Time

[Ender]

Many are complaining about how long the war is taking, however,
consider this:

It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the
Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51-day operation.

It took less time to find Saddam's sons in Iraq than it took Hillary
Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.

It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to
destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy to call
the police after his Oldsmobile sunk at Chappaquiddick.

It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in
Florida!!

Damn ! Our military works fast!

 

[rmcrobertson]

Sigh.

 

[Touch Of Death]

how long is that weapons of MD search gonna take? You know, the reason we went.

 

[MisterMike]

Let's not forget we took Afhganistan in 10 weeks while the Soviet Union couldn't do it in over 10 years.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Originally posted by MisterMike
Let's not forget we took Afhganistan in 10 weeks while the Soviet Union couldn't do it in over 10 years.

Thats a bunch of bull, it took the soviets about three hours to take Kabule. The US helped turn it in to a Viet Nam. And I don't see us leaving any time soon.
Sean

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Let's not forget we took Afhganistan in 10 weeks while the Soviet Union couldn't do it in over 10 years.

We never really took anything. It was a civil war...we assisted one faction. They took the ground, we did not.

The Soviets held the cities up until the end. Give us ten years, see what the situation is, and THEN try this comparison.

It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51-day operation.

It took less time to find Saddam's sons in Iraq than it took Hillary
Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records....QUOTE]

What would these be an example of? Argument by false analogy?

One might say in response, "What does THIS have to do with the price of beans in Bavaria?"

It is currently taking the reconstruction of College Mall road in my town longer than it has taken the clean-up of the Twin Towers sight. So what?


Steve Scott

 

[Makalakumu]

Typical Obfuscation I'm sure Rush Limbaugh said the same thing a week ago and its just being parroted back into our faces.

Questions to ask about the war in Iraq.

1. Who is behind it? The US government - who is led by those who contributed to the campaign - namely big oil.
2. Who benifits? The people of Iraq - no more Saddam is pretty darn nice for them - oh and by the way - big oil - no more sanctions and no more Saddam.
3. Where is the money? Haliburton and other Bush Cronies. To bad we can't find out about these guys. You know that "secret government" thing. Does anyone know that the VP has 13 million in stock in Haliburton? It was reported in the NY times that he made 20 million dollars off the contracts alone. How much is coming from the "Oil for Reconstruction" deal?
4. When are we going to wake up and realize that this blatant war profiteering insults the good that our soldiers are doing in Iraq. I have numerous friends who are over there right now and it burns me to think that they may be rocketed any day while the people who ordered them to go make millions in safety doing nothing.

Oh yeah, and nice surprise turkey day visit. My friend was there when Bush showed up and he said they had three days of checks before he was allowed to go - yet the media reports as if it was done all spur of the moment. Nice "fair and balanced" reporting!!!!

 

[michaeledward]

It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51-day operation. * It took less time to find Saddam's sons in Iraq than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records. * It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sunk at Chappaquiddick. * It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida!!

Except .. we didn't have 98 Coalition troops killed after Hillary completed her search for the Rose Law Firm billing records. (November dead to date) I'm sure your calendar is very comforting to the parents of those soldiers. I'm fairly certain this number does not include the Spanish Intelligence fatalities just now reaching news desks.

This is a work in progress. Saddam Hussein stated this war was going to be like Vietnam all over again. Although this will continue to be debated, certainly, the Iraqi military has dissappeared into the jungle (if you can understand the metaphore) of Baghdad. They are able to launch attacks and disappear. They are using primitive weapons to destabilize the landscape. It seems to me, this war is far from over.

 

[MisterMike]

Originally posted by upnorthkyosa
Typical Obfuscation I'm sure Rush Limbaugh said the same thing a week ago and its just being parroted back into our faces.

Questions to ask about the war in Iraq.

1. Who is behind it? The US government - who is led by those who contributed to the campaign - namely big oil.
2. Who benifits? The people of Iraq - no more Saddam is pretty darn nice for them - oh and by the way - big oil - no more sanctions and no more Saddam.
3. Where is the money? Haliburton and other Bush Cronies. To bad we can't find out about these guys. You know that "secret government" thing. Does anyone know that the VP has 13 million in stock in Haliburton? It was reported in the NY times that he made 20 million dollars off the contracts alone. How much is coming from the "Oil for Reconstruction" deal?
4. When are we going to wake up and realize that this blatant war profiteering insults the good that our soldiers are doing in Iraq. I have numerous friends who are over there right now and it burns me to think that they may be rocketed any day while the people who ordered them to go make millions in safety doing nothing.

