[Vnbiz] Intel Vietnam refuses to pay bribes

[AD Marshall]

Um.  Further thoughts, further thoughts, forever further thoughts, on
dubiously relevant subjects.  But i'll try to put an end to them being
posted here at least in as fair a manner as i can now imagine.

Craig, at least for the purposes of posting here, please forget i asked
about the net oil-related benefits of the choice to have the USA invade
Iraq.  This list is about Vietnam business not Iraq or the USA's wars or
their motivations.  They came up as side issues.

However, I will add that I agree Iraq is obviously about more than oil, but,
that i still believe direct and indirect control of both Middle Eastern oil
supplies and the USA's economy and public by oil-industry interests were
originally primary, if not the primary motives for having the USA invade
Iraq.  Providing a rigorous argument for as much is well beyond the scope of
any mailing list post, much less one about Vietnam business.

Why?  Simply for examples of a couple more complex hypotheses that would
have be tested to either identify or measure the net benefits to the USA's
current Bush Admin and its oil-industry family and associates from invading
Iraq, we would have to ask, "Wasn't Iraq's invasion partly, yet
significantly (1) planned as a diversion from the need to provide more
difficult domestic solutions for the USA while (2) providing more political
and economic power to the USA's tightly interdependent military complex and
oil industry?"  Being heavily invested in the oil and arms industries. the
Bush family and its closest associates would benefit from both, no?

Yet how could we even start to measure the benefits of either (1) or (2),
above?  And, even if we could, why would we compare them to any current or
expected level of the USA's direct expenditure on Iraq's invasion,
occupation and reconstruction?  While those expenditures are being made by
the USA's taxpayers, among the most significant beneficiaries are most
likely a private clique, that of the Bush family and its associates in the
oil and arms industries.  Further, those private benefits are most likely to
accrue most significantly for long after Bush Jr leaves office.

If that's the case, there is little relevance in simply comparing of the
USA's expenditures on invading, occupying and rebuilding Iraq to its
Public's gains from as much.  Those who chose to undertake the Iraq Invasion
project didn't have to bear the vast majority of its costs, even though they
stand to benefit astronomically for it, during and after either its
execution or retirement.   Quite an incentive, if you're primarily into
financial incentives, no?


If you do have anything you'd like to add, you can be assured i'll do
nothing to keep your words from being the last here on this specific topic.
My own desire to stand with that closest to contemporary truth is satisfied
about what i've said or not said here about this topic.


