• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

Video of Army troops leaving Haliburton drivers to fend for themselves

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

maluckey

Platinum Member
Jan 31, 2003
2,933
0
71
To whom it may concern,

As I was saying....been there... We all survived though, so that doesn't count I guess :roll:

Armchair generals should really ask those that know. We had another that constantly spouted off in military threads though he knew nothing...don't be that guy.
 

SickNic

Member
Sep 29, 2006
53
0
0
Wow. What a crappy situation. I was stationed in Mosul, Iraq wiht the 101st for 10 months, and it just wasn't pretty for anyone. Although I kinda find it ironic that the contractors made a crapload more than we did. I made about 1400 a month over there, which is less than what I make now (processing Medicaid claims).

But while we were on convoys, the rule was, if we were ambushed or an IED went off, you were to drive ahead, regroup and than go back to support who/what ever was left behind. I can see that's what the humvees started to do, but 40 minutes is a long time to take to regroup.
 

1prophet

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
5,210
456
126
Originally posted by: maluckey
To whom it may concern,

As I was saying....been there... We all survived though, so that doesn't count I guess :roll:

Armchair generals should really ask those that know. We had another that constantly spouted off in military threads though he knew nothing...don't be that guy.


I am not disputing the tactics employed by the military rather the ones employed by Haliburton.

My questions are as follows:

  1. Do these drivers know these are the procedures their escorts will follow in case of an ambush such as this, if not why?

    Why were they not armed, since not being armed did not prevent them from being shot by the insurgents?

    Is Haliburton afraid that it would be much harder to find drivers if this got out back when it happened, since they asked the driver not to talk about it?

 
Aug 1, 2006
1,308
0
0
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: maluckey
I see a bad situation, but they (the drivers) get over 90 thousand dollars tax-free to drive these trucks. They know what they are getting into.
Soldiers and Marines know what they're getting into when they join the army or marines, what's your point?
He saying they were supposed to run like girls and leave the civvies holding the bag. You know, according to the PLAN!
lol. Then he goes on to describe Iraq accurately (what was it, HELL HOLE with roads that just disappear? yeah that was it). The President would be very unhappy with this spokesman's choice of words there. And then some fool comes in and attempts to defend the indefensible, Halliburton. Cheney's company, the one raping the American taxpayer, the one (one of the ones) riddled with graft and corruption. What a bizarre thread!
 

Narmer

Diamond Member
Aug 27, 2006
5,293
0
0
Damn. If the Iraq war is good for anything, it's a good training ground for the most difficult of difficult wars: guerilla warfare. But as in all wars, peace is always brought about politically.

I have a lot of respect for the men and women over there. Returning from a "Security and Stability Operation" must be like returning from Hell.
 
Aug 1, 2006
1,308
0
0
Yes, it's been an excellent training ground for the terrorists. Nice job Republicans, giving them a new place to practice! Better check Afghanistan again, I think they're moving back in there as well!
 

imported_dna

Golden Member
Aug 14, 2006
1,755
0
0
In all fairness, you can say the army is getting trained too: learning how to deal with guerrila fighters.
 

BarneyFife

Diamond Member
Aug 12, 2001
3,878
0
76
Originally posted by: dna
In all fairness, you can say the army is getting trained too: learning how to deal with guerrila fighters.

According to this logic, every war is a training ground.
 

Narmer

Diamond Member
Aug 27, 2006
5,293
0
0
Originally posted by: jrenz
But as in all wars, peace is always brought about politically.
I guess you missed that little tiff called WWII.
Actually I didn't. After many of the Nazi leaders committed suicide or were killed, I believe the regular German Army surrendered. Someone on the German side had to tell their soldiers to put their weapons down. In the Pacific, the Emperor of Japan finally grew some balls and was advised to overstep the military rulers and call and end to Japan's imperial ambitions. In the end, the echeleon decided to end the war, not the generals or soldiers.
 

