Who says war has no winners?

[steveyo]

Who says war has no winners?

Stock PRices:

Halliburton: (former CEO quit to become the US VP in 2000)
10/11/02: $13.36
(insert war here)
10/11/05: $61.78

Exxon-Mobil:
10/11/02: $31.69
10/11/05: $59.40

--
steveyo

[Spudman]

Maybe I should get involved in the war business.

[theotherguy]

Do you get to blow stuff up?

[steveyo]

Hey, I got a letter to the editor published regarding the winner of the war in Iraq.

Here's a link:
http://timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=410019&category=LETTER&BCCode=OPINION&newsdate=10/18/2005

and here's the text:

Who says war has no winners?

Since 1999, defense industry giant Halliburton has donated more than $700,000 to the Republican Party and its former CEO Dick Cheney is the U.S. vice president.

In the last three war-torn years, Halliburton's stock price has risen almost 500 percent. Since the start of the Iraq war, now shown to be dishonestly conceived, in no small part by Cheney himself, the firm received billions of our tax dollars in no-bid contracts. Turning $700,000 into billions? They're the winners all right.

STEVE RELLES

Delmar

[JJuggle]

Very nice, Steve. It's good to have views like this make it into local papers.

[alchemicfredrick]

ah yes, i hear my brother rant about halliburton and all that stuff all the time

[john_childs]

ah yes, i hear my brother rant about halliburton and all that stuff all the time
Just like the wacko caucus in the Republicans used to rant about whitewater, the FBI files, the travel office, the Vince Foster suicide, and on and on. It makes no difference overall. It's all preaching to the choir. The people that rant about such things are already so partisan and set in their ways that nothing is going to change their mind. The rants do nothing to nothing to convince others to change their mind. It's just preaching to the choir.

[ThisGuyIKnow]

so John, it doesn't bother you that the president's administration are taking millions of dollars of profit from this war. A war they've been planning since 1998?

Just like the wacko caucus in the Republicans used to rant about whitewater, the FBI files, the travel office, the Vince Foster suicide, and on and on. It makes no difference overall. It's all preaching to the choir. The people that rant about such things are already so partisan and set in their ways that nothing is going to change their mind. The rants do nothing to nothing to convince others to change their mind. It's just preaching to the choir.

[john_childs]

so John, it doesn't bother you that the president's administration are taking millions of dollars of profit from this war. A war they've been planning since 1998?
Just like all the ranting about Clinton lying under oath probably had a big effect on your opinion?

Haliburton is a business that goes to dangerous areas and does dangerous jobs. They've been doing that for a while. They didn't just start in '98 to profit from the inevitable war. It's capitalism.

[ThisGuyIKnow]

Just like all the ranting about Clinton lying under oath probably had a big effect on your opinion?

Haliburton is a business that goes to dangerous areas and does dangerous jobs. They've been doing that for a while. They didn't just start in '98 to profit from the inevitable war. It's capitalism.

No Hallibruton didn't start in 1998 but htat is when the Bush people decideded to go to war with Iraq as soon as they had the opportunity. And no Halliburton doesn't do dangerous jobs they are a midde man, they get contracted by the government to do a job, then they sub contract it to someone else for pennies on the dollar.

Remember back during World War II when war profiteering was looked down upon.

Personally I don't think someone with such financial interest in a war should be in a place to have one declared.

It doesn't bother you that someone in a positon of power uses that position for personal economic gain.

The war profits show that Cheney and subsequently Bush clearly do not have the nations best interest at heart.

When you are running a business it's okay to higher your friends because if they fail your business fails, and therefore you fail. You're taking a personal financial risk in them.

But when the president hires his friends and they fail, it reflects badly on him, but he doesn't suffer any financial loss because of it. The only one's who suffer are the American Public and tax payers.

A government can not be run like a corporation.

[steveyo]

Just like all the ranting about Clinton lying under oath probably had a big effect on your opinion?

Haliburton is a business that goes to dangerous areas and does dangerous jobs. They've been doing that for a while. They didn't just start in '98 to profit from the inevitable war. It's capitalism.
John - look what you're comparing.

Clinton was a jackass and lied under oath.

The Bush-Cheney administration is an unstoppable war machine, making a war and selling the taxpayers the weapons and services at non-competitive, no-bid prices. How can you say that's capitalism?

Clinton morally degraded himself and his family.

Cheney and the neocons, themselves all millionaires from the oil and defense industries, are profiting obscenely from the least socially productive expenditure - death and destruction.

I'm surprised you even want to bring up such a comparison.

--
steveyo

[john_childs]

I'm surprised you even want to bring up such a comparison.
I didn't. You did.
Haliburton is just a code word for the standard liberal rant against the rich, corporate welfare, the privileged class, corporations, tax breaks for the rich, the war machine, and all the other favorite liberal economic buzz topics. All you have to do is say Haliburton and you can get a Pavlovian response that starts a rant.

All I care about Haliburton is that there be oversight. The anti-Bush crowd has made sure that Haliburton gets a good going over so that pretty much covers that.

Me following the Haliburton conspiracies is as productive as someone on the Left following the anti-Clinton conspiracies back when President Clinton was in office.

