Jump to content

Bush Adminisration Dosen't Care About Troops


Crusader

Recommended Posts

While Haliburton and Bechtel profit off of the Iraqi people's oil, many troops are dieing. the White House is prohibiting the media from reporting the whole story. Things are very much worse than what Fox news will let you belive. They only care about filling there wallets with black gold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yea no kidding. When you look at the pitiful strategy the American government has made in occupying Iraq (avg of one soldier dying a day), you know that it has its main interest in something else. Either send more troops to complete the job adequately, or pull them out after establishing a strong Iraqi government ASAP. It is so obvious that the U.S. is trying to spend as much time as possible in Iraq for the sake of oil.

P.S. This should be in the conspiracy thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you automatically suspect malfeasance on the part of this administration without any evidence what so ever. You can make baseless accusations all day long but where is the evidence that we are stealing Iraqi oil?Where is the evidence there are not enough troops to complete the job? Where is the evidence that our strategy is failing in Iraq? Where is the evidence that Hiliburton profits unduly from Iraqi oil? How is the White House preventing the media from covering the whole story? Where is the evidence they care only about filling there wallets with black gold?

With the exception of the conspiracies you contrive in your minds, where the hell is your evidence to support these kinds of reckless accusations? If all you do is ring your hands, how do you expect anyone to take you seriously? Come on, liberals in Congress aren't even spewing this "war for oil" bullshit we continuously hear from the far left who have no legitimate criticisms at all.

Do you understand what the academic definition of evidence is? Until you have some, no one other than your own liberal ilk will take you seriously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Righturn:

Don't tell me these discussion forums is your only source of current events. Anybody (else) who can breathe is well aware of the evidence presented by both sides of the war reported in all of radio, newspapers, television and countless websites.

Where have you been this past year?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Forum Admin

Daniel, I don't think questioning whether righturnonred reads the newspaper or watches the nightly news is the issue here. He's addressing the valid issue of providing evidence for what we say. He has every right to ask you to prove what you're saying.

No one is attacking your beliefs, they're attacking your inablity to defend them. So I encourage you to elaborate your original position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg:

At this late stage of events, the points righturn is challenging to provide proof has been dealt with over the past year by the media all over North America. Whether or not anybody agrees with these past arguments is old hat and he should already be aware of these points.

You're are not serious in asking me to dig up all the arguments over the past year do you just to satisfy righturn's lack of keeping up to date with these events.

I noted at one point where a new member wanted to debate the justification of the war in Iraq. You promptly closed that post stating the issue has already been argued and dealt with. Why can't you address the same with righturn's posting?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crusader and Mr. Farius,

1. Let's put Iraq War related GI deaths in proper perspective.

You say that there's one GI death a day? Wowsers!

France lost 10,000 civilians in 2 weeks this summer due to the shameful incompetence of their government in responding to a little old heat wave, much less a war.

2. With regards to your claim that the USA's invasion of Iraq is "all about oil," guess you haven't heard about the countries that had signed contracts for Iraq's oil...it wasn't the USA...surprise, surprise...the oil companies planning to cash in on Iraqi oil fields were French[with a heavy duty Canadian component] as well as Russian.

a) "Welcome to Anglo-Saxon reality"

Mark Steyn National Post www.nationalpost.com

Thursday, April 10, 2003

- France, Germany, Russia, Belgium and Canada are not on the side of peace or morality or the Iraqi people. The pictures from the streets of Baghdad make that plain. But we are on the side of TotalFinaElf.

-Twice in recent columns, Diane Francis has mentioned, almost en passant, a curious little fact:The Western oil company with the closest ties to the late Saddam is France's TotalFinaElf. That's not the curious fact, that's just business as usual in the Fifth Republic. This is the curious fact: As Diane wrote in February and again last week, "Total's biggest shareholder is Montreal's Paul Desmarais, whose youngest son is married to Prime Minister Jean Chrétien's daughter."

- Let's see if I've got this straight: TotalFinaElf's largest shareholder is a subsidiary of Montreal's Power Corp, whose co-chief executive is Jean Chrétien's son-in-law, Andre Desmarais. Mr. Desmarais' brother, Paul Desmarais Jr., sits on the Total board.

- For months, the anti-war crowd has insisted that "it's all about oil," that the only reason the Iraqi people were being "liberated" was so that the second biggest oil reserves in the world could be annexed in perpetuity by Dick Cheney and Halliburton and the rest of Bush's Texas oilpatch gang.

Instead, it turns out that, if it is all about oil, then the principal North American beneficiary of the continued enslavement of the Iraqi people is the family of the Canadian Prime Minister -- that's to say, his daughter, France Chrétien, and his grandchildren. What a delightful footnote to the Chrétien-Chiraquiste war effort. This is a victory not just for the Iraqi people but for "Anglo-Saxon" reality over Franco-Canadian postmodern cynicism.