Narmer

Diamond Member
Aug 27, 2006
5,293
0
0
Originally posted by: dna
Saying that WW2 ended thanks to poiitics is a little bit far fetched.
Technically it did because the politicians, not the generals, were calling the shots. Hence, the politicians called an end to the war. The generals do the politicians bidding.. If that wasn't the case then there would've been far less Germans today. Furthermore, the Allies would've clashed in Germany.

 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,834
0
0
Originally posted by: Narmer
Originally posted by: dna
Saying that WW2 ended thanks to poiitics is a little bit far fetched.
Technically it did because the politicians, not the generals, were calling the shots. Hence, the politicians called an end to the war. The generals do the politicians bidding.. If that wasn't the case then there would've been far less Germans today. Furthermore, the Allies would've clashed in Germany.
Then I guess you give the politicains credit for the invention of Nuclear fission also.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,551
2
0
A lot of time War Profiteers are left to fend for themselves, that's why they get the big bucks.
 

Narmer

Diamond Member
Aug 27, 2006
5,293
0
0
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: Narmer
Originally posted by: dna
Saying that WW2 ended thanks to poiitics is a little bit far fetched.
Technically it did because the politicians, not the generals, were calling the shots. Hence, the politicians called an end to the war. The generals do the politicians bidding.. If that wasn't the case then there would've been far less Germans today. Furthermore, the Allies would've clashed in Germany.
Then I guess you give the politicains credit for the invention of Nuclear fission also.
You could since it was a government-sponsored initiative. In fact, the politicians wanted to beat the Germans, so they give the scientists a blank check. Success has a thousand fathers. Did you forget that saying?

 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,834
0
0
Originally posted by: Narmer
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: Narmer
Originally posted by: dna
Saying that WW2 ended thanks to poiitics is a little bit far fetched.
Technically it did because the politicians, not the generals, were calling the shots. Hence, the politicians called an end to the war. The generals do the politicians bidding.. If that wasn't the case then there would've been far less Germans today. Furthermore, the Allies would've clashed in Germany.
Then I guess you give the politicains credit for the invention of Nuclear fission also.
You could since it was a government-sponsored initiative. In fact, the politicians wanted to beat the Germans, so they give the scientists a blank check. Success has a thousand fathers. Did you forget that saying?
You miss my point. The politicians can't do anything without the help, support, etc. of the people, but according to your logic they should have the credit for everything.

It reminds me of a business taking credit for their employee's benifit package. Managment may have worked hard, long, and smart on putting it together, but if it weren't for the employees doing their jobs there wouldn't be any money for the benifit pacakage in the first place and the very people patting themselves on their backs wouldn't even have their job if it weren't for the rank and file blue collar workers. It's a two way street.

Edit: Another way to look at it is that Eintstein could have done his work with any politician at the helm but could the politicians did without Einstein?
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,268
4
0
Originally posted by: TRUMPHENT
This happened in late 2005, not 2004.

Halliburton's contract is a cost plus contract. Every vehicle destroyed is done so at cost plus to Halliburton.

Halliburton's drivers are disposable, their salaries are cost plus into the contract.

National Guard is US Army in a combat zone.

This only illustrates how thin the US military is streched in Iraq. The Anbar province is now abandoned to bolster the building of more defenses around Baghdad itself.

Remember Fallujah? British troops had to be borrowed to guard Baghdad to free enough US troops to finally turn Fallujah into a ghost town.

The level of insurgent attacks is at an all time high. This attack occured now over a year ago.

Some of you are missing the real message here.
I am sure that Halliburton responded to hearing that 2 or 3 of its drivers were killed by calling a newspaper to place a help wanted ad right?

BTW: What is the real message?
From reading the NIE I got the real message as being if we loss in Iraq we will be creating a whole new generation of terrorists who believe that the US can be easily defeated. We've lost 3000 men over a 3 year period, on D-day alone we lost at least that many. We didn't give up on the war, but kept fighting until we won because we knew what were fighting for, sadly to many on the left seem to forget that. The terrorists have clearly stated that the objective is to convert us or kill us, you decide what you would rather do, convert or die or fight and beat them.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,547
0
76
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: TRUMPHENT
This happened in late 2005, not 2004.

