Cheney's company turning huge profits on Army contracts

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: TaylorD

Originally posted by: BOBDN
To the more politically astute who have seen this type of profiteering before it appears the Bush administration just faked evidence to start a war so companies with the highest political connections can then be handed government contracts to repair what wasn't broken.

By "the more politically astute" you do mean "conspiracy theorists" right? Did we "fake" all of the people Saddam killed during his time in power?

Also, I can't believe you would discredit someone else's claim about having heard from a few Iraqi families that they were glad to be rid of Saddam as "not a consensus" and then cut and paste some article about one incident. Is your one incident a "consensus"? Or is it any more valid because it made the paper? It was in the New York Times, I might add, which you conveniently left out, under the heading "The Occupiers." Being in the New York Times is bad enough in terms of a liberal bias, being under that heading, in my mind, makes it an opinion piece, not a news story. My guess is that guy was pissed we had a war in the first place, so now he's found some incident he can blow out of proportion. (We obviously don't know what happened, but keep in mind, every suicide bomber's family says "it couldn't be" and "he was such a nice boy")

Also, you mentioned reading stories every day - in the 175 days since war began (5-20-2003) even if you read a story a day, that is also hardly a "consensus" of how the majority of the 24 million people of Iraq feel about Americans. (That doesn't even address the fact that all of the accounts you read may or may not have been fairly reported, nor the possible biases of the authors.)

Our soldiers are over there policing Iraq. Over there, as here, there will be incidents of misunderdstanding between locals and the police force. Just look at any major city in the US. It is unfortunate, yes. But try to tell me how the Iraqis are worse off now than they were under Saddam. They now have control over their own future, something to look forward to.

Saying Iraq would be better off had we never went in, so as to prevent the unfortunate incidents that took place, is like saying an poisoned person is better off not getting the antidote because the injection would hurt too much. Look at the long run, the big picture - Iraq will become a far better place to live than it ever was, or ever would have been, under Saddam.

Again, the people Saddam killed are on Saddam's head. The people Bush killed are on his (we sure as hell didn't "fake" them) - including the American troops whose deaths Halliburton and KBR are profiting from. That is after all the subject of the thread.

As for my discrediting someone's claims. They made their claim I provided an opposing claim. Who are you, or anyone else, to say which claim represents the consensus in Iraq? Their claim was presented as an attempt to create a consensus. My claim shows there is another view. Just becuase you don't agree with the opposing view doesn't make your view right. Especially in light of the current events in Iraq. And someone's hearsay claim from "friends" in Iraq may not be fairly reported or may the biased view of the authors as well. You aren't even using the same criteria for the NY Times you're using for some third hand hearsay on a P&N forum.

Comparing our police having a misunderstanding in an American city with an occupying force that invaded a foreign nation is simply ridiculous. Even so the job we're doing "policing" Iraq (although our troops and their commanders freely admit they have NO training as a police force) is an utter failure. Iraq is in chaos and it's getting worse. Thanks to Bush's unnecessary unilateral invasion.

Saying Iraq is better off since the invasion flies in the face of reality. Read L. Paul Bremer's own assessment of the current situation. He may have a bit more info than you do and even though he's the Bush appointed leader of the "coalition" force he admits the need immediately for "tens of billions" of dollars just to get water, sewage, electricity and other essential services back.

Don't be ridiculous. The mess we've caused in Iraq is worse than what we found there. Unless you're gullible enough to believe the party line from the Bush administration, which by the way is now begging for UN and international help in Iraq because they KNOW they screwed up big time and can't put Humpty Dumpty back together again.

And again, the thread is titled "Cheney's company turning huge profits on Army contracts." Do you have anything to say about a former Defense Secretary allowing a government contractor to write policy that contractor benefits from then joining the same company as CEO and positiong them to take advantage of that same policy then resigning to become VP while he continues to collect compensation from that company while he makes policy that very same company profits from at the cost of American lives, Iraqi civilian lives and billion upon billion taxpayer dollars?

Wake up. Or don't. Ignorance is bliss.

But don't expect me to fall for this BS. And don't criticize people for speaking the truth about Bush, his dishonest unnecessary war or the profiteering people in his administration are engaging in.

 

[TaylorD]

Originally posted by: BOBDN
Again, the people Saddam killed are on Saddam's head. The people Bush killed are on his (we sure as hell didn't "fake" them) - including the American troops whose deaths Halliburton and KBR are profiting from. That is after all the subject of the thread.

Ok, so you choose not to address the fact that it may very well have been the just thing to do to take Saddam out of power. You focus on the people American Troops have killed - and simply dismiss the people Saddam killed during his reign? (a number that I would guess is far greater)

As for my discrediting someone's claims. They made their claim I provided an opposing claim. Who are you, or anyone else, to say which claim represents the consensus in Iraq? Their claim was presented as an attempt to create a consensus. My claim shows there is another view. Just becuase you don't agree with the opposing view doesn't make your view right. Especially in light of the current events in Iraq. And someone's hearsay claim from "friends" in Iraq may not be fairly reported or may the biased view of the authors as well. You aren't even using the same criteria for the NY Times you're using for some third hand hearsay on a P&N forum.