On 8/17/07, AD Marshall <admarshall at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I almost forgot.  GREAT point you made, Craig, about the Iraqi oil
> reserves being worth less than the current (if not expected) cost of the
> occupation.  I'd never seen that pointed out before and i'll somewhat
> shamefacedly admit i never even considered it.
>
> But what about the overall expected value of having controlling interests
> in both Iraq and Afghanistan, including that expected from being able to
> better control pipelines across them?  Personally, i'd be interested in both
> what expected net benefits were at invasion time and now that Iraq at least
> has become what is apparently a much longer than expected occupation and
> ongoing battle against a shifting and/or shifty<http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/shifty>insurgency.
>
>
> On 8/17/07, AD Marshall < admarshall at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hey Craig,
> >
> > Nice synopsis of the development process regarding ethics, international
> > economics and laws.
> >
> > Yes, i'm certain what i've written here has at times come across as
> > disjointed, even choplogic<http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/choplogic>.
> > I've occasionally fretted over the same thing myself.  But, what the hey, if
> > i took everything that came to or from me by mail too seriously i'd be mad
> > as a hatter by now -- ok, maybe just madder than normal.
> >
> > Reconsidering this and the "Leadership" thread, it's even reoccurring to
> > me that using a mailing list in one's freer time may well be an
> > inappropriate venue for much of what i've ended up trying to say.  And i,
> > again, did try to say too much.  Too many personally edutaining digressions
> > kept coming to mind as i was writing and i often ran out of time to give all
> > that spewed out either sufficient reconsideration or more considerate
> > re-editing.
> >
> > If we agree on the Bush-Iraq-Halliburton bit, that's enough for me.  My
> > original impulse in extending this thread was merely to counter what i felt
> > was a bit too much Yankee-doodle-dandying, as i put it (still amusingly, for
> > myself at least ;)).  And you're right to suggest i've got a knee-jerk
> > reaction against championing the USA as an ethical leader these days.  I'll
> > admit that's just come from a feeling i've had since Reagan got in -- and
> > might even have been partly due to withdrawal from "Billy [Carter] Beer"(tm)
> > when i quixotically refused to go to the States anymore at the time.
> >
> > Re my use or abuse of the TI Corruption Perception Index, please be
> > assured i simply chose to use it as a matter of expedience based on TI's
> > apparent presentation of it as their primary summary stats.  I admittedly
> > noted and neglected digging into all the other data they offer.  I'd hoped
> > that supplementing the expectedly more liberal TI charts with what i'd only
> > expect to be more conservative World Bank data would balance out my
> > slackness and even let me elude such charges of biased data selection.
> > (Wrong again!  Yet again.  Dang! ;))
> >
> > I'll neither deny nor regret vanity and ego play a part in my posts.  I
> > might not even be bothered if it weren't for those vices.  ;)
> >
> > Hieu kg?
> >
> > Best wishes,
> > AD (AnDi or Andi/Andrew Donald) Marshall
> >
> >
> > On 8/17/07, Craig Stevenson < cstevenson2000 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > [ Vietnam Business Forum ]
> > >
> > > All:
> > >
> > > Have not really been follwoing the thread too deeply but in
> > > pre-industrial societies, in traditional economies, culture tends to be the
> > > basis of each countries legal system. Culture has been the driving force of
> > > each countries ethical and legal values. As countries advance in
> > > participating in the international trading system then much of their
> > > business ethics and legal system becomes subsumed to (transformed by) the
> > > treaties, agreements, and conventions that facilitate freer trade; each
> > > countries laws become altered by these new agreements which are essentially
> > > law themselves. So, where countries choose to participate in these
> > > international institutions, in theory, they choose to relinquish some
> > > sovereignty and to have their values altered by their participation.  Of
> > > course in practice it might be different, and surely time is required for
> > > material changes.
> > >
> > > AD, as to the logic with which, in previous threads, you had dispelled
> > > the place the US had played in presenting laws at the international level
> > > that discouraged corrupt business practices I feel that you may have pieced
> > > together a series of disjointed facts that did little but inflame and
> > > nothing to support the case as to your premise.  I say this despite agreeing
> > > with your position re Bush-Iraq-Halliburton. Of course the monetary value of
> > > Iraqui oil, in total reserves, not simply yearly production, is but a small
> > > fraction of the money expended by the US in support of this conflict. I find
> > > it curious that you looked at Transparency International's "perception"
> > > index when they create half a dozen different measures on issues related to
> > > transparency.  I wonder if that might have been purposeful on your part.
> > > Anyway, I tend to think we may share many similar opinions but as always, I
> > > tend to take my own beliefs, as others, with a grain of salt, and am vey
> > > hesitant to call them truth's as similarly in the past with the whole
> > > Gorbachev-Reagon-Clinton debate. I tend to believe in the concept of
> > > Satsang, which means to "be in the company of truth" rather than falsely,
> > > and only mentally, occupying that space.  Too often our dogma becomes our
> > > truth where we fight, from vanity and ego, to assure it remains there; in
> > > both our own minds and in the minds of others with whom we are dialoguing.
> > >
> > > Good Day All
> > >
> > > Craig
> > >
> > >
> > > On 8/16/07, AD Marshall <admarshall at gmail.com > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > [ Vietnam Business Forum ]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Bro' Phong,
> > > >
> > > > Again it seems you anticipated much of what i wrote before i
> > > > finished it -- and so much more concisely [dang it...]  :D
> > > >
> > > > I'd even agree with you that, given Singapore's pre-colonial,
> > > > colonial and post-colonial history, the subject of a Discovery Channel
> > > > series, Singaporeans are as much an ethical product of the rules a minority
> > > > of the most powerful Singaporeans and others imposed.  Singapore is not much
> > > > of a democracy.   The death penalty for many mere vices is not the popular
> > > > choice of an ethically extremist population.  And, as is often seen here in
> > > > SighGone, Sin-a-pore-ians can sin as well as the both the best and worst of
> > > > us.  ;)
> > > >
> > > > But, of the question of "which practically comes first: ethics or
> > > > laws?", i'd have to agree with Brother Hoanh that a legal infrastructure
> > > > must generally be built upon a culture's popular ethics at some specific
> > > > point in that culture's evolution.  Then, both will evolve hand in hand.
> > > >