Oh yeah, and nice surprise turkey day visit. My friend was there when Bush showed up and he said they had three days of checks before he was allowed to go - yet the media reports as if it was done all spur of the moment. Nice "fair and balanced" reporting!!!!

Right everything you hear is just a repeat from Talk Radio. Not. And even if it were, at least it's right.

Now for your "original" questions (not like the "War for Oil" chant hasn't worn itself out)

1. The U.S. government is led by oil companies?? WOW. Post that to your local conspiracy bulletin board. I think you're on to something!!!

2. Oil and Iraqi's benefit? How about another dose of preventive medicine to help stop another 9/11? I guess it's just more fun to be a conspiratist.

3. Where is the money? I don't think that is even a question to ask, unless you are some Bush-hater with a mouth. To toss out a company due to "conflict of interest" because the shareholder happens to be VP of the U.S. is just typical lib whining because the money isn't going to "their guys" instead.

4. Nobody's been making millions while our troops are there.

And as for your friend in Iraq, why would he go through checks if he's already enlisted? Sounds like a crock to me.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Oh really. Here's part of an article in "Slate," on a) how much Halliburton's been getting out of Iraq so far, b) what a lousy manager Cheney was at Halliburton. It quotes that hotbed of liberalism, "The Wall Street Journal:"

The Cheney Curse
The veep hasn't helped Halliburton. He has hurt it.
By Daniel Gross
Posted Tuesday, Oct. 14, 2003, at 1:50 PM PT


Last week, Halliburton, the oil-services and construction company formerly run by Vice President Dick Cheney, surprisingly warned that its earnings for the current quarter would be 15 percent lower than estimates. You'd think that Halliburton would be thriving. After all, oil prices are high, and the company has received giant—if controversial—contracts to oversee the reconstruction of Iraq. The no-bid prewar contract it received to work on Saddam's oil fields has, according to the Wall Street Journal, gushed $1.3 billion of revenues thus far. The company also won a competitive bid for a $1.4 billion contract to support military personnel.

Here is a strange fact about the well-connected company: Dick Cheney hasn't helped it. In January 2001, if you bought stock thinking that Cheney's ascension would be a boon to Halliburton, you made a bad bet. Since January 2001, Halliburton has underperformed both the Oil Services Index and the S&P 500—although it has outperformed both indexes over the past year.

It turns out that as much as Halliburton has benefited from having Cheney in government, it suffers from having had him in the executive suite before then. As CEO, Cheney was less an operations manager than a deal-maker, a boldface name who opened doors, especially abroad, and sealed huge contracts. But several of the deals he struck proved to be ill-advised and questionable and, ultimately, damaging to the company and its shareholders.

Halliburton attributes its earnings shortfall to problems in joint ventures and high legal fees—both of which can be laid at Cheney's feet. Cheney midwifed the Barracuda-Caratinga Project, which is gnawing a hole in the company's balance sheet. Under the $2.5 billion deal, announced in January 2000 when Cheney was CEO, Halliburton was supposed to develop two offshore oil fields in Brazil by December 2003 and April 2004, respectively. But the project has turned into a fiasco, with huge cost overruns and bad schedule misses. As of June 30, 2003, the project was 75 percent complete—and more than a year behind schedule. By that date, Kellogg, Brown and Root, the responsible subsidiary, had already recorded a pretax loss of $345 million on the project, with the possibility of greater losses to come. The miserable experience has caused the current management team to cease making fixed-price bids on giant projects.


Gee. I'll be darned. Look the stuff up. "Slate," also has a good article on Halliburton's problems when the pension fund for the NYPD/NYFD tried to block their having being awarded a fat set of no-bid contracts, especially in view of their having invested in Iraqui oil--through a Cayman Islands dummy corp--BEFORE the War.

Huh. I's be gosh-darned.

 

[MisterMike]

Oh Slate, that's really centered reporting.

 

[Touch Of Death]

As Dana Carby once asked. The biggest question is how did all our oil get under their sand?