B) "Iraqi liberation will unleash untapped wealth:Hussein's regime has stolen oil proceeds, impoverished nation"

Diane Francis

Financial Post [email protected]

Tuesday, April 01, 2003

- The liberation of Iraq will create profound benefits for its people and also for the world's economy. That is because Iraq is one of the world's richest countries, but you wouldn't know it. Its oil reserves of 112 billion barrels are second only in size to Saudi Arabia's. Even more significantly, 90% of the country has yet to be explored.

- Last year, Iraqi oil exports tallied US$12.3-billion. Virtually all this money was skimmed by the corrupt regime and its supporters or otherwise squandered. Reinvestment in the oil production industry, exploration, reconstruction and retrofitting of refineries, building of new export facilities or research into new technologies has been non-existent by Saddam Hussein. Instead, he has diverted the cash to armaments and payoffs.

- Once the regime is removed, however, cash flow from oil production can be increased and used to rebuild and develop the country. A U.S. government report in February estimated investments of US$5-billion to repair current facilities and another US$5-billion in improvements could bring the country's production up to pre-1990 Gulf War levels of nearly three million barrels daily. This would nearly double export income and represents an amount equivalent to twice the gross domestic product of roughly US$1,000 for every man, woman

- Iraq's wealth potential is so massive that the France, China and Russia obviously became willing to sabotage the United Nations Security Council in order to exploit Iraq's oil resources. By 2001, oil companies in those three countries had signed deals with Hussein, pledging to spend up to US$38-billion in exploration, improvements and expansions to bring production up to at least five million barrels a day.

- Most lucrative of all, and least surprisingly, was the deal between Hussein and France's largest corporation, TotalFinaElf, to exploit the country's largest oil field on the Iranian border north of Basra. This February, a Russian company negotiated a contract for Bin Umar. Total's biggest shareholder is Montreal's Paul Desmarais, whose youngest son is married to Prime Minister Jean Chrétien's daughter. Mr. Desmarais Sr. also sits on Total's board of directors, along with other ranking members of France's establishment.

3. With regards to Bechtel and Haliburton getting contracts suriptiously due to Bush playing favouritism, fyi the USA holds an open, transparent tender process for Iraqi reconstruction. Any company in the world could bid on the jobs that were posted.

The reconstruction jobs that were contracted out - something that has been the US policy under several Democrat and Republican Presidents before "#43", require companies to bring highly specialized and trained employees to the task in a very dangerous environment. ie. there are not a whole lot of companies in places like Steinbach that could even consider bidding.

Here's some reading to on the bidding process and tasks that had to be contracted out. Judge for yourself if Bechtel and Haliburton et al don't deserve what they won through this open bidding system and that the USA is doing for Iraq what they did for Germany and Japan under the Marshall Plan:

P.S. Bechtel has sub-contracted 50% of its contracts to Iraqi firms, per Economist article.

The Economist Nov.06/03 : rebuilding Iraq

Overview of USAID accomplishments

U.S. engineers working under the gun in Iraq

USAID: Assistence for Iraq - listing of contracts and grants

USAID: Update on reconstruction activities in Iraq

Diary of Iraq trip by Democrat Cngresswoman McCarthy who examined reconstruction efforts

4. The White House holds regularly scheduled press briefings on a weekly basis if not more frequently, so how does that translate into "prohibiting the media from reporting the whole story?"

Remember too that it was the USA that came up with the idea of "embedded" journalists to cover the Iraqi War. How much more transparent can a government get?

Perhaps, it's the media, not the White House, that should be criticized for lack of journalistic integrity re: publishing biased and selectively negative reporting on Iraq and Bush to further personal agendas.

World News Tonight with Peter Jennings.

Bush's Mess

Media reporting is one-sided

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Forum Admin
You're are not serious in asking me to dig up all the arguments over the past year do you just to satisfy righturn's lack of keeping up to date with these events.

Crusader's original post was simply an opinion that wasn't grounded with any evidence (this is not to say that there isn't evidence to support his position, rather he just failed to mention it). From my perspective righturnonred was simply challenging Crusader and Mr Farrius to provide evidence and justification for the thread. Regardless of whether this issues have been debated throughout the media, you can't simply defer the responsibility of backing up your opinions by saying that they've been resolved elsewhere. I've never heard of anyone's argument being hurt by providing credible evidence to support it.

But no, I don't expect you to provide evidence supporting Crusaders and Mr Farrius's opinion, I expected Crusaders and Mr Farrius to do that.

I noted at one point where a new member wanted to debate the justification of the war in Iraq. You promptly closed that post stating the issue has already been argued and dealt with.

I closed the post because there was already a debate occurring about the justifications of the war in Iraq, not because it was already dealt with. To often new members fail to use the search feature or look past the first couple of postings to ensure the topic they are posting isn't already being discussed. Also, the statement "dealt with" implies that the issue has been resolved and we can take for granted our positions relative to this issue. The issue of a just war has not been resolved, therefore it is still open for discussion.

Why can't you address the same with righturn's posting?