The Right had their code words back in the Clinton era and saying those code words would get them all riled. It's all the same, just a different shoe on a different foot.

[ThisGuyIKnow]

But John, do you believe it's okay for the vice president to be a war profiteer?

you're very good at not expressing your actual views.

The clinton scandal was different it was his personal life, not his policy decisions that were beign criticized.

[steveyo]

I didn't. You did.
I merely stated facts about Halliburton. You made the first comparisons to Clinton.

All I care about Haliburton is that there be oversight. The anti-Bush crowd has made sure that Haliburton gets a good going over so that pretty much covers that. That doesn't cover it, John. These days, with republican majorities everywhere, Halliburton screws up time and again, yet continue to rcv billions in no-bid contracts.

The Right had their code words back in the Clinton era and saying those code words would get them all riled. It's all the same, just a different shoe on a different foot.
No, John. It's not even close to the same. Code words? Riled? Complaints about Clinton had to do with sperm stains and questionably criminal land deals. The Bush-Cheney administration you're defending is directly responsible for the horrible death, torture and maiming of tens or maybe hundreds of thousands of people, including uncounted innocent children in Iraq and nearly 2000 of our bravest armed forces.

[john_childs]

I'm not comparing the actions of Halliburton with actions by Clinton. I'm comparing the buzzword effect of the word Halliburton with the buzzword effect of various words and phrases the Right got riled about when Clinton was in office.

The only effect the word Halliburton has on me is disinterest at this point and the realization that I'm probably going to be subjected to yet another rant.

For those of us who support the war the anti-war rhetoric and the Halliburton rhetoric just passes through without even an attempt to comprehend it anymore. I've heard it all before. It's not worth the effort to go chasing that tail anymore. Just like it was not worth the effort for those on the Left to go chasing the tail of the various Clinton conspiracy theories by the Right.

All the buzzwords do is rile up the supporters at a campaign rally or demonstration. They have no effect on the non-supporters.

[ThisGuyIKnow]

I'm not comparing the actions of Halliburton with actions by Clinton. I'm comparing the buzzword effect of the word Halliburton with the buzzword effect of various words and phrases the Right got riled about when Clinton was in office.

The only effect the word Halliburton has on me is disinterest at this point and the realization that I'm probably going to be subjected to yet another rant.


So does this mean you think it's okay that the vice-preisdent is a war profiteer?

Do you think it's okay that vice-president pushs policy fopr the purpose of putting money in his own pocket?

[john_childs]

So does this mean you think it's okay that the vice-preisdent is a war profiteer?

Do you think it's okay that vice-president pushs policy fopr the purpose of putting money in his own pocket?
I don't view him as a war profiteer any more than anyone else who works in the defense contracting business, either building things or contracting services. It's business and the government doesn't own or manage all of the defense work that is done in this country. Some of it ends up being done by private and public business. That's the military-industrial complex for ya.

Those conspiracy theories about Cheney pushing policy just to get rich from Halliburton are just fantasies by the Left much like how the loonies on the Right coddled themselves by making up conspiracy theories about things like the Vince Foster suicide, drug running by Clinton's friends, Whitewater, and all sorts of other things.

[steveyo]

I don't view him as a war profiteer any more than anyone else who works in the defense contracting business.
Here's the thing, though. Cheney ostensibly doesn't work in the defense industry anymore. It isn't a conspiracy theory, John. There's a clear conflict of interest when you're one of the chief war architects and you or your cronies profit (obscenely) from making the bombs and bullets. Cheney may be indicted soon for the Plame outing and the (RIGHT-WING) conspiracy to sell the Iraq war, but he'll get pardoned and move right back into an exorbitantly salaried defense industry job. The conflict of interest is highlighted even more starkly when Halliburton does a crappy job and continues to be rewarded with billions of dollars.

Fantasies from the left? No, these are nothing but clear facts: Halliburton stock price was $13.36 on 10/11/02 and rose to $61.78 on 10/11/05.

Please wake up and stop posturing about conspiracies. This sh!t is real.

[john_childs]

The hoopla about Halliburton and Cheney is fiction. It was investigated during the campaign and nothing of substance was found. FactCheck.org did a couple investigations:
Kerry Ad Falsely Accuses Cheney on Halliburton (http://www.factcheck.org/article261.html)
Anti-Bush Ad Overstates Case Against Halliburton
(http://www.factcheck.org/article201.html)
There is nothing there for me to get worked up about.

That's why I call it a buzzword or code word. It gets Moveon.org all worked up but the rest of us have just moved on to real matters.

[steveyo]

The hoopla about Halliburton and Cheney is fiction. It was investigated during the campaign and nothing of substance was found. In other words, even though the fatcats at the top of the defense industry have quintupled their no-doubt monstrous stock options, they haven't been caught breaking the law, though they have been caught and fined for serving rotting food to troops, and paying 5 times the price (and thus 5 times the profit) for gasoline.

John, you've managed to avoid the fact that the no-bid contracts have ballooned these vile people's personal assets due directly from a war that they started. Getting rich from blowing up poor people. No problem with that?