Ok, here you missed the point. All I am saying is you cannot discredit someone else's claims with equally incomplete information. The articles from the NYT and elsewhere are no more a consensus than the "hearsay claims from 'friends' in Iraq"

And as for using the same criteria - I am. I understand that any human expression is innately biased, and the best a good reporter can try to do is to minimize the bias in his or her story. The point, to reiterate, is that you can't selectively assert value to different sources simply to serve your own view. (This, oddly enough, seems to be what you are aguing back at me - did you even read my first post?)

My claim shows there is another view.

That it does. But it is an equally incomplete view.

Who are you, or anyone else, to say which claim represents the consensus in Iraq?

EXACTLY. I never said anything represented a consensus in Iraq. All I said was that you cannot dismiss someones "hearsay stories" then assert that some newspaper articles are any closer to a consensus.

Comparing our police having a misunderstanding in an American city with an occupying force that invaded a foreign nation is simply ridiculous. Even so the job we're doing "policing" Iraq (although our troops and their commanders freely admit they have NO training as a police force) is an utter failure.

OK, what exactly about that comparison is ridiculous? By your reasoning, I am being too hard with the comparison - perhaps a closer comparison could be made to a city where the police speak a different language than the citizens, and the police has no training at all?

Given that criteria, I would say the job the troops are doing is nothing short of remarkable.

I will say at this juncture, that I do not think our troops should be policing over there because, as you said, they have no training to be doing so. That being said, with no training, and the language barrier, if their accidental or misinformed killing rate is anywhere near that of the police forces in the US, then aren't they doing a spectacular job in comparison?

Iraq is in chaos and it's getting worse. Thanks to Bush's unnecessary unilateral invasion. Saying Iraq is better off since the invasion flies in the face of reality. Read L. Paul Bremer's own assessment of the current situation. He may have a bit more info than you do and even though he's the Bush appointed leader of the "coalition" force he admits the need immediately for "tens of billions" of dollars just to get water, sewage, electricity and other essential services back. Don't be ridiculous. The mess we've caused in Iraq is worse than what we found there. Unless you're gullible enough to believe the party line from the Bush administration, which by the way is now begging for UN and international help in Iraq because they KNOW they screwed up big time and can't put Humpty Dumpty back together again.

Here is the subjective matter on which we disagree. I am a long term thinker here - I think about whether or not Iraq will be any better off in ten years, and I am confident they will be.

I agree there should be a Multi Nation peacekeeping force, I just think the UN and other countries need to swallow their pride and stop dragging their feet.

And again, the thread is titled "Cheney's company turning huge profits on Army contracts." Do you have anything to say about a former Defense Secretary allowing a government contractor to write policy that contractor benefits from then joining the same company as CEO and positiong them to take advantage of that same policy then resigning to become VP while he continues to collect compensation from that company while he makes policy that very same company profits from at the cost of American lives, Iraqi civilian lives and billion upon billion taxpayer dollars? Wake up. Or don't. Ignorance is bliss. But don't expect me to fall for this BS. And don't criticize people for speaking the truth about Bush, his dishonest unnecessary war or the profiteering people in his administration are engaging in.

First off, I have no problem with the truth. I do have a problem when people start selectively using the truth to try to make a point. I think intelligent discourse requires that you apply the same scrutiny to sources that support your view as you do to sources that discredit your view.

Here I can say that I do find Halliburton getting these contracts somewhat unsettling. Being Cheney's former company, there seems to be a conflict of interest.

But, you talk about ignorance? You need to wake up. This BS has been going on in American Politics forever. Our political system cultivates corruption. What about Clinton pardoning Mark Rich? (I dont specifically care about that, or care to bring it up, but its another fishy deal.)

One cannot realistically ask a politician to forget all of his or her past relationships. There is bound to be some favoritism in political dealings.

That being said Halliburton is an experienced company in this area, and if they get the job done, I dont care who their former CEO was.

As for your claim that this war was predicated to earn money for companies close to the administration - I can confidently say that your reasoning is sophistic at best. Do you totally deny that any good has come out of this conflict?

You have failed to address any good that has come of this conflict, you have only concentrated on the bad. If you are trying to convince people, I'd suggest you provide some counter-arguments. For example, I'd like to know how Iraq qill be worse off in a few years than they were a few years ago. As far as I am concerned, just because the Iraqi people became complacent under a tyrant didn't mean they don't ultimately deserve their freedom. Will there be a difficult transition period? Yes. Did military strategists know this? Yes.

 

[Gaard]

Allow me to go off-topic here a moment BOB...

TaylorD - I agree there should be a Multi Nation peacekeeping force, I just think the UN and other countries need to swallow their pride and stop dragging their feet.

Could you expand on this? It's been my understanding (no surprise on my end if I'm completely wrong) that the US and the UN are talking some sh!t about who gets to order who around over there. Maybe just link to a story so this thread isn't hijacked.

 

[BOBDN]

Two points.

First the UN hasn't dragged their feet. Bush decided unilaterally to invade Iraq WITHOUT UN approval or assistance. Now that the Bush administration realizes they bit off way more than they can chew they decide to "consider letting the UN help."