I admit, I should have deleted the thread altogether, however I wanted to provide Crusader and Mr Farrium the opportunity to defend their "war for oil" position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crusader and Mr. Farius,

1. Let's put Iraq War related GI deaths in proper perspective.

You say that there's one GI death a day? Wowsers!

France lost 10,000 civilians in 2 weeks this summer due to the shameful incompetence of their government in responding to a little old heat wave, much less a war.

So, your argument is that France lost more, and the U.S. isn't losing enough...??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want proof of halliburton profiting off the war in there various ways, heres an artical on Commondreams published by the new York Times.

______________________________________________

Published on Saturday, July 13, 2002 in the New York Times

In Tough Times, a Company Finds Profits in Terror War

by Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta Jr

WASHINGTON — The Halliburton Company, the Dallas oil services company bedeviled lately by an array of accounting and business issues, is benefiting very directly from the United States efforts to combat terrorism.

From building cells for detainees at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba to feeding American troops in Uzbekistan, the Pentagon is increasingly relying on a unit of Halliburton called KBR, sometimes referred to as Kellogg Brown & Root.

Although the unit has been building projects all over the world for the federal government for decades, the attacks of Sept. 11 have led to significant additional business. KBR is the exclusive logistics supplier for both the Navy and the Army, providing services like cooking, construction, power generation and fuel transportation. The contract recently won from the Army is for 10 years and has no lid on costs, the only logistical arrangement by the Army without an estimated cost.

The government business has been well timed for Halliburton, whose stock price has tumbled almost two-thirds in the last year because of concerns about its asbestos liabilities, sagging profits in its energy business and an investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission into its accounting practices back when Vice President Dick Cheney ran the company. The government contracts, which the company said Mr. Cheney played no role in helping Halliburton win, either while he led the company or after he left, offer the prospect of a long and steady cash flow that impresses financial analysts.

Since the Sept. 11 attacks, Congress has appropriated $30 billion in emergency money to support the campaign against terrorism. About half has gone to the Pentagon, much of it to buy weapons, supplies, and services. Although KBR is probably not the largest recipient of all the government contracts related to terror efforts, few companies have longer or deeper ties to the Pentagon. And no company is better positioned to capitalize on this trend.

The value of the contracts to Halliburton is hard to quantify, but the company said government work generated less than 10 percent of its $13 billion in revenue last year.

The government business is "very good, a relatively stable source of cash flow," said Alexandra S. Parker, senior vice president of Moody's Investors Service. "We view it positively."

By hiring an outside company to handle much of its logistics, the Pentagon may wind up spending more taxpayer money than if it did the work itself.

Under the new Army contract, KBR's work in Central Asia, at least for the next year, will cost 10 percent to 20 percent more than if military personnel were used, according to Army contract managers. In Uzbekistan, the Army failed to ascertain, as regulations require, whether its own units, which handled logistics there for the first six months, were available to work when it brought in the contractor, according to Army spokesmen.

The costs for KBR's current work in Central Asia could "dramatically escalate" without proper monitoring, but adequate cost control measures are in place, according to Lt. Col. Clay Cole, who oversees the contract.

The Army contract is a cost-plus arrangement and shrouded in secrecy. The contractor is reimbursed for its allowable costs and gets a bonus based on performance. In the past, KBR has usually received the maximum performance bonus, according to Pentagon officials. Though modest now, the Army contract could produce hundreds of millions of dollars for the company. In the Balkans, for instance, its contract with the Army started at less than $4 million and turned into a multibillion-dollar agreement.

Mr. Cheney played no role, either as vice president or as chief executive at Halliburton, in helping KBR win government contracts, company officials said.

In a written statement, the company said that Mr. Cheney "steadfastly refused" to market KBR's services to the United States government in the five years he served as chief executive. Mr. Cheney concentrated on the company's energy business, company officials said, though he was regularly briefed on the company's Pentagon contracts. Mr. Cheney sold Halliburton stock, worth more than $20 million, before he became vice president. After he took office, he donated his remaining stock options to charity.

Like other military contractors, KBR has numerous former Pentagon officials who know the government contracts system in its management ranks, including a former military aide to Mr. Cheney when he was defense secretary. The senior vice president responsible for KBR's Pentagon contracts is a retired four-star admiral, Joe Lopez, who was Mr. Cheney's military aide at the Pentagon in the early 1990's. Halliburton said Mr. Lopez was hired in 1999 after a suggestion from Mr. Cheney.

"Brown & Root had the upper hand with the Pentagon because they knew the process like the back of their hand," said T. C. McIntosh, a Pentagon criminal investigator who last year examined some of the company's Army contracts in the 1990's. He said he found that a contractor "gets away with what they can get away with."

For example, KBR got the Army to agree to pay about $750,000 for electrical repairs at a base in California that cost only about $125,000, according to Mr. McIntosh, an agent with the Defense Criminal Investigative Service.

KBR officials did not dispute the electrical cost figures, which were part of an $18 million contract. But they said government investigators tried to suggest wrongdoing when there was not any.