[john_childs]

There is oversight and auditing of the contracts. Potential overcharges and other discrepancies are looked at by the Defense Department audit agency. One of the FactCheck.org articles goes over that. It's not just a blank check to Halliburton. They get watched over and audited and the same with other contractors.

Things seem to be working as they should or at least adequately. There is nothing there for me to get worked up about. Is there overcharging? I hope not. I'm not a fan of government waste. But it seems that things are in check to a reasonable degree.

You say Halliburton, I say meh.

[ThisGuyIKnow]

Is there overcharging? I hope not. I'm not a fan of government waste. But it seems that things are in check to a reasonable degree.

You say Halliburton, I say meh.

When Halliburton takes a million dollar line item and sub contracts it out for $70,000 (a profit of $930,000) you don't see that as government waste?

[john_childs]

When Halliburton takes a million dollar line item and sub contracts it out for $70,000 (a profit of $930,000) you don't see that as government waste?
If we know about it I assume it was caught by the auditors. I don't think the govt is that incompetent in managing contracts. They audit. They have penalties for abuse.

There is a big difference between claim and proof. Anything claimed by the likes of Moveon.org is so immediately suspect that it isn't even worth my time to pay attention to it. If there is real actual fraud I'll hear about it through other reliable sources.

[GILD]

Maybe I should get involved in the war business.Yeah, invest your sons.

Personally I don't think someone with such financial interest in a war should be in a place to have one declared.Mmm, that reminds me of something...
"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist." (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ike.htm)

[GILD]

They audit. They have penalties for abuse.

There is a big difference between claim and proof.

I think you just answered yourself there John.

Good morning, by the way.

[steveyo]

Who says war has no winners?

Stock PRices:

Halliburton: (former CEO quit to become the US VP in 2000)
10/11/02: $13.36
(insert war here)
10/11/05: $61.78

Exxon-Mobil:
10/11/02: $31.69
10/11/05: $59.40

--
steveyo

Here's a recent Haliburton story (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/halliburton_contaminated_water;_ylt=AjIpP5Y4zLMYs1P38r5Pck6s0NUE;_ylu=X3 oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--)about them not providing what our taxes paid for, clean water for our own troops. Sorry to be so unpatriotic.

BTW Haliburton closed at $70.90 today.

[monkeyman]

Why was this thread revived?
All it does it create fights
Neither Steveyo or Johnchilds are going to be swayed in their opinions....
Just leave it

[steveyo]

Why was this thread revived?
All it does it create fights
Neither Steveyo or Johnchilds are going to be swayed in their opinions....
Just leave it
This thread was revived because there's a recent a news item pertinent to what John said about 5 posts up. The article is not put out by Moveon.org, but by the Associated Press.

[BillyTheMountain]

Why was this thread revived?
All it does it create fights
Neither Steveyo or Johnchilds are going to be swayed in their opinions....
Just leave it

Actually, I thought I perceived a slight shift in JohnChilds perspective. I think he can respond to these arguments. Many people who supported the war to remove WMDs from Iraq now realize it was of no value to the USA, except the military-industrial complex, and that it cost the lives of many USA/ally/Iraqi children.

Even Republicans are thinking differently abour Bush now.

t r u t h o u t | 03.16

US Launches Largest Air Strike Since Invasion
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/031606A.shtml

Today, US and Iraqi forces launched the largest air assault operation since the invasion of Iraq nearly three years ago, the US military said.

William Fisher | How to Lose Friends and Encourage Extremists
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/031606B.shtml

William Fisher: When this year's Human Rights report appeared last week, I e-mailed it to six of these old friends and asked them for their reactions "off the record." They had a lot to say, but it all came down to this consensus: The United States had forfeited its right to report on abuses committed by others by committing its own, failing to correct them, and then holding no one in authority accountable. They said they would have expected this behavior in their own countries, but not in mine.

UN Creates New Human Rights Watch Dog Over US Opposition
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/031606C.shtml

Since the United States has no veto in the General Assembly, the resolution calling for the creation of a new Human Rights Council was adopted by an overwhelming majority, which the US opposition couldn't block.

Tom Harkin | Why I Fully Support Bush Censure
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/031606D.shtml

Tom Harkin: We have an out-of-control president whose arrogant and, now, illegal behavior is running our country into the ditch. It's time to rein him in. And a fine place to start is by passing this resolution of censure. I hope that Senator Feingold's measure will be brought to the floor. And when it is, I will proudly vote yes.

[cathwood]

Who says war has no winners?


steveyo

There would be no wars if people didn't gain financially from them, surely. Isn't that what they're for?

Have I missed some subtle neuance somewhere?

Cathy

[unisteve]

Cathy, I think you have missed a subtle nuance about war. War is about hating people, not getting money.

[steveyo]

Cathy, I think you have missed a subtle nuance about war. War is about hating people, not getting money.
Well it's about getting rich by fostering other people's hate.

[unisteve]

The US Iraq/Afghanistan thing has got me thinking that you're right, Steveyo.

BUT, when I think about Hitler, he just wanted to kill everyone to breed a master race.

