A lot of people don't see the reality of what's going here. The Iraq war was an elaborate way for the Neo-Cons to hand billions of tax dollars to their private business cronies.JahManRed wrote:
Iraqi was a functioning society. People didn't send their wages to Saddam. They worked they got payed, they could invest, develop etc, just like any other nations ppl. Yes their was a tyrant at the helm, but he didn't micro manage every piece of business in the country. They weren't Communist. Way more Iraqis out of work today than before the "war of terror".Pug wrote:
Hmmm...so before the war, Saddam kept everything....Braddock wrote:
No one's really arguing here Pug now are they? What is apparent from the article however is who exactly is profiting from the 'war on terror'.
....after the war contractors rebuild and the Iraqis get a bigger share of the profits then they did with Saddam.
Or did I get that wrong?
The people making the most money out of Iraqi are Americans. American arms companies and their employees manufactured and profited from all the toys used to flatten the place and are now profiting from rebuilding what they flattened. Are there any large Iraqi owned construction firms winning tenders? Or are Iraqis casual labour for western contractors?
Wasn't the Blackwater CEO a major contributor to the Bush election campaign?Braddock wrote:
A lot of people don't see the reality of what's going here. The Iraq war was an elaborate way for the Neo-Cons to hand billions of tax dollars to their private business cronies.
Wasn't the Halliburton CEO the VP of US?JahManRed wrote:
Wasn't the Blackwater CEO a major contributor to the Bush election campaign?Braddock wrote:
A lot of people don't see the reality of what's going here. The Iraq war was an elaborate way for the Neo-Cons to hand billions of tax dollars to their private business cronies.
Ok, so basically you guys are arguing that the country shouldn't have been invaded and it's wrong to rebuild? Oh, and the US is the only one profiting...yeah whatever.
God forbid we try to clean the place up after making a mess.
I'm sure there's plenty of people who disagree with the war. Fine with that.
But to criticize a rebuilding effort? Hey, guess what? If the US needs to repair the country, then the taxpayers pay for it.
You need to go to the grocery store...how about I decide what you buy? Since I'm sure that you want me to tell you how to spend your money.
God forbid we try to clean the place up after making a mess.
I'm sure there's plenty of people who disagree with the war. Fine with that.
But to criticize a rebuilding effort? Hey, guess what? If the US needs to repair the country, then the taxpayers pay for it.
You need to go to the grocery store...how about I decide what you buy? Since I'm sure that you want me to tell you how to spend your money.
Are any Iraqi firms winning tenders? Yes.JahManRed wrote:
Iraqi was a functioning society. People didn't send their wages to Saddam. They worked they got payed, they could invest, develop etc, just like any other nations ppl. Yes their was a tyrant at the helm, but he didn't micro manage every piece of business in the country. They weren't Communist. Way more Iraqis out of work today than before the "war of terror".
The people making the most money out of Iraqi are Americans. American arms companies and their employees manufactured and profited from all the toys used to flatten the place and are now profiting from rebuilding what they flattened. Are there any large Iraqi owned construction firms winning tenders? Or are Iraqis casual labour for western contractors?
Also...isn't it a little early for the before/after comparison?
You are trying to twist people's arguments in this thread in a feeble effort to bolster your own point of view. Nobody is arguing that Iraq shouldn't be rebuilt by the US, you're fucking A right the US should rebuild it...they led the onslaught that destroyed it in the first place. What people are arguing here is that there has clearly been a major lack of checks and balances in the issuing of contracts and the regulation of contractors during the rebuilding process. This is apparent in the way in which companies like Blackwater have been given carte blanche to act how they please and in the way in which many contracts have been handed out on a no bid basis.Pug wrote:
Ok, so basically you guys are arguing that the country shouldn't have been invaded and it's wrong to rebuild? Oh, and the US is the only one profiting...yeah whatever.
God forbid we try to clean the place up after making a mess.
I'm sure there's plenty of people who disagree with the war. Fine with that.
But to criticize a rebuilding effort? Hey, guess what? If the US needs to repair the country, then the taxpayers pay for it.
You need to go to the grocery store...how about I decide what you buy? Since I'm sure that you want me to tell you how to spend your money.
And you aren't Mr. Neo-Con Crony guy?Braddock wrote:
[
You are trying to twist people's arguments in this thread in a feeble effort to bolster your own point of view.
"checks and balances".
Well, I asked you a question earlier: You have a grocery list. You made it up yourself. I decide to pay for the groceries. Do I just give you the money and hope you get everything? Or do I do it myself because its my money?
I'm always amazed at the bitching about rebuilding contracts. Yes they are lucrative. But a war's more expensive than rebuilding...so not much of a win is it?
So let's all bitch about not getting the juicy contract for rebuilding a country because after all, it's all about business right?
Is that it? Seems like a bargain.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Exactly.Kmarion wrote:
Is that it? Seems like a bargain.
$139,170,000,000 left over for strippers and booze.Pug wrote:
Exactly.Kmarion wrote:
Is that it? Seems like a bargain.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I am sick of hearing the Neo-con argument, it wasn't only the Republicans that sent us over their.