"The company happened to negotiate a couple of projects we made more money on than others," said one company lawyer, who insisted on anonymity. He added, "On some projects the contractor may make a large or small profit, while on others it may lose money, as KBR sometimes did on this contract."

Mr. McIntosh said he and an assistant United States attorney in Sacramento were inclined to indict the company last year after they developed evidence that a few KBR employees had "lied to the government" in pricing proposals for electrical repair work at Fort Ord. Mr. McIntosh said the Sacramento prosecutor said to him, "Let's go for this, it's a winnable criminal case."

A KBR lawyer said that the government's theory "was novel and unfairly tried to criminalize what was only a preliminary proposal."

The United States attorney's office in Sacramento declined to discuss its internal deliberations in the cast. But it dropped the criminal inquiry and reached a civil settlement in February, in part because of weak contract monitoring by the Army, according to Mr. McIntosh and a lawyer involved in the case.

As part of the settlement, KBR paid $2 million but denied any liability.

Last December the Army's Operations Support Command, unaware of the criminal investigation, found KBR's past contracting experiences to be exemplary as it awarded the company the 10-year logistical support contract, according to a command spokeswoman, Gale Smith.

The Army command's lengthy review of bidders did not discover that KBR was the target of a criminal investigation though it was disclosed in Halliburton's annual report submitted with the bid, according to Ms. Smith. She said that if the support command's managers had known of the criminal inquiry, they would have looked further at the matter but not changed the award.

KBR's ability to earn the Pentagon's trust dates back decades.

"It's standard operating procedure for the Department of Defense to haul in Brown & Root," said Gordon Adams, who helped oversee the military budget for President Bill Clinton.

The company's first military contract was in 1940, to build a Naval air station in Corpus Christi, Tex. In the 1960's, it built bases in Vietnam. By the 1990's, KBR was providing logistical support in Haiti, Somalia and the Balkans.

KBR's military logistics business began to escalate rapidly with its selection for a $3.9 million contract in 1992, Mr. Cheney's last year at the Pentagon. Over the last 10 years, the revenues have totaled $2.5 billion, mostly a result of widening American involvement in the Balkans after 1995.

"We did great things to support the U.S. military overseas — we did better than they could support themselves," said Charles J. Fiala, a former operations officer for KBR. "I was in the Department of Defense for 35 years. We knew what the government was like."

Robert E. Ayers, another former KBR executive who still consults for the company, said Mr. Cheney "stayed fairly well informed" on the Balkans contract.

Stan Solloway, a former top Pentagon procurement official who now heads an association of contractors, said the company "understood the military mind-set" and "did a very good job in the Balkans."

But reports in 1997 and 2000 by the General Accounting Office, the audit arm of Congress, found weak contract monitoring by the Army contributed to cost increases in the Balkan contract that benefited KBR.

The audit agency's 1997 report concluded that the Army allowed KBR to fly in plywood from the United States, at a cost of $85.98 a sheet, because it did not have time to procure it in Europe, where sheets cost $14.06.

Mr. Ayers, the former KBR executive, had worked on the Balkans contract. "If the rules weren't stiff and specific," he said, "the contractor could make money off of overspending by the government."

The contract awarded last December by the Army's Operations Support Command, is "open ended" with "no estimated value," said Ms. Smith, the command's spokeswoman. She said that was mainly "because the various contingencies are beginning to unfold."

KBR won this and most of its other Pentagon contracts in a competition with other contractors, but KBR is the sole source for the many tasks that fall under the umbrella contract.

Pentagon officials said the company had recently taken over a wide range of tasks at Khanabad Air Base in Uzbekistan, from running the dining operation to handling fuel and generating power for the airfield. The company employs Uzbeks, paying them in accordance with "local laws and customs" but operating under United States health and safety guidelines, according to Halliburton's statement.

For the first six months that American troops were at Khanabad, the logistical support was provided by the Army's First Corps Support Command. Mr. Cole, the contract manager for the joint command in Kuwait, said the contract would initially cost 10 to 20 percent more than if the Army had done the work itself. He said that he and his staff recommended using the contractor because "they do a better job of maintaining the infrastructure." In addition, he said, the contractor should provide long-term flexibility, an asset in a war with many unknowns, and cost savings by avoiding Army troop transfers.

Ms. Smith said that the criticisms by the G.A.O. had led the Army to build additional controls into the contract.

At its base in Cuba, the Navy has followed the same pattern as the Army: use the military first and augment it with KBR. The Navy's construction brigade, the Seabees, built the first detention facility for battlefield detainees at Guantánamo Bay. Then the Navy activated a recently awarded $300 million, five-year logistic support contract with KBR to construct more permanent facilities, some 600 units, built mostly by workers from the Philippines and India, at a cost of $23 million.

John Peters, the Navy Facilities Engineering Command spokesman, said the permanent camp was "bigger, more sophisticated than what Seabees do." But the Seabees built the facilities for the troops guarding the detainees, and in the 1990's the Seabees built two tent cities capable of housing 20,000 refugees in Guantánamo Bay.