Wikipedia thinks we both may be right (or at least, it's so ambiguous I can't really tell):
"A common perception of war is ... a dispute over sovereignty, territory, resources, religion or a host of other issues."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War

[cathwood]

From what I remeber about British history, our wars have usually been over territory (money) or due to alliances with other countries (which have been about money). How can you hate people you have never met?

Cathy

[cathwood]

Cathy, I think you have missed a subtle nuance about war. War is about hating people, not getting money.

Now that is hardly subtle is it? Also you are wrong.

Cathy

[unisteve]

Now that is hardly subtle is it? Also you are wrong.

Cathy
Cathy, please don't hate me. I just finished replying to one of your posts in another thread, so I'm kind of scared to do the same here, but I have to.

First of all, I realise that it isn't subtle. That's kind of why I pointed it out.

Second, how am I wrong? When did war stop being about hating people?

EDIT: I don't know what the heck I'm doing anymore. I didn't read the first of your two consecutive posts above before posting this. My brain hurts.

[Mikefule]

Surprisingly, perhaps, I'm with John on this, even though I have the impression that John's general political views are far to the right of mine. (The US left wing starts just to the right of the UK's right wing.)

There are certain issues where opinions are so strongly held that it is very much the exception for someone to consider his opponent's argument on its merits, and even rarer for someone to change their opinion after hearing a point well made. Examples include Clinton, Bus, Thatcher, fox hunting, abortion, religion... and so on.

One common factor of such issues is that each side has well rehearsed arguments (John says "rants") which are deployed as a Pavlovian response to a given stimulus. Certain names or words stimulate the response. To a liberal lefty, George W Bush can do no right, and every mention of his name is enough to prompt the all-purpose anti-Bush rant. To many "righties", the very word "liberal" is enough to provoke the well-rehearsed anti bleeding heart pinko liberal speech.

And no one gains. It is a ritual.

Which moves me on to Cathwood's endearing question: how can you hate someone you've never met? By forming your opinion in advance, and then responding to that opinion as if it were fact. Opinions are so much easier than understanding. You don't even have to go out to get one. In fact, sit still and people will beam opinions into your house, and if you're careful not to blink, they will be automatically uploaded into your brain and saved as read only files.

Hatred is so much simpler than loving. If you hate someone then you can simply hurt them or run away. If you love them, then that's a long term commitment, even when it isn't fun, and something else looks like it might be.

And profiteering? People who care only about money will make money. People who care only about friends will make friends.

[cathwood]

Cathy, please don't hate me. I just finished replying to one of your posts in another thread, so I'm kind of scared to do the same here, but I have to.

First of all, I realise that it isn't subtle. That's kind of why I pointed it out.

Second, how am I wrong? When did war stop being about hating people?

EDIT: I don't know what the heck I'm doing anymore. I didn't read the first of your two consecutive posts above before posting this. My brain hurts.

Ofcourse I don't hate you. I love a good debate.

(And I'm sorry for saying you were wrong when your opinion is just as valid as mine, I was just practicing being more assertive)

It's great that you contribute to these debates. Your brain hurting just shows that it's using parts that it's not used to using. Keep it up.

(Don't worry I don't have any personal opinions about you because you have dirrerent opinions to me. I realise that most of my opinions are a bit wacky anyway, it wont stop me arguing them though).

Cathy

[Tim Morin]

Imagine all the money made by companies who produce arms and missiles....and other weapons of war. Shashing!!!

[cathwood]

I have been giving careful consideration to the posts in this thread and have reached my final thoughts on the subject :) .

1. War is entered into by the governement of our respective countries for their own reasons. This may be because of financial gain, because we had an arrangement with a third country, etc. Hatred has nothing to do with it at this point because it is entered into with cold calculation.

2. Hatred (and fear - ie belief that the country is under threat from the other country or it's inhabitants) is brought into it (cynically and purpousfully), initially via propaganda from our governments against the country they have decided to go to war with, in order to persuade ordinary people to kill other ordinary people and to die 'for their country'.

3. Hatred and fear are also used to justified the deaths of many 'innocent' civilians.

War crimes tribunals are presumably held by the winners (NOT by the side with fewest war crimes).

Cathy

[Bud-Litebulb]

my own 2-cents here. I'm new to these unicycle forums, but I can't help making a comment here.

Terrorists make war out of hatred.

Americans (USA) make war to defend our country against terrorists.

I don't think president Bush had a choice, the way Irak was going with Sadam in charge there. Any president with a backbone would have done the same, including Clinton, if he had a backbone.

it does not matter is Cheney has connections with halliburten, because he is the vice president, just a heartbeataway from the presidency, and the american people chose him and bush to defend us against terrorists. And yes, there are no WMDs in iraq, but we have uncovered a hotbed of terrorists, and so we might as well fight them now, over there, so our kids won't have to fight them later, over here.

sorry about this long post, I just get a little tired of everyone always knocking down bush--he is the president, you know, we should show a little respect. I was suprised to see a political post on this website, even here where people "chat" about unicycles, there is bush-bashing, just like in school.

(this is ment in a friendly way, I dont want to make enemies here,)

Buddy

[cathwood]

Welcome Buddy.

And don't worry. We post under the assumption that everyone has a right to thier own point of view and a right to express it.