Why would they need to destroy a country to hand out money to their croneys, when every bill that is passed through congress has a huge amount of slush fund money?
Why would they need to destroy a country to hand out money to their croneys, when every bill that is passed through congress has a huge amount of slush fund money?
could you break down what everything costs and tell us how much we overspent... the talking out of your ass is getting old...Braddock wrote:
You are trying to twist people's arguments in this thread in a feeble effort to bolster your own point of view. Nobody is arguing that Iraq shouldn't be rebuilt by the US, you're fucking A right the US should rebuild it...they led the onslaught that destroyed it in the first place. What people are arguing here is that there has clearly been a major lack of checks and balances in the issuing of contracts and the regulation of contractors during the rebuilding process. This is apparent in the way in which companies like Blackwater have been given carte blanche to act how they please and in the way in which many contracts have been handed out on a no bid basis.Pug wrote:
Ok, so basically you guys are arguing that the country shouldn't have been invaded and it's wrong to rebuild? Oh, and the US is the only one profiting...yeah whatever.
God forbid we try to clean the place up after making a mess.
I'm sure there's plenty of people who disagree with the war. Fine with that.
But to criticize a rebuilding effort? Hey, guess what? If the US needs to repair the country, then the taxpayers pay for it.
You need to go to the grocery store...how about I decide what you buy? Since I'm sure that you want me to tell you how to spend your money.
You hate America and pounce on any and everything you can to twist it into how evil and awful we are... You better hope that Ireland and the UK don't ever need our help... cause we might not be there...it's getting too expensive...
Love is the answer
Well I'll answer your question by bringing you back to my argument...how about if you didn't eat all my groceries in the first place there would be no need for you to buy them all again.Pug wrote:
And you aren't Mr. Neo-Con Crony guy?Braddock wrote:
[
You are trying to twist people's arguments in this thread in a feeble effort to bolster your own point of view.
"checks and balances".
Well, I asked you a question earlier: You have a grocery list. You made it up yourself. I decide to pay for the groceries. Do I just give you the money and hope you get everything? Or do I do it myself because its my money?
I'm always amazed at the bitching about rebuilding contracts. Yes they are lucrative. But a war's more expensive than rebuilding...so not much of a win is it?
So let's all bitch about not getting the juicy contract for rebuilding a country because after all, it's all about business right?
And wars are expensive for the taxpayer, not for the private contractor...it's a fucking party for the private contractor. They sell all the weaponry and equipment that kick-starts the battle and then clean up on the rebuilding and security contracts once all the damage has been done...seems like a win win scenario to me.
The point about the Neo-Cons not being the only ones to back the war is a fair one and I accept that, the Dems are just as culpable on that front...It's strange that no high profile companies with links to Democrat politicians have had their names dragged through the mud yet though, anyone know of any? Is it possible the Dems were just stupid enough to believe that the war was actually about liberty and democracy?
If you had actually read the story in the link you would find that that is what people like Senator Byron Dorgan have been calling for - greater transparency and regulation over the awarding of contracts and the spending of tax payers money. I couldn't even begin to tell you how much you have overspent because the whole thing has been a free for all.[TUF]Catbox wrote:
could you break down what everything costs and tell us how much we overspent.
For fuck's sake..."you better hope Ireland never needs our help"...You can keep your help thank you very much. And I do not hate America, I just don't mind pointing out the flaws that I perceive in US foreign policy. In Western democratic countries it's usually considered okay to openly discuss how Governments are run, why are you so opposed to it? Would you rather such a thing were suppressed?[TUF]Catbox wrote:
The talking out of your ass is getting old... You hate America and pounce on any and everything you can to twist it into how evil and awful we are... You better hope that Ireland and the UK don't ever need our help... cause we might not be there...it's getting too expensive...
Well, then you are in the wrong thread if you're worried about your groceries getting eaten. The bitching about the decision to go into Iraq doesn't fit very well....well, unless you believe it's a crony conspiracy.Braddock wrote:
Well I'll answer your question by bringing you back to my argument...how about if you didn't eat all my groceries in the first place there would be no need for you to buy them all again.
And wars are expensive for the taxpayer, not for the private contractor...it's a fucking party for the private contractor. They sell all the weaponry and equipment that kick-starts the battle and then clean up on the rebuilding and security contracts once all the damage has been done...seems like a win win scenario to me.
The point about the Neo-Cons not being the only ones to back the war is a fair one and I accept that, the Dems are just as culpable on that front...It's strange that no high profile companies with links to Democrat politicians have had their names dragged through the mud yet though, anyone know of any? Is it possible the Dems were just stupid enough to believe that the war was actually about liberty and democracy?
And it's really convenient to isomewhat dismiss the continued multiparty congressional support for the war from the beginning, as well as the international support as well.
And let's see...do you think the republican party is going to have a high-profile press cycle to prove the Dems are dirty as well? I'm sure we can pull the first vote to support the war and there's a different opinion now by many. War undermines itself...