"Seabees typically can perform the work at about half the cost of contractors, because labor costs are already sunk and paid for," said Daryl Smith, a Seabees spokesman.

Zelma Branch, a KBR spokeswoman, said the company relied on its excellent record rather than personal relationships to win its contracts. But hiring former military officers can help the company understand and anticipate the Pentagon's needs.

"The key to the company's success is good client relations and having somebody who could anticipate what the client's needs are going to be," Mr. Ayers, the former company executive, said.

©Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company

###

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Mr. Farrius,

Regarding your question about "what I'm saying" by comparing 10, 000 French civilian deaths in 2 weeks versus less than 300 GI deaths in 6 months of war....I thought I was pretty clear the first time around in my response to the initial claim on this thread that many troops are dying and the White House doesn't care...but I'll give it another try...

I don't believe that "many", as in 300 soldiers deaths in the course of a 6 month war, is a credible example of Bush's indifference/insensitivity to GI deaths. While every death of a soldier is a sad death, 300 GI's dying in the course of 6 months is an amazingly low figure.

Let's consider that France lost 20x that number in civilian deaths in a peaceful environment in the course of 2 weeks. And Jacques Chirac did not even return from his vacation in Quebec, when his country was facing a major crisis. There's your example of a government's indifference to its citizens' deaths, not 300 soldiers in 6 months in war.

Did you ever consider that the reason there are so few GI deaths in the Iraq war thusfar is because the US government has made its military the best equipped and best protected in the world? That's not called government indifference.

Indifference is putting soldiers out in crash friendly Sea King helicopters. Indifference is sending soldiers to arid, mine ridden Afghanistan in green military uniforms driving lightweight little Jeeps.

It's all just putting things in proper perspective is what I mean.

2. Crusader,

Nice article but what is your point?

I never said Halliburton wouldn't be making profits from a war. Halliburton is one of the world's most successful for-profit defense contractors. Of course it makes money in a war. But then again, who else is supposed to perform the re-construction work if not a major defense contractor like Halliburton...NYT reporters, social workers, the Sierra Club, trial lawyers?

Halliburton does not donate the services of its highly specialized, highly paid staff to gov't agencies that hire it to build dams, put out oil fires, raze nuclear power plants, whatever. Halliburton employs over 100,000 people...it bids jobs in a way to pay its vast payroll as well as to make a profit for its shareholders. Pretty straight forward capitalism at work.

What I said in my previous post that you seem to ignore was that there is a standard transparent government bidding system in place and the best firm with the best price wins the contract. As I recall, the USA and its current Admin. got good ratings in recent int'l indices of competitiveness and government corruption.

Fyi, Halliburton won a retainer bid under Clinton's Admin. so a portion of the jobs it is doing in Iraq now is a result of a decision made by Slick Willy Clinton and the bleeding heart Democrats.

Sorry to disabuse you of the notion that Bush and Cheney are forcing the government to use the services of an incompetent ,no-name brand firm like Halliburton for their own personal profits.

That's not to say that Halliburton is angelic by any means. What would anyone expect ? Halliburton is a corporation like all the rest out there trying to survive in a cut throat business environment.

But if you need a defence contractor to do a difficult re-construction job on a timely basis in a hazardous situation, based on what I've read in technical journals, Halliburton is one of the premier companies you can hire. For example there are only 2 highly regarded companies I am aware of that have a specialized staff who can handle the capping of oil well fires...one is Halliburton and the other is a French firm.

Halliburton is very good at what it does. That's why Clinton put them on a retainer, I guess.

Fables of reconstruction or how Halliburton gets no favouritism

Halliburton: the Bush/Iraq scandal that wasn't

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we need to warn the Iraqis that for every American killed, 1000 random iraqis, if possible the family of the attackers, will be executed in retribution. Granted it's not the most civilized way of fighting but when fighting people like this who never follow the rules of war...you have to do something to stop this.....in thee nd there will either be peace in Iraq or there will be no more iraqis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're are not serious in asking me to dig up all the arguments over the past year do you just to satisfy righturn's lack of keeping up to date with these events.

I demand evidence to back up accusations simply because I have seen none ANYWHERE. Unfortunately, baseless liberal accusations are the norm here on this forum. I've been hard pressed to find evidence supporting any of it anywhere in the media or Congress, let alone among these posts. It is incredibly imbecilic for you to suggest that I am "uninformed" because I do not provide non-existent evidence for the liberal accusations that I challenge. If you truly wish to exonerate yourself, then cough up the evidence. Otherwise, stop acting like boob.

Although the unit has been building projects all over the world for the federal government for decades, the attacks of Sept. 11 have led to significant additional business. KBR is the exclusive logistics supplier for both the Navy and the Army, providing services like cooking, construction, power generation and fuel transportation.

Do you know why this is? Because Haliburton possess capabilites that are simply unmatched in the entire world. For example, they were the only company available to extinguish well fires and reconstruct Kuwait's destroyed oil infrastructure following the 1991 gulf war.