Halliburton's contract is a cost plus contract. Every vehicle destroyed is done so at cost plus to Halliburton.

Halliburton's drivers are disposable, their salaries are cost plus into the contract.

National Guard is US Army in a combat zone.

This only illustrates how thin the US military is streched in Iraq. The Anbar province is now abandoned to bolster the building of more defenses around Baghdad itself.

Remember Fallujah? British troops had to be borrowed to guard Baghdad to free enough US troops to finally turn Fallujah into a ghost town.

The level of insurgent attacks is at an all time high. This attack occured now over a year ago.

Some of you are missing the real message here.
I am sure that Halliburton responded to hearing that 2 or 3 of its drivers were killed by calling a newspaper to place a help wanted ad right?

BTW: What is the real message?
From reading the NIE I got the real message as being if we loss in Iraq we will be creating a whole new generation of terrorists who believe that the US can be easily defeated. We've lost 3000 men over a 3 year period, on D-day alone we lost at least that many. We didn't give up on the war, but kept fighting until we won because we knew what were fighting for, sadly to many on the left seem to forget that. The terrorists have clearly stated that the objective is to convert us or kill us, you decide what you would rather do, convert or die or fight and beat them.
It's because, today, most Americans have ZERO patience for anything lasting longer than a two-part miniseries.

The anti's have forgotten the meaning of the word "tenacity." They consider terrorism an "inconvenience" rather than a threat to their very existance.

Trust me, they offer no solutions better than the path we are already on. They just want to paint the train we're on a different color and call it "better."
 

jrenz

Banned
Jan 11, 2006
1,788
0
0
Originally posted by: Narmer
Originally posted by: jrenz
But as in all wars, peace is always brought about politically.
I guess you missed that little tiff called WWII.
Actually I didn't. After many of the Nazi leaders committed suicide or were killed, I believe the regular German Army surrendered. Someone on the German side had to tell their soldiers to put their weapons down. In the Pacific, the Emperor of Japan finally grew some balls and was advised to overstep the military rulers and call and end to Japan's imperial ambitions. In the end, the echeleon decided to end the war, not the generals or soldiers.
Do you think it would have come to that had they not been facing destruction? The war was won militarily. Only after that did the politicians face each other to determine their fate.
 

Narmer

Diamond Member
Aug 27, 2006
5,293
0
0
Originally posted by: jrenz
Originally posted by: Narmer
Originally posted by: jrenz
But as in all wars, peace is always brought about politically.
I guess you missed that little tiff called WWII.
Actually I didn't. After many of the Nazi leaders committed suicide or were killed, I believe the regular German Army surrendered. Someone on the German side had to tell their soldiers to put their weapons down. In the Pacific, the Emperor of Japan finally grew some balls and was advised to overstep the military rulers and call and end to Japan's imperial ambitions. In the end, the echeleon decided to end the war, not the generals or soldiers.
Do you think it would have come to that had they not been facing destruction? The war was won militarily. Only after that did the politicians face each other to determine their fate.
Actually, I believe I'm right because for it to be won via pure military might, then the army would've had to kill every able man and woman in Germany. But it didn't have to come to that because the Germans decided it wasn't worth it. I'm also sure that there were many other Germans that were speaking to the Allies trying to cop a deal. Otherwise you would've a had a situation like in the Pacific where there were some Japanese soldiers who didn't get the surrender order and kept fighting.

You're right, the war may have been won militarily but peace came about only politically. Maybe were talking about two different things. For example, America can probably win any war it fights, but can it win the peace without coming to a political solution? The answer is that it is extremely difficult for a military to win the peace without killing a good amount of the populace. Maybe that's a military version of winning the peace.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,268
4
0
Narmer you are dense.