Cathy

[ThisGuyIKnow]

Welcome Buddy.

And don't worry. We post under the assumption that everyone has a right to thier own point of view and a right to express it.

Cathy

Even when that point of view is clearly wrong and misinformed such as the "opinion" of Budlitebulb above.

The reason the "terrorists" attacked is far complex than hatred. Our country still acts as if September 11th was unprovoked. Also Iraq had nothing to do with terrorists or September 11th, the fact that people still believ that shows the throngs of ignorance and fear that still exist in this country. Also we did not uncover a hotbed of terrorsits in Iraq, we created it there.

100 years from now Bush will be remembered as the worst President in US history. He already has the lowest approval ratings of any president ever. To mindlessly follow a leader when his actions are immoral and misjustified is ignorant and will lead to more harm than good.

[unisteve]

"Any man capable of having himself made president should on no account be allowed to do the job."

[Bud-Litebulb]

The reason the "terrorists" attacked is far complex than hatred.



I dont agree, because to hijack planes and cut crew members with box vcutters, to look at the people on the plane in the eye likie that and take over the plane, knowing that in a few minutes, all those people they are looking at will die, is pure hatred. evil hatred. then to slam those planes into buildings filled with people is also hatred. i say hatred because we all know that the hijackers lived in america for a while before doing their attack. they lived here, and they must have seen how beautiful and free the american life is, and they were jealous, not that jealousy is the reason that they did it, they already hated us because of the propaganda in their countries, but when they came here to attack us, and they saw how well and free we live, I think their jealousy helped fuel their hatred.

Our country still acts as if September 11th was unprovoked.

Also we did not uncover a hotbed of terrorsits in Iraq, we created it there.


it was unprovoked. i don't remember the americans slamming any oplanes into any buildings in the middle east. and my gut feeling is that the media keeps saying that we created the terrorists, but the last time I looked, we were going over there to take out the terroprists and not make any new ones. americans don't make terrorism, we know what it is like to have terrorists attack, why would we do anything that would make new ones?



100 years from now Bush will be remembered as the worst President in US history. He already has the lowest approval ratings of any president ever.
I think the opposite. Bush made some hard choices, and in one or two centuries, he will be looked on as making the correct, but difficult choice. Approval ratings dont matter, because he is a president with long-range vision, a president who can imagine that we have to make the hard decisions NOW, so fututre generations can live well in the future.
I don't think either one of us will live long enough to find out for sure.

I mean all this in a friendly way,

Buddy

[cathwood]

Looking on from the outside (UK) I would have to agree with ThisGuyIKnow and to say that very few people in the UK can understand why the US voted Bush in again.

Cathy

[terrybigwheel]

Looking on from the outside (UK) I would have to agree with ThisGuyIKnow and to say that very few people in the UK can understand why the US voted Bush in again.

Cathy

Because the alternative was WAY WORSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Duh!

[cathwood]

Because the alternative was WAY WORSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Duh!

Ofcourse!

Cathy

[ThisGuyIKnow]

Budlite bulb you're clearly unable to grasp teh complexities involved her and instead spout the propagandist rhetoric of our current adminstration.

9-11 was provoked by our political activities in the middle east. The hijackers on 9-11 were not attacking because htey hate us it was retaliation for specific American Acts carried out by Americans inteh middle East listen to the Osama Bin Laden tapes, he explained it all, but most Americans didn't listen because of our self-centered attitudes, rather than trying to understand the enemy and prevent further attacks by peaceful means we decided to do so by violent ones.

The United States didn't create teh terrorists but they did create the hotbed of terrorism in Iraq.

Your inability see the big picutre or perspectives beyond your own is the very attitude that got us into this mess in the first place.

[Bud-Litebulb]

Budlite bulb you're clearly unable to grasp teh complexities involved her and instead spout the propagandist rhetoric of our current adminstration.

Said like a real, doubletalking liberal. (you insult me, I insult you back:) ) I should not be suprised, you live in Hollywood, where all the liberals are. I live close to new york, there are a lot of librals there, but I dont get suckered by their doubletalk.

9-11 was provoked by our political activities in the middle east. The hijackers on 9-11 were not attacking because htey hate us it was retaliation for specific American Acts carried out by Americans inteh middle East listen to the Osama Bin Laden tapes, he explained it all, but most Americans didn't listen
Why should anyone listen to9 a mass murderer? the guy is sick in the head (not you, I mean bin laden) and suggesting that we listen to him is like suggesting we listen to Hitler. whatever you think the USA did in the middle east, can not possibly justify the 911 attacks
rather than trying to understand the enemy
I guess you voted for Kerrey;)

Your inability see the big picutre or perspectives beyond your own is the very attitude that got us into this mess in the first place.
I respectfully dissagree, I think I see the big picture, and I think president Bush sees the big picture and that is why we can't cut and run NOW, but we can cut and run after the war is over, then it would be OK to leave.

Buddy

[ThisGuyIKnow]

Calling me a liberal is not an insult. Liberal comes from teh same route as liberty which is a weird Bush liked to spout quite a bit during the election process.