Just because the company has close ties to the federal government and the Pentagon, generates profit associated with Iraqi reconstruction, and is a recipient of federal pork spending does not mean the war was predicated on corporate greed. To believe so is supposition and not evidence of malfeasance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While Haliburton and Bechtel profit off of the Iraqi people's oil, many troops are dieing. the White House is prohibiting the media from reporting the whole story. Things are very much worse than what Fox news will let you belive. They only care about filling there wallets with black gold.

The Government putting lives at risk?????!!!!

I'm suprised you people all missed this one. Seems that the "Bi Partisan" committee run by Pat Robertson (a republican) has been for some time now getting the gears put to them secretly by Rockerfeller (A democrat.)

This memo in which the democrates in this agency are communicating with each other is basiclly saying that they will play along with Robertson until they have enough dirt to reach critical mass and to take over the government. When confronted with this treasonous memo rockerfeller was not concerned that he had been caught trying to take advantage of the war in Iraq as a way of unseating the Republiccans (and theorecticly could be shot as a traitor) but simply wanted to know where the leak in his office was.

The reason why I put this in here with these Iraq postings is simple; the Democrats care even less about the troops in Iraq. Matter of fact, they hope more will die so their chances are better.

Senate Leader Gives Democrats Ultimatum on Memo

[Reuters logo] Friday, November 07, 2003 11:06 p.m. ET

By Tabassum Zakaria

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist on Friday demanded that Democrats own up, repudiate and apologize for a memo outlining a strategy to damage the White House in connection with the Senate Intelligence Committee's investigation on Iraq.

Frist, a Tennessee Republican, said those steps were needed to move forward from the divisiveness created by the Democratic memo and to restore trust on the traditionally bipartisan panel.

The memo "lays out a blatant, partisan strategy to use the Senate Intelligence Committee to politically wound the President of the United States," Frist said.

Democrats have refused to disavow it and accused Republicans of stealing the memo, which they said was written by their committee staff and never circulated to lawmakers. The memo shows their frustration that the inquiry into prewar intelligence on Iraq was not broadened to include a review of how the White House used that information, they said.

The memo which became public earlier this week said, "we have an important role to play in revealing the misleading, if not flagrantly dishonest, methods and motives of senior administration officials who made the case for unilateral preemptive war."

Frist also said Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, a Kansas Republican, was owed a personal apology "for the manipulative tone and injurious content of this document."

He referred to the memo's suggestion that committee Democrats "pull the majority along as far as we can on issues that may lead to major new disclosures regarding improper or questionable conduct by administration officials."

Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, who is part of the Senate Democratic leadership, did not apologize, but instead blamed Republicans for playing politics by stealing and leaking it. "It wouldn't have been made public but for the majority," he said.

Frist said the Senate Intelligence Committee's inquiry was nearly complete and would be finished this year.

Democrats on the panel have said the review cannot be completed until it looks at the final report of CIA adviser David Kay who is leading the hunt for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Kay was expected to wrap up the search during the first half of next year.

Some Democrats running for president in next year's election have criticized the White House for possibly exaggerating the threat from Iraq's banned weapons because none have been found.

Roberts said if Democrats refused to repudiate the "blatantly partisan strategy" outlined in the memo, they must be prepared to accept responsibility for destroying the committee's tradition of nonpartisanship at a time when intelligence was vital to national security.

"Unless and until this reprehensible attack plan and strategy to derail the committee's important work is properly addressed, I am afraid that it will be impossible to return to 'business as usual' in the committee," Roberts said.

ROCKERFELLER'S A TRAITOR

Please take a look through the news to find this in the paper of your choice. This really happened while they were supposed to be gathering intelligence on how to win a war, not helping the US lose so they stand a chance of getting elected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crusader, the part I love best is:

" the White House is prohibiting the media from reporting the whole story. "

Right, the Media just rolls over and does whatever it is told to do by the Bush White House. And if you really believe that, I have this ocean front land in Phoenix I'd like to talk to you about!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I think we need to warn the Iraqis that for every American killed, 1000 random iraqis, if possible the family of the attackers, will be executed in retribution. "
Nuclear

I can't believe you just made that statment. You can't seriously suggest that this is intelligent or reasonable foreign policy?

It must be remembered that the United States invaded Iraq ( I believe with no just cause) and has established itself as an occupying force.

The type of retribution you suggest would further blacken the United States image in the world and make a successful transition to an Iraqi government all but impossible.

The US must do everything it can to ensure the security of its troops but this suggestion is going too far.

We need only look at the Israeli/Palestinian situation to see that strong arm tactics lead to more violence.

Finally, these are the exact same tactics used by Saddam Hussein for which the United States claimed to be "liberating" the Iraqi people. Should they now turn around and employ them? On what grounds and how could this even be remotely justified?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It just goes to show that some rightwingers who claim that the left is a bunch of fools who accuse and don't prove, are really the fools themselves. The left is continuously accused of making sweeping generalizations and absurd propositions. Statements like those undermine the rightwing. I think that Greg should monitor more carefully what kind of absurd plans are being said on this forum. For all we know, people like Nuclear might start proposing that the U.S. should take over the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nuke, I understand the frustration which leads to such a suggestion, believe me, I do! At the present time, under the existing circumstances such a response would be counter-productive. There is a time and place when a scorched earth policy is appropriate but we are not there, as yet. When you are up to your a$$ in alligators, it's difficult to retain focus on draining the swamp but we must. The intent of much of what is happening is exactly to goad us into such responses, to completely destabilize Iraq and turn its people against us.

After this weeks consultations in Washington, I suspect you will see the Sunni area declared a War zone and locked down. If they wish to play hardball, there is a lesson or two we have to teach but our response must be focused and targeted against those who wish to regain control of Iraq for their own purposes.

Mr Farrius - what would be second prize? We would have to keep the world after we took it over? Haven't we made it plain - we don't want your stinkin' world!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are obviously idiots on both sides, but you can rest easy with the knowledge that the idiots on the left are far greater in number, intensity, and vocality.

Oh, okay. This issue has been a puzzle to me for many years and now that I'm convinced, I'm eternally grateful as well.

FastNed, what's wrong with the present world? The present world is one in which the U.S. tries to promote democracy and human rights. That's why nations like France can oppose the U.S., and rightfully so! Would it not be hypocrisy to adopt a fascist mindset and go on a killing spree? Does the U.S. have the right to be inhumane (though it preaches humanity) merely because it is the biggest, strongest, and wealthiest? If so, then that is obviously an abuse of power and such a thought is sickening. And I find no difference between the U.S., Nazi Germany, or Russia if such power is egregiously misused.

Don't argue with me about national security and protecting citizens. There are numerous ways to deal with issues rather than adhering to the ways of cowards, through destruction. Mark my words: The U.S. has the power, but not the right, just like people have the power to kill, though most certainly not the right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, okay. This issue has been a puzzle to me for many years and now that I'm convinced, I'm eternally grateful as well.

Glad I could help.

And I find no difference between the U.S., Nazi Germany, or Russia if such power is egregiously misused.

Are you speaking hypothetically, or do you consider this war of liberation to be an egregious misuse of power on behalf of the coalition?

There are numerous ways to deal with issues rather than adhering to the ways of cowards, through destruction.

Under the Farrius Administration, what whould your policy to combat terror look like? I'd be suprised if you were able to offer a truly thoughtful solution.

The U.S. has the power, but not the right, just like people have the power to kill, though most certainly not the right.

I reserve the right to defend myself against anyone who poses a threat to myself or my family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you speaking hypothetically, or do you consider this war of liberation to be an egregious misuse of power on behalf of the coalition?

I don't understand what's so confusing about my point. If the U.S. goes on a killing spree of 1000 Iraqi families (which include possibly innocent women and infants) for every American soldier dead, that is flagrant abuse of power, equated with governments like Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.

Under the Farrius Administration, what whould your policy to combat terror look like? I'd be suprised if you were able to offer a truly thoughtful solution.

At the moment, you would be justified in being so. I'll be the first to admit I am no anti-terrorist expert. However, I do not believe that because a horribly absurd plan comes out, that I do not have the right to point out its fallacies and without providing a decent plan of my own. After all, if you're even considering such a plan, would any rational plan make sense? I highly doubt so. You are carrying this too far. Such a proposal for anti-terrorism is absurd, pure madness, and I, along with anybody sensible has the right to say so without being required to propose one ourselves.

I reserve the right to defend myself against anyone who poses a threat to myself or my family.

Of course you do. The key word is defense. A massacre of Iraqi families is not defense. It is a provocation for the entire world to join together in war against America.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Mr. Farrius et al,

A. Personally I think you impune Nuclear unfairly because you're not even considering that Nuclear's comments may have been hyperbole, written out of a sense of frustration at GI's being picked off like"sitting ducks" by murderous guerilla fighters and their supporters.

Definition of: Hyperbole

(n.) A figure of speech in which the expression is an evident exaggeration of the meaning intended to be conveyed, or by which things are represented as much greater or less, better or worse, than they really are; a statement exaggerated fancifully, through excitement, or for effect.

Source: www.brainydictionary.com

I believe that Nuclear was showing total exasperation at how the politically correct world we live in is not suited for fighting an asymetrical war. You have to admit that the coalition's soldiers are at a distinct disadvantage when fighting according to rules of conventional warfare in Iraq, whereas Al Feyadeen and Baathists dress and look like regular Iraqi civilians, they do not wear uniforms, instead they hide within civilian neighbourhoods, mosques and schools and use every dirty trick in they can.

B. The Iraqis themselves have expressed outrage, as well, at the coalition's reluctance to come down hard on the insurgents, to do what needs to be done to get rid of the evil ones, and that's why they want more of them to be militarized to flush out saboteurs, kill them and any persons abetting them. The Kurds are chomping at the bit to use extreme force to take back Tikrit from the Baathists and remnants of the Republican Guard who currently control that city. The coalition commanders have not agreed to the Iraqis' requests for obvious reasons, as articulated by FastNed.