The war was won because the Germans and Japs were defeated militarily and realized that they had no chance of winning. Instead of facing utter destruction they gave up in order to stay alive. Had we not smashed their armies and destroyed their cities the politicians would have never called for an end of the war. BTW it was a German general that surrender, there was no civilian political leadership in Germany.

The problem in the war on terror is that we have not been able to defeat our enemies in a military fashion yet. And we may never be able to because we are so fixated on civilian casualties that we may never take away the will of the people to fight.

We, like the allies at the end of WW 2, have an overwhelming military might, but we hardly use it because of fears of "collateral" damage. Maybe if we carpet bombed Faluja the people there would decide that supporting the insurgents was not such a good idea after all.

Go find and read that thread about how we starting losing wars when we stopped fighting them the way we did in WW 2 and started fighting them the way we did in Korea and Vietnam, which is fight the warrior, but don't kill the civilians who support and enable them.
 

Narmer

Diamond Member
Aug 27, 2006
5,293
0
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Narmer you are dense.

The war was won because the Germans and Japs were defeated militarily and realized that they had no chance of winning. Instead of facing utter destruction they gave up in order to stay alive. Had we not smashed their armies and destroyed their cities the politicians would have never called for an end of the war. BTW it was a German general that surrender, there was no civilian political leadership in Germany.

The problem in the war on terror is that we have not been able to defeat our enemies in a military fashion yet. And we may never be able to because we are so fixated on civilian casualties that we may never take away the will of the people to fight.

We, like the allies at the end of WW 2, have an overwhelming military might, but we hardly use it because of fears of "collateral" damage. Maybe if we carpet bombed Faluja the people there would decide that supporting the insurgents was not such a good idea after all.

Go find and read that thread about how we starting losing wars when we stopped fighting them the way we did in WW 2 and started fighting them the way we did in Korea and Vietnam, which is fight the warrior, but don't kill the civilians who support and enable them.
You, of all people, should NOT be calling others dense. You may be right in some respects but you missed the point entirely. The war may have been won by the military, but it was the civilian leadership that won the peace, not the generals. If there was no political peace, there would be no end to the war, just a continuous low-level guerilla warfare that you have in Iraq, where we also won militarily. Therefore, it is the politicians that win the peace, NOT the generals.

IF you fail to understand that, then your little adventure in Iraq will NEVER be won because you can nuke the whole damn place and those arabs will keep picking off our GIs like they pick dates.

Furthermore, you start occupying a foreign country, walking around with a gun around your shoulder or waist, you best believe that you will be attacked if there is a political void. People like you that think carpet-bombing Fallujah will convince the arabs to lay down their weapons forget that we DID carpet-bomb Fallujah and not a damn thing changed. As for Korea, you idiots also forget that you had a Communist North Korea bordering a Communist China and a Communist Soviet Union. Those three countries would've and did their damn best to keep America at bay. If we went further, that would've started World War III, fighting our former allies, like I mentioned earlier. MacArthur wanted to do that but the sheer land-mass to cover would've been damn near impossible seeing that we were stationed in Japan and South Korea.

Stupid arm-chair generals like you like to talk death and destruction as if you are playing a game of chess. Well, this is no game. People's lives are at stake. Trying to pacify your enemy without a political solution (meeting of minds) is stupid, just like you.
 

funboy6942

Lifer
Nov 13, 2001
14,713
132
106
Again it all comes down to money.

The poor for it is thier chance, granted extreamly dangerous, at huge sums of money and better thier family and would be like playing the lotery except your life is on the line. They will never be given the cance at or a job that can make that kind of money to use to pull them selves out of debt, send children to school, get them off the street.