We listen to mass murderers because understanding their motivations is a way to prevent further attacks. When someone hates us it is better to try to understand why they hate us, than to just disregard their opinions entirely. Understanding is the motive is a way to prevent further tragedy.

Our hands are not clean in the events of 9-11, we are not the innocent victim. victim yes, innocent no.

But again the fact taht you think calling someone a liberal is an indult shows where you stand and that you're not worth trying to have any sort of a discussion with.

[Bud-Litebulb]

Calling me a liberal is not an insult. Liberal comes from teh same route as liberty which is a weird Bush liked to spout quite a bit during the election process.

I didnt mean it as an insult, and i put the smily there to show that i ment to call you liberal in a tongue and cheek way. but i think you were condesending to me in your comment to call me "clearly unable to grasp teh complexities involved her and instead spout the propagandist rhetoric of our current adminstration" and that was not very nice and it was insulting, but not in a serious way, so i answered by joking about calling you a liberal.
my girlfriend is a liberal and we fight all the time, but I still love her, so when i call someone a liberal it is just a rub, a friendly rub.

We listen to mass murderers because understanding their motivations is a way to prevent further attacks. When someone hates us it is better to try to understand why they hate us, than to just disregard their opinions entirely. Understanding is the motive is a way to prevent further tragedy.

Our hands are not clean in the events of 9-11, we are not the innocent victim. victim yes, innocent no.

But again the fact taht you think calling someone a liberal is an indult shows where you stand and that you're not worth trying to have any sort of a discussion with.
OK, i actually agree with everything you say here.




But again the fact taht you think calling someone a liberal is an indult shows where you stand and that you're not worth trying to have any sort of a discussion with.

now you know that i did not mean it as an insult, but if i hurt your feelings, i apologize. im new here, and im just learning the ropes here on this forum

Buddy

ps--i still am conservative, but not in a rush limbaugh way, but more like in a sean hannity way

[ThisGuyIKnow]

The point is that I am not insulted by being called a liberal, but the right seem to think it's some sort of insult. I just wish that John Kerry wouldn't have been such a pansy when Bush called him a liberal, and instead of trying to argue that he isn't, "Yes I am liberal, but there is nothing wrong with that, being liberal is a positive thing because..."

[Bud-Litebulb]

The point is that I am not insulted by being called a liberal, but the right seem to think it's some sort of insult. I just wish that John Kerry wouldn't have been such a pansy when Bush called him a liberal, and instead of trying to argue that he isn't, "Yes I am liberal, but there is nothing wrong with that, being liberal is a positive thing because..."
if kerry did that instead of being so wishy-washy, you guys would have won.
i think if howard dean was the nominee, he would have beaten president bush because he was always clear where he stood, and the republicans wouls not have been able to pin any thing on him. i was personally glad that kerrey got the nomination, because he is so familiar to republican political planners, his type is very predictable, and the fact that he voted for the war killed it for him.
i was secretly scared of dean, and so were all my republican friends.

as a conservative, i do get along with liberals very well, i always have more fun nwith thm at parties than middle of the road democrats, and when i think about it, middle of the road republicans as well. i dont agree with the liberal policies, but i admire those who say "i am proud to be liberal" because in these times, that takes guts, and it is clear.

liberals also make better girlfriends.

[john_childs]

Surprisingly, perhaps, I'm with John on this, even though I have the impression that John's general political views are far to the right of mine. (The US left wing starts just to the right of the UK's right wing.)

There are certain issues where opinions are so strongly held that it is very much the exception for someone to consider his opponent's argument on its merits, and even rarer for someone to change their opinion after hearing a point well made. Examples include Clinton, Bus, Thatcher, fox hunting, abortion, religion... and so on.

One common factor of such issues is that each side has well rehearsed arguments (John says "rants") which are deployed as a Pavlovian response to a given stimulus. Certain names or words stimulate the response. To a liberal lefty, George W Bush can do no right, and every mention of his name is enough to prompt the all-purpose anti-Bush rant. To many "righties", the very word "liberal" is enough to provoke the well-rehearsed anti bleeding heart pinko liberal speech.

And no one gains. It is a ritual.

The Fule gets it. :)
This whole thread started with a post that something about Halliburton was actually significant. My reaction is "meh". I posted the only relevant way I could and attempted to explain my disinterest and the fact that code words and hot button words from the other political side have no effect on me and are only useful for rallying the troops and those who already believe, preaching to the choir as it were.

I literally have no opinion and no reaction about anything Halliburton. You could wire me up like they do for lie detector tests and mention the word "Halliburton" and the machine wouldn't register anything different than normal background readings.

I don't like reading about the troops getting bad water in their showers. That's not good. Well actually it is good that it comes to light because now I know that the military brass know about it and they'll deal with it. Now I'm all disinterested again and can go back to "meh". Was Halliburton somehow involved? Oh sorry, I've lost interest already.

[BillyTheMountain]

I don't like reading about the troops getting bad water in their showers. That's not good. Well actually it is good that it comes to light because now I know that the military brass know about it and they'll deal with it. Now I'm all disinterested again and can go back to "meh". Was Halliburton somehow involved? Oh sorry, I've lost interest already.

You are unrealistically optimistic. How long did it take for the troops to get armor and bullet proof vests? How long did it take to stop the torture? This is long after it was in the press.