> > > > I only add that the economics of that particular point in that
> > > > culture's history will almost equally influence the decisions of both
> > > > legislative leaders and those who enforce the laws, and, that, again, the
> > > > relationship between the three, ethics, economics and the Law, becomes a
> > > > dynamically evolving (ie, PROgressing) system of the simultaneously
> > > > symbiotic, interdependent "three", as soon as the first laws are created.
> > > >
> > > > And, now, i'll dare add that, over the long term, this PROgressive
> > > > evolution (a redundancy) seems to happen whether we consciously try to
> > > > achieve it or not, and, that the net quality of the actions of the actors,
> > > > good or bad, and the resulting benefits and costs each enjoys or suffers all
> > > > end up being distributed roughly as they "normally" have been throughout our
> > > > natural history, something like 10:80:10=good:ambivalent:bad, forever and
> > > > ever.  And, near the End, most people finally find out they had never had
> > > > any choice but to begin and keep up living their lives under such an
> > > > equation, "no matter what" -- dang nab it!  ;D
> > > >
> > > > Let the flame wars ensue.  I'm outa here. ;))  Have fun!
> > > >
> > > > Best wishes, later,
> > > > AD
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 8/16/07, Tran Dinh Hoanh < tdhoanh at gmail.com > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > [ Vietnam Business Forum ]
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Dear brother Phong & CACC,
> > > > >
> > > > > Let's try to clarify this issue by being practical.
> > > > >
> > > > > I agree to follow brother Phong's logics:  Our people are so
> > > > > corrupt, we need ruole of law.  But for the rule of law to operate well, we
> > > > > need non-corrupt people to operate the law.  So we are in the
> > > > > chicken-and-egg circle.  Where do you, brother Phong, find non-corrupt
> > > > > people?
> > > > >
> > > > > My solution is:  We find non-corrupt people thourgh promoting
> > > > > ethics, such as the Intel Vietnam's memorandum, we need to teach ethics in
> > > > > universities (for all kinds of professional students, including business
> > > > > students), we need to promote ethic teaching in families (where parents
> > > > > train children to be honest and socially responsible) or in churches and
> > > > > temples or mass organizations like Thanh Doan or Hoi Phu Nu.  We need to
> > > > > bring ethics to the forefront to produce good people, and good people will
> > > > > start good rule of law.
> > > > >
> > > > > Where do you  find non-corrupt people to start your rule of law,
> > > > > brother Phong, or anyone?  I love to hear an answer.
> > > > >
> > > > > Have a great day!
> > > > >
> > > > > Hoanh
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 8/15/07, Hong-Phong_Pho at ita.doc.gov <Hong-Phong_Pho at ita.doc.gov
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [ Vietnam Business Forum ]
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Having a legal system in place is not the same as having the
> > > > > > rule of law.
> > > > > > The rule of law, in short, is my quick answer to chi Lien's
> > > > > > question.
> > > > > > The "ultimate victory of goodness" is a lofty goal on the order
> > > > > > of the "from each according to his ability to each according to his needs",
> > > > > > they are great goals to aspire to but are unlikely to happen on a global
> > > > > > scale at this stage of human evolution.  If any force is poweful enough to
> > > > > > try to impose either, we end up with a theocracy or communism, each with
> > > > > > their attendant problems.
> > > > > > In corrupt countries that have laws, there are those in the
> > > > > > ruling class that consider themselves above the law, hence the is no rule of
> > > > > > laws.
> > > > > > You wouldn't have had to argue with your friends if the rule of
> > > > > > law was in place and none one is operating outside or above it.
> > > > > > Singaporean have a good sense of ethics.  The question is where
> > > > > > does that sense of ethics came from.  My contention is the rule of law (that
> > > > > > was and is considered so draconian as to infringe on individual
> > > > > > freedom/civil liberty).  How do you explain the decidedly unethical behavior
> > > > > > of some Singaporeans when removed from Singaporean legal proper?  A sudden
> > > > > > heart replacement operation?  How do you explain ethical American companies
> > > > > > belly-aching  about how the FCPA limits them from being corrupted?
> > > > > > There is nothing wrong with being ethical.
> > > > > > The issue I have is when you discuss building ethics moralistic
> > > > > > terms, even confusing it with professional codes of ethics are being more
> > > > > > than the set of rules that they are.  I don't see that anyone in this forum
> > > > > > is resisting building ethics or contending that it is not important or
> > > > > > necessary.  I would be interested in seeing how you came to that conclusion.
> > > > > >  On the other hand, you had earlier confused the rule of law with just a
> > > > > > bunch of laws.
> > > > > > I am glad we agreed that being ethical in business is practical.
> > > > > >  Logically, that means that we may not be/cannot afford to be ethical  in
> > > > > > business anymore when it is no longer practical.  In environments that do
> > > > > > not support being ethical, corruption is easily understood in this context.
> > > > > >  The solution is to fix the environment, ie, institute the rule of law
> > > > > > first.  Training the heart will then be much more practical and doable
> > > > > > because it doesn't conflict with the reality of survival, and can be
> > > > > > accomplished through general education.  Conversely, no amount of heart
> > > > > > training can overcome the forces of corruption when there is no rule of law
> > > > > > or respect for it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Tran Dinh Hoanh, Esq., LLB, JD
> > > > > > Washington DC
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > To subscribe/unsubscribe, please contact admins at
> > > > > vnbizadmin at vietlinks.net
> > > > > Info at http://mail.saigon.com/mailman/listinfo/vnbiz
> > > > > Archive at
> > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vnbiz/
> > > > > or http://groups-beta.google.com/group/VNBIZforum/
> > > > > or http://mail.saigon.com/pipermail/vnbiz
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > To subscribe/unsubscribe, please contact admins at
> > > > vnbizadmin at vietlinks.net
> > > > Info at http://mail.saigon.com/mailman/listinfo/vnbiz
> > > > Archive at
> > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vnbiz/
> > > > or http://groups-beta.google.com/group/VNBIZforum/
> > > > or http://mail.saigon.com/pipermail/vnbiz
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > To subscribe/unsubscribe, please contact admins at
> > > vnbizadmin at vietlinks.net
> > > Info at http://mail.saigon.com/mailman/listinfo/vnbiz
> > > Archive at
> > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vnbiz/
> > > or http://groups-beta.google.com/group/VNBIZforum/
> > > or http://mail.saigon.com/pipermail/vnbiz
> > >
> > >
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.saigon.com/pipermail/vnbiz/attachments/20070818/ff551650/attachment.html