 

[rmcrobertson]

Gee. And here I thought that somebody'd just claimed that nobody was making money from Iraq while we had soldiers there. Can I assume that the claim is that that hotbed of marxism, "The Wall Street Journal," can't be believed about the 2.7 billion in contracts Halliburton got, without the messy competitive bidding process that the law actually requires? Oh wait...I know...it was Halliburton making a charitable donation.

I left in the stuff about Cheney screwing up because it carried out a point I'd been making: one of the sad things about the claims about how groovy capitalism is, is that capitalism not only screws workers but constantly contradicts itself.

It's easy to argue with my claims--all ya gots to do is post better facts. Takes about 30-45 seconds, I just found. Of course, if you haven't GOT any facts...by all means, claim liberal bias. (Have you LISTENED to Michael Kinsley?) That's the big thing now--I don't agree, I find the facts inconvenient, so I immediately go with YOU MUST HATE AMERICA. OR MAYBE YOU'RE JUST A PURBLIND STOOGE.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Oh Slate, that's really centered reporting.

Well, then post something better. Find something from one of the conservative e-zines...something well written, researched, and reasoned. NRO, perhaps.

Why do I suspect you won't do that?



Steve

 

[rmcrobertson]

Can't. Facts have become...inconvenient.

 

[OULobo]

Originally posted by MisterMike

3. Where is the money? I don't think that is even a question to ask, unless you are some Bush-hater with a mouth. To toss out a company due to "conflict of interest" because the shareholder happens to be VP of the U.S. is just typical lib whining because the money isn't going to "their guys" instead.

4. Nobody's been making millions while our troops are there.

I'm a little late to chime in on this one and I try not to get too involved in the political BS but, these two struck me as a little off.

3. The idea that a major political figure is making money off a war that he helped propigate is the truest example of conflicting interests. It is the reason why rules against conflicting interest are put into place and now it's costing us young US lives. The only thing I can think of that would be a more glaring example of conflicting interest would be if I were prestident and started a war, and I owned a company that had an exclusive contract for all the arms used by our forces. I don't have a problem with him making money from the war, but he should step down as VP if he is going to do it. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

4. There are plenty of people making millions from our troops being in Iraq, they just aren't oil companies yet. How about thouands of orders that just went to a Hum-V retrofitting manufacturer at $1500 per Hum-V to armour plate them (something that should have been done already). The most fertile places to make money are the areas destabilized by war.

 

[Cruentus]

I am sorry, but I have to eco OU Lobo here.

There are plenty of people who make big bucks during war time.

It is sometimes refered to as an "Iron Triangle". Basically you have a defense budget funded by our tax dollars; during war time you justify maintaining and raising that budget. That money (our tax dollars) go to the pockets of private companies and research groups for research, developement, and manufacturing of weapons, equipment, etc. Part of that profit goes to lobbiest who partner up with people in Washington to provide support on many different levels, but in particular financial support through Campaign finance and such. The politicians now have a personal interest in seeing that the defense budget remains high, and that we war when given the opportunity. Many of these people who are on the inside own stock in such companies involved, sometimes to the tune of millions of dollars, thus further benefiting them finanically. So at one point of the triangle, you have our tax dollars/defense budget, at another point you have the private companies, and at the third point you have the politicians, thus completing the triangle. This continues to spiral upward, and it is all financed through our tax money. The sad part about all this special interest and interest conflicts is....[drum roll]....its all legal!

So, say what you want...I have a busy week, so I am mostly just listening. But, please, don't show your ignorance, or take us as ignorant, by trying to make us believe that there aren't special interests who profit from our wars. This just isn't true by a long shot.

PAUL

 

[Makalakumu]

Every once and a while I just wonder what would happen if the legislature refused to meet for a year. The more I learn about all the corruption in government, the more I start having these anarchist thoughts. Perhaps, a truly libertarian government would a blessing in disguise? Just something to think about. Personally, I'm a liberal libertarian and its kind of like being schizophrenic. Hmmmm. This war, like any war, is corrupt.

upnorthkyosa

 

[michaeledward]

I found this article interesting. It concerns the way the 'Post-War' has been handled / is being handled in Iraq. I submit it here for those who are curious.

Mike

http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=1104