[steveyo]

The Fule gets it. :)
This whole thread started with a post that something about Halliburton was actually significant. My reaction is "meh". I posted the only relevant way I could and attempted to explain my disinterest and the fact that code words and hot button words from the other political side have no effect on me and are only useful for rallying the troops and those who already believe, preaching to the choir as it were.

I literally have no opinion and no reaction about anything Halliburton. You could wire me up like they do for lie detector tests and mention the word "Halliburton" and the machine wouldn't register anything different than normal background readings.

I don't like reading about the troops getting bad water in their showers. That's not good. Well actually it is good that it comes to light because now I know that the military brass know about it and they'll deal with it. Now I'm all disinterested again and can go back to "meh". Was Halliburton somehow involved? Oh sorry, I've lost interest already.I dug up JC's "Haliburton? -meh" post here when I read the following story about widespread corruption in KBR, a subsidiary of the giant war-profiteering company Haliburton. If you read the following article, you'll see that the Pentagon has quadrupled its spending to contractors and cut more than half of the staff that oversees the contractors. But I'm sure it's all good. :rolleyes:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-kbr-war-profiteers-feb21,0,195925,full.story

[john_childs]

From the Chicago Tribune article:
On Wednesday, a federal judge in Rock Island sentenced the Army official, Chief Warrant Officer Peleti "Pete" Peleti Jr., to 28 months in prison for taking bribes.
There is prison time as a consequence for those involved. Looks like there will be some of his co-workers to join him as it wasn't just an isolated individual taking bribes.

They are being audited. They are being caught. The investigation is open. Seems the system is addressing the wrongs and the faults.

[steveyo]

They are being audited. They are being caught. The investigation is open. Seems the system is addressing some of the wrongs and the faults.
There, I fixed that for you.

[wobbling bear]

And no one gains. It is a ritual.

that's why I am not going to argue about the reasons on why Haliburton is there but argue against inefficiency and waste. That's my usual way of discussing with people with very different views: we seem to have fairly different axioms so let's take your axioms for granted and look at all their consequences: it is an interesting game!
Now if you even think that Haliburton is globally an efficient corporation let's make it more efficient by pointing out some minor mishaps :p

[beeper]

lol, "War has no winner"
Is the title of a poem I wrote when I was in like, 4th grade for a competition.

I won! : O

[BillyTheMountain]

Who says war has no winners?

Stock PRices:

Halliburton: (former CEO quit to become the US VP in 2000)
10/11/02: $13.36
(insert war here)
10/11/05: $61.78

Exxon-Mobil:
10/11/02: $31.69
10/11/05: $59.40

--
steveyo

I'm with you, Steveyo!!

And I'm sending you a B-52 from Nao!

[steveyo]

I'm with you, Steveyo!!

And I'm sending you a B-52 from Nao!Cool, I love the B-52s. Rock Lobster!

[Nimbusnut]

Just a simple question for the war hawks out there: What branch of the military did you serve in, or are going to enlist in? It seems a little backwards to me as a "hippy liberal" whenever I get into a debate on certain military actions with some conservatives. Backwards because one of the people in the debate actually served more than 10 years in uniform and it's the hippy liberal not the conservative. I'm not trying to make you feel bad budlight, but if you feel that strongly, step up to the plate and sign up. Don't just be a bumper sticker patriot.

[wobbling bear]

Just a simple question for the war hawks out there: What branch of the military did you serve in, or are going to enlist in? It seems a little backwards to me as a "hippy liberal" whenever I get into a debate on certain military actions with some conservatives. Backwards because one of the people in the debate actually served more than 10 years in uniform and it's the hippy liberal not the conservative. I'm not trying to make you feel bad budlight, but if you feel that strongly, step up to the plate and sign up. Don't just be a bumper sticker patriot.
I have a proposal simpler to implement: create an association and volunteer to go announce to families the death of their relative and provide empathy support to those grieving families. Thus war will enter your life more directly. You may have good excuses for not signing up but this is a proposal you can't refuse :o

[skrobo]

lol, i have to comment, exxon, gas, adding $2.00 per gallon of gas (i know its not that much, but you get the idea)... yeah, uhm lets just say i would hope the stock goes up...

[Nimbusnut]

I like your idea wobbling bear. Imaging that, I typed a whole bunch of stuff but deleted it. Your hearts in the right place bro.

[john_childs]

I have a proposal simpler to implement: create an association and volunteer to go announce to families the death of their relative and provide empathy support to those grieving families. Thus war will enter your life more directly. You may have good excuses for not signing up but this is a proposal you can't refuse :o
And the other side would propose that all the doves should volunteer to apologize in person to the victims of any future terrorist attack on Western citizens and explain to them how they didn't support proactive military action to counter the threat and how peace and understanding is the answer.

We can keep on making these straw men. It's fun and a great intellectual exercise. :p

[steveyo]

...doves should volunteer to apologize in person to the victims of any future terrorist attack on Western citizens and explain to them how they didn't support proactive military action to counter the threat and how peace and understanding is the answer.
Explain, please: How is the Iraq war countering the threat? It's multiplying the number of terrorists, thus increasing the threat of future terrorist attacks.