If it is customary for them to be escorted in un armored vechicles with a small lightly armored escort why do you think the escort was tried to get the f out of dodge? Because now it comes down to money for Halliburton. You can bet your ass that thoes trucks are insured to the max. NAd it comes down to they make more off the truck getting blown up and the driver dying then sending then in with proper fully armored escorts and fully armored trucks. It is ALL about the botom line and produces more for the guy on top. There will always be a poor person waiting to get in there and take the palce of a driver killed fo rthey are waving what would seem to alot a chance in a lifetime at a dream for a better life. Honestly right now if I was given the chance and they would take my disabled ass I would go over there and drive a truck. For the risk for me atm is like I am disabled, no real money to speak of, no real chance at any real money, crappy schools for my children, and thoes who are well off and never been close to being homeless cant understand why if your poor why you just cant do such in such to get out. When your poor and start off poor there is no "contacts" to money, your credit will suck, you will be looked upon differently from others and not given any real chances at all and especially if your a white male. So going over there for me even if I got one paycheck would better my family and our situation for them in terms of affording school. Granted it wouldnt be enough with one years pay to invest but all my stuff is paid off (home, cars, credit cards) so this would put them in school and other need things that will come up. Im useless to my family so I would go there with the understanding I will die but it is for them. Something if I didnt do I would never be able to do for them and again it comes down to MONEY.

If Halliburton really cared for the people over there there would be better truck, better training, and if that all was the case would be one of thier own driving the trucks they would protect. Throw in one of the higher ups kin in one of the trucks and see how fast the ONE truck would get fitted with armor and will mostlikly have tank and choper cover. Like the comment made up above near the top its all about training. If protecting the president not one SS would leave and go and make plans to come back for him. Why train the escort in a differnet way because of MONEY. Trucks are insured worth more then the person driving it and the cargo it carries and alot more then paying to have it armored. Why have the escort leave because again MONEY. What they are driving is worth a but load more, not insured and if so not as much as ole Halliburton trucks are for they are paid with the tax payers money so the truck and the person driving it is worth more. See the Prsident is worth more then the SS. So who you think they want to keep there and protect to death? SS. Why as like the poor they are paid well, know what they are getting into when they took the job, and are well paid. But if there is action taken against the president, well, just like the poor truck driver the SS are despensable and replaceable by alot of others ready to fill the dead SS's shoes.

Im not currupted by politics, training, or anything. I own tv's but not one is hooked up a station ATM and when they were I hardly ever watched the news or any bs spoken by the president or government offical telling me what is happening and what I will like or do. I also think out side the box in almost every situation and see what is happening for full face value. If they were escorted properly, had armor trucks and semis, and wasnt paraded around in the first place as moving tagets hiring locals to drive the trucks there wouldnt be any money in it and we wouldnt even be having this disscusion. IF they were driving by higher ups there wouldnt be this disscusion and they would never of "left" to figure out what todo and wait for the zone to cool off. They would of stuck it out there and blown away everyone shooting at them. And then that wouldnt even be a disscussion because the locals would know that with the first shot the entire block they live on would be leveled. They shoot at and ambush them because they know nothing will be done, shoot look what happended when the arm fully loaded chopper showed up. they are ran and hid.

If there is money to be made high up on the chain no matter who gets killed as long as it is not one of thier own and they are making all kinds of money from it and in the bottom line doesnt effect the money they make and the people who have invested into that company then the lower classes then them will be exploited for the Cash Cattle they and most of us are and it will not change.

The guy in the interview said "I cannot believe the way other human beings can treat other human and shot them like dogs like that without a care" well the government is kinda doing the same without properly training and equiping thoes people driving and escorting thoes humans as well for they can make the change and make it safer but that willcost money, cut into profits to a point it wont make as much as they want and are basicaly putting the guns in the locals hands asking them to kill them so they can make more money and walk away with a clean consience that they didnt pull the triger themselves.

What a way to make a buck. Start a war a piss people off to a point they hate us and kill an american if they can get away with it and on the other hand make money off the ones they kill and kinda wish for more to die for they make more the more they kill. And dangle alot of money in front of not so well off people knowing they will line up at the chance to make it, and why should they care again for its not them.

I got to stop typing for Im really pissed off that no one really sees this.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY