cheney also has shares in Halliburton, whos worth rose from $243.000 to over $8million last year, as shown in a report from senator Frank Lautenberg.
That is an increase by over 3200%. Halliburton has been assigned missions worth over $10billion to help Pentagon in the Iraqi war. Why does senator Frank Lautenbergs critisism of Cheneys business get so little media coverage in the US? A reason could be that media and the war industry has a close relationship.
Many pensioned generals with economic interests within the weapons industry are also those who comment war issues in the media. John M Keane, as an example, partisipates regularily as a defence expert on ABC-News. Barry McCaffrey does the same thing on NBC-news. But the relationship goes deeper than that.
In a study done by Sonoma State university showed that four out of ten of the biggest US media companies has board members that also work for the big weapons manufacturers.
If you ask them, all media companies will of course tell you that they are independent. But what would then be the point in having people from the weapons industry in media companies if they aren't there to influence?
In France Le Figaro is owned by the weapons manufacturer Dassault, while Le Monde sold it self to the weapons manufacturer Lagardiére. What synergy effects could exist between news manufacturing and the weapons manufacturing that makes the war industry that interested in the media?
Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth gives a good example of how easy media allows it self to get manipulated. From a random choise, from over 900 scientific studies on the greenhouse effect, there was no studie that questioned the existanse of the greenhouse effect.
But despite the scientific consensus that exists about this issue is overwhelming, half of the articles wrote that the greenhouse effect was a controversial issue among the scientists. To get the general public to belive that the greenhouse effect is an artifice that we don't have to worry about, is somehing that benefits some mighty interests.
The same thing is true about medias coverage of the alledged nuclear weapons threat from Iran. Despite that UN personel have been on location in Iran and haven't found one single evidence that it would have a secret nuclear weapons program, the articles about that issue have trippled in US press during the last few years.
To get the general public feel threatened by Iran can open for a profitable little war. If the war in Iraq ended the Halliburton shares would decrease in value and Dick Cheney would get a lot poorer. A new war against Iran would on the other hand make Dick Cheney and his friends a lot wealthier.
Pierre Gilly
A new profitable war
Do American pensioned servicemen give advices about the Iraqi war that benefit their own economic interests? That is the view of Consumer for Peace after they recently went through testimonys before the Congress (December 18th).
The pensioned four star general Barry McCaffrey, that have been advocating for an escalation ofthe war, sits for example on the boards of companies with billion dollar deals from the Pentagon: Dyncorp International, McNeil Technologies and HNBT.
Same thing is also done by the retired general John M Keane, who is considered to be the brains behind Bushes critisezed plan to send more troops to Iraq. Those who thought it was time to get the troops to come home were also the ones to have the least of economic interest in companies that work with the Pentagon.
The most war urging "hawk" within the Bush administration, Dick Cheney, gets a several hundred thousand dollar per year "pension" from Halliburton. Cheney also has shares in Halliburton, whos worth rose from $243.000 to over $8million last year, as shown in a report from senator Frank Lautenberg.
That is an increase by over 3200%. Halliburton has been assigned missions worth over $10billion to help Pentagon in the Iraqi war. Why does senator Frank Lautenbergs critisism of Cheneys business get so little media coverage in the US? A reason could be that media and the war industry has a close relationship.
Many pensioned generals with economic interests within the weapons industry are also those who comment war issues in the media. John M Keane, as an example, partisipates regularily as a defence expert on ABC-News. Barry McCaffrey does the same thing on NBC-news. But the relationship goes deeper than that.
In a study done by Sonoma State university showed that four out of ten of the biggest US media companies has board members that also work for the big weapons manufacturers.
If you ask them, all media companies will of course tell you that they are independent. But what would then be the point in having people from the weapons industry in media companies if they aren't there to influence?
In France Le Figaro is owned by the weapons manufacturer Dassault, while Le Monde sold it self to the weapons manufacturer Lagardiére. What synergy effects could exist between news manufacturing and the weapons manufacturing that makes the war industry that interested in the media?
Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth gives a good example of how easy media allows it self to get manipulated. From a random choise, from over 900 scientific studies on the greenhouse effect, there was no studie that questioned the existanse of the greenhouse effect.
But despite the scientific consensus that exists about this issue is overwhelming, half of the articles wrote that the greenhouse effect was a controversial issue among the scientists. To get the general public to belive that the greenhouse effect is an artifice that we don't have to worry about, is somehing that benefits some mighty interests.
The same thing is true about medias coverage of the alledged nuclear weapons threat from Iran. Despite that UN personel have been on location in Iran and haven't found one single evidence that it would have a secret nuclear weapons program, the articles about that issue have trippled in US press during the last few years.
To get the general public feel threatened by Iran can open for a profitable little war. If the war in Iraq ended the Halliburton shares would decrease in value and Dick Cheney would get a lot poorer. A new war against Iran would on the other hand make Dick Cheney and his friends a lot wealthier.
Pierre Gilly
ffeew: Didn't fully understand it eather, but it don't matter but one word; pansyism. My Greek isn't good enough, please explain.
Maybe what I said was that errors can be found everywhere; that we should question the info no matter where it comes from; that I don't know Tracy about general McCaffrey? The facts and figures presented in that article can be checked. Do it if you doubt this administration has made a ****load of dough on 9/11's aftermath.
Things should be equal shouldn't it? 
No, I think it's good that you pointed that out, we've gone too far.