This proactive military action of which you speak only supports WAR, Inc., eg Haliburton, et al. Oh yeah, also the oil companies making an ever bigger profit on ever more expensive gasoline.

Wait a minute...those are the very two industries from which sprang Bush and Cheney. How curious.

[john_childs]

Explain, please: How is the Iraq war countering the threat? It's multiplying the number of terrorists, thus increasing the threat of future terrorist attacks.
You are missing the point of my straw man. I was just turning that case around to show that it is not fully sound and is based on fallacy.

[Rowan]

I say war has no winners. The so called "winners" are murderers and decide whether or not they committed a crime. Also there is a saying that "winners don't use drugs" and the country that declares the most wars (need it be named?) makes it's pilots use drugs, thereby eliminating the possibility of them being winners.

[Nimbusnut]

Duty not Reward. Don't mind me, that's just my first unit's motto. I just talk to hear myself.

[BillyTheMountain]

And the other side would propose that all the doves should volunteer to apologize in person to the victims of any future terrorist attack on Western citizens and explain to them how they didn't support proactive military action to counter the threat and how peace and understanding is the answer.

We can keep on making these straw men. It's fun and a great intellectual exercise. :p

While we're on this track, maybe at the next Unicon, we can give a wreath to the Japanese to apologize for Hiroshima Nagasaki, before they kick the USA's *ss like always.

:p

[steveyo]

A new problem brought to you by your really rich friends at Haliburton (you know, the company, whose former CEO is now our US VP, being awarded billions upon billions of dollars in no-bid contracts to "support" our troops overseas):

JC: you still say "Meh", right?


AP: Water makes US troops in Iraq sick (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080309/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/iraq_contaminated_water)
Dozens of U.S. troops in Iraq fell sick at bases using "unmonitored and potentially unsafe" water supplied by the military and a contractor once owned by Vice President Dick Cheney's former company, the Pentagon's internal watchdog says.

A report obtained by The Associated Press said soldiers experienced skin abscesses, cellulitis, skin infections, diarrhea and other illnesses after using discolored, smelly water for personal hygiene and laundry at five U.S. military sites in Iraq.

The Pentagon's inspector general found water quality problems between March 2004 and February 2006 at three sites run by contractor KBR Inc., and between January 2004 and December 2006 at two military-operated locations.
...

[BillyTheMountain]

A new problem brought to you by your really rich friends at Haliburton (you know, the company, whose former CEO is now our US VP, being awarded billions upon billions of dollars in no-bid contracts to "support" our troops overseas):

JC: you still say "Meh", right?


AP: Water makes US troops in Iraq sick (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080309/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/iraq_contaminated_water)
Dozens of U.S. troops in Iraq fell sick at bases using "unmonitored and potentially unsafe" water supplied by the military and a contractor once owned by Vice President Dick Cheney's former company, the Pentagon's internal watchdog says.

A report obtained by The Associated Press said soldiers experienced skin abscesses, cellulitis, skin infections, diarrhea and other illnesses after using discolored, smelly water for personal hygiene and laundry at five U.S. military sites in Iraq.

The Pentagon's inspector general found water quality problems between March 2004 and February 2006 at three sites run by contractor KBR Inc., and between January 2004 and December 2006 at two military-operated locations.
...

Wow!! "potentially unsafe" "discolored, smelly water" supplied by the former Vice President Dick Cheney!!!!! gave the soldiers skin abscesses, cellulitis, skin infections, diarrhea and UNMENTIONABLE STDs!!!!!

And it's probably one of those contracts where they get paid even if they don't deliver (again)!

"No refund on the dirty water, soldier! You already drank it!" --Dick Cheney

[BillyTheMountain]

I was also just wondering:

The Iraq invasion is costing the USA $trillions.

Is it costing the enemy nation much? Who exactly IS the enemy nation? Osama bin Laden doesn't have $trillions. Yet there's no sense that the people we're fighting will ever run out of $ or resources.

Who are they, and what's their budget?

[john_childs]

JC: you still say "Meh", right?
Not a full "Meh". I am concerned. The troops and others at the bases shouldn't have to put up with that kind of substandard water. It is disgusting and appalling.

The "Meh" part comes in that I don't feel political motivations to capitalize on that kind of incident. I know that just having it reported by Reuters and AP and having it be public is going to get the powers in Washington DC to address it. Maybe I'm naive.

[bugman]

Who says war has no winners?

Stock PRices:

Halliburton: (former CEO quit to become the US VP in 2000)
10/11/02: $13.36
(insert war here)
10/11/05: $61.78

Exxon-Mobil:
10/11/02: $31.69
10/11/05: $59.40

--
steveyo

This is really sad. I didn't invest one penny. :(

[BillyTheMountain]

This is really sad. I didn't invest one penny. :(

And U.S. unemployment is at an all-time high, and the economy tanked into a recesssion. And the wealthy get wealthier! (That's you, Bugman--you're always on the side of the wealthy).

Great job, Bush!

And Bugman, I caught your question on the sex torture thread. But I have no answer. Great to hear from you again! How's the riding?

Billy