C. Btw, I'll quote you two examples of what I consider going beyond bad taste, of being calculated and hateful. These are not off handed comments expressed spontaneously on a political discussion forum for limited readership. But rather these are public figures promoting their opinions formally to the general public.

a) Mr. Ted Fall, an award winning "professional" journalist wrote this article for mass publication on Veteran's Day, no less, under the auspices of United Press Syndicate.

Why we fight, Iraq from the other side, by Ted Rall, Nov.11/03

"...Dear Recruit:

Thank you for joining the Iraqi resistance forces. You have been issued an AK-47 rifle, rocket-propelled grenade launcher and an address where you can pick up supplies of bombs and remote-controlled mines. Please let your cell leader know if you require additional materiel for use against the Americans...our only option is guerilla warfare: we must kill as many Americans as possible at a minimum risk to ourselves. As the Afghan resistance to the Soviets and the Americans' own revolution against our former colonial masters the British have proven, it will only be a matter of time before the U.S. occupation forces become demoralized. As casualties and expenditures rise, the costs will outweigh the economic and political benefits of occupation. Soon the American public will note that the anticipated five-year price tag of $500 billion, with a probable loss of some 4,000 lives and 10,000 wounded, is not a reasonable price to pay to get our 2.5 million barrels of oil flowing to the West each month...we must continue to kill them until the last one has gone home to America..."

Rall's article is too dispicable to quote full text. Read it for yourself

B) Runner up, IMHO, for hateful speech award after Ted Rall is Nicholas De Genova, a Columbia University professor who told a March 26 anti-war gathering of 3000 students that he would like to see 'a million Mogadishus', referring to the 1993 ambush in Somalia that killed 18 American servicemen.

At the same 'teach-in' held on campus property, the good professor, after calling for the bloody defeat of U.S. forces in Iraq said, 'The only true heroes are those who find ways that help defeat the U.S. military.' And he asserted that Americans who call themselves 'patriots' are white supremacists.

This incident was widely reported in the media and in spite of calls for the firing of De Genova, a non-tenured anthropology professor, by Congressional representatives, Columbia alumni, as well as the general public, Columbia U. Admin. did nothing.

So, yes, I agree there are nutty people in both left and right political camps, but I see no reason to believe Nuclear is one of these people.

I think Nuclear was just upset at the deaths of the dozen GI's shot down in a helicopter on their way home for a 2 week furlow, media images of Iraqi teens rejoicing, and did not mean an intemperate emotional outburst to be viewed as a recommended policy of military engagement in Iraq.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the U.S. goes on a killing spree of 1000 Iraqi families (which include possibly innocent women and infants) for every American soldier dead, that is flagrant abuse of power, equated with governments like Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union

This means you're speaking hypothetically, in which case you have no argument from me. Although there are unavoidable civilian casualties in any war, The United States has taken unprecidented steps to avoid civilian casualties and collateral damage in this humane war. You'll get no argument from anyone regarding Nuclear's statement. That topic is dead.

At the moment, you would be justified in being so.  I do not believe that because a horribly absurd plan comes out, that I do not have the right to point out its fallacies and without providing a decent plan of my own.

First off, you have a right to say anything you want, even to the detriment of yourself. I merely asked you a question. However, my point here is that if you believe the current strategy is so terrible, it's reasonable to assume you have something at least marginally better to offer.

Unfortunatly for you, Democrats is Congress are faced with the same problem. They critsize the administration's policies on every issue (for obvious political reasons), but are unable to present coherent solutions of their own. Their "solutions" are limited to: send more troops, fire Rumsfeld, hand over power to Iraqis, get international support, etc. These generalities do not amount to solutions. Democrats are clutching at straws here with the knowledge that if they don't do something now, they'll be having unpleasent flashbacks of McGovern come November.

Of course you do. The key word is defense. A massacre of Iraqi families is not defense. It is a provocation for the entire world to join together in war against America.

My comments regarding self defense are in the context of the actual war on terror, not Nuclear's proposition of grand slaughter.

It is no longer clear if the comments you are making are in context to Nuclear's absurd statement. If they are, then I suggest you are carrying this to far. I want nothing to do with Nuclear's statement so lets move on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Morgan, I understand the frustration of American deaths and very little being done about it. But perhaps members on this forum can exercise a little self-control? Just because I am totally frusterated and exasperating doesn't mean I can come up with any solution, as long as it seems to solves the problem. I think we're all adults here? Also, I'd appreciate it if you never ever posted another definition for a word again, considering I most likely know the meaning, it wastes bandwith, it shows what you do with your time, and it's a pathetic attempt to make people look stupid.

rightturnonred, when I criticize something about someone else, and then you argue with me about something he said, I have no choice but to assume you have endorsed his assertions and are attempting to defend his reasoning. Please be more specific next time. Also remember that though you claim the Democrats never offer solutions of their own, the Republicans do, but never ones that work. Proof? Look at the current situation in Iraq, the basis for Nuclear's prosposal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...