What arrogance. The same arrogance that got them into the mess they're in now. It isn't the UN at fault here. It's the Bush administration. What was the rush? There is no proof of the imminent threat they claim Saddam posed. No WMD. No nuclear material. They could easily have waited for the inspectors to finish their job. They could have had the UN involved if indeed an invasion was necessary. But they had to rush in on the basis of false claims. How do you equate that with UN foot dragging? Lay the blame where it belongs. On Bush not the UN.

Secondly, I predict that in ten years Iraq will be in very near the same or worse condition as it was before Bush decided to invade. Time will tell. But I'm sure your long term thinking isn't going to make a difference one way or the other. The US isn't going to change the middle east. The US can't even change the US.

Time will tell. Until then you can keep believing the Bush fairy tale while Cheney's FORMER corporation makes billions in government contracts for absolutely nothing. Iraq isn't going to change no matter what Bush or his people say unless the US is prepared to stay there indefinitely. And the US won't be doing that. Americans will tire of losing American lives and American billions there before any lasting change occurs.

Just my opinion. Time will tell. But we've seen this show before and we already know how it turns out. A few corporations will make a few billion and everything will return to "normal" until the next time some US leader thinks he can get away with it again.

 

[clarkmo]

Come on folks. You' all's too intellectual. It's about 9/11. Right? Kicking but in Afghanistan struck me as the right thing to do. Kicking butt in Iraq strikes me the same way. The job's not done. The man (Hussein) was a genocidal maniac. Terrorist? Every chance he got. He terrorized his own and loved to verbally terrorize the US at every opportunity. You think it was all talk? Mujahadeen. The terrorist boy scouts. Uncle Saddam wants you.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: clarkmo
Come on folks. You' all's too intellectual. It's about 9/11. Right? Kicking but in Afghanistan struck me as the right thing to do. Kicking butt in Iraq strikes me the same way. The job's not done. The man (Hussein) was a genocidal maniac. Terrorist? Every chance he got. He terrorized his own and loved to verbally terrorize the US at every opportunity. You think it was all talk? Mujahadeen. The terrorist boy scouts. Uncle Saddam wants you.

Uh huh. Saddam was a real theat to the American way of life because he hates freedom, isn't that the way the song goes?

BS.

 

[TaylorD]

Originally posted by: Gaard
Allow me to go off-topic here a moment BOB... TaylorD - I agree there should be a Multi Nation peacekeeping force, I just think the UN and other countries need to swallow their pride and stop dragging their feet. Could you expand on this? It's been my understanding (no surprise on my end if I'm completely wrong) that the US and the UN are talking some sh!t about who gets to order who around over there. Maybe just link to a story so this thread isn't hijacked.

I think you're right, I may have misspoke there.

I intended to allude to the general refusal by many countries to commit troops to Iraq, as a sort of "payback" to the US for invading on our own. I did not intend to defend Bush - especially if, and I dont know specifics here - he is dragging his feet to get a UN peacekeeping force in there. But I also can't allow BOB to claim that this desire for an international force is a new one - its been there all along.

I guess it is our job to bail out other countries, and no ones job to help us out. So be it. I sure hope no one ever invades France again, for the French's sake.
Anyway, I just think its childish to "hold grudges" and power struggles at this level and at this point in time. I have and always will be for looking at the current situation and then looking for the best way to resolve it. IMO, the best solution now is an international peacekeeping force

(edit: I've been up for 17 hours, is it showing?)

edit again:

I'd like to make a point here about the UN - even when they have approved action in the past, the US has been fully responsible for invading and securing the country, then the UN comes in. (eg. Somalia, Liberia, the list goes on) So even if the UN had approved this action, the course of things would probably have been similar up to this point. I just don't want anyone to have any delusions of granduer of some big Multi Nation army invading and securing a country, thats just not the way it has gone in the past or will go in the future.

America is the only country (one of, anyway) that takes action, and because of that people in other countries feel strongly about us one way or another. Other nations sit on their laurels and play both sides - we dont allow ourself that luxury. Our agenda is pretty out in the open, and I don't know about you guys but I prefer it that way.

 

[clarkmo]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: clarkmo
Come on folks. You' all's too intellectual. It's about 9/11. Right? Kicking but in Afghanistan struck me as the right thing to do. Kicking butt in Iraq strikes me the same way. The job's not done. The man (Hussein) was a genocidal maniac. Terrorist? Every chance he got. He terrorized his own and loved to verbally terrorize the US at every opportunity. You think it was all talk? Mujahadeen. The terrorist boy scouts. Uncle Saddam wants you.

Uh huh. Saddam was a real theat to the American way of life because he hates freedom, isn't that the way the song goes?

BS.

Sorry, I didn't mean to include too many thoughts in a brief opinion. Go back to the beginning. It's about 9/11, right?
Without that, our boys and girls are still at home and 3,000+ would still be alive. I mean, how could you forget that? I suppose it doesn't meld with your wild, unsubstantiated, paranoid, politically motivated, conspiracy theory but when does reality ever mix with fantasy?

'Cept in your fantasies, of course