If you want to debate the merits of the war (again) why not do it in another thread. God forbid we try to rebuild what we destroyed.
I've said time and time again that I'm all for rebuilding and that in my opinion it is very much America's responsibility to make sure this happens. All I'm saying is that if I were an American I'd be a tad annoyed about how much tax money was being pumped into the hands of private contractors with so little transparency as to where it's all going and why it's going there.Pug wrote:
Well, then you are in the wrong thread if you're worried about your groceries getting eaten. The bitching about the decision to go into Iraq doesn't fit very well....well, unless you believe it's a crony conspiracy.Braddock wrote:
Well I'll answer your question by bringing you back to my argument...how about if you didn't eat all my groceries in the first place there would be no need for you to buy them all again.
And wars are expensive for the taxpayer, not for the private contractor...it's a fucking party for the private contractor. They sell all the weaponry and equipment that kick-starts the battle and then clean up on the rebuilding and security contracts once all the damage has been done...seems like a win win scenario to me.
The point about the Neo-Cons not being the only ones to back the war is a fair one and I accept that, the Dems are just as culpable on that front...It's strange that no high profile companies with links to Democrat politicians have had their names dragged through the mud yet though, anyone know of any? Is it possible the Dems were just stupid enough to believe that the war was actually about liberty and democracy?
And it's really convenient to isomewhat dismiss the continued multiparty congressional support for the war from the beginning, as well as the international support as well.
And let's see...do you think the republican party is going to have a high-profile press cycle to prove the Dems are dirty as well? I'm sure we can pull the first vote to support the war and there's a different opinion now by many. War undermines itself...
If you want to debate the merits of the war (again) why not do it in another thread. God forbid we try to rebuild what we destroyed.
Fixed.Pug wrote:
Ok, so basically you guys are arguing that the country shouldn't have been invaded and it's wrong to rebuild? Oh, and the USDick Cheney is the only one profiting...yeah whatever.
The Blackwater guys have done some stupid things... and yes they are getting paid an awful lot of money... but who else is going to provide security detail in a warzone like Iraq was...? I'm not saying there are any easy answers and yes it pisses me off that the US is wasting money...
that's why i'm hoping our next President is into small govt and personal accountability... Our nation was built on people that took chances and created amazing industries and products... we need and i think we finally are... getting back to business....
that's why i'm hoping our next President is into small govt and personal accountability... Our nation was built on people that took chances and created amazing industries and products... we need and i think we finally are... getting back to business....
Love is the answer
Ok, I have faith though.
I don't like all the decisions, but I have faith.
I don't like all the decisions, but I have faith.
Just out of curiosity which companies handled the security contracts in Vietnam?[TUF]Catbox wrote:
The Blackwater guys have done some stupid things... and yes they are getting paid an awful lot of money... but who else is going to provide security detail in a warzone like Iraq was...? I'm not saying there are any easy answers and yes it pisses me off that the US is wasting money...
that's why i'm hoping our next President is into small govt and personal accountability... Our nation was built on people that took chances and created amazing industries and products... we need and i think we finally are... getting back to business....
The US military?Braddock wrote:
Just out of curiosity which companies handled the security contracts in Vietnam?[TUF]Catbox wrote:
The Blackwater guys have done some stupid things... and yes they are getting paid an awful lot of money... but who else is going to provide security detail in a warzone like Iraq was...? I'm not saying there are any easy answers and yes it pisses me off that the US is wasting money...
that's why i'm hoping our next President is into small govt and personal accountability... Our nation was built on people that took chances and created amazing industries and products... we need and i think we finally are... getting back to business....
That's what I had always thought, what happened along the way since then that made private companies became an important part of war?sergeriver wrote:
The US military?Braddock wrote:
Just out of curiosity which companies handled the security contracts in Vietnam?[TUF]Catbox wrote:
The Blackwater guys have done some stupid things... and yes they are getting paid an awful lot of money... but who else is going to provide security detail in a warzone like Iraq was...? I'm not saying there are any easy answers and yes it pisses me off that the US is wasting money...
that's why i'm hoping our next President is into small govt and personal accountability... Our nation was built on people that took chances and created amazing industries and products... we need and i think we finally are... getting back to business....
Last edited by Braddock (2008-08-13 11:11:35)
The problem with comparing the 2 is this, the US military in Vietnam was alot bigger and had a larger manpower pool (the draft)Braddock wrote:
That's why I had always thought, what happened along the way since then that made private companies became an important part of war?sergeriver wrote:
The US military?Braddock wrote:
Just out of curiosity which companies handled the security contracts in Vietnam?
So war is no longer about one country against another it is also about business opportunities and profit. That's pretty sick.SgtHeihn wrote:
The problem with comparing the 2 is this, the US military in Vietnam was alot bigger and had a larger manpower pool (the draft)Braddock wrote:
That's why I had always thought, what happened along the way since then that made private companies became an important part of war?sergeriver wrote:
The US military?
I see it more of companies operating in hostile countries, like construction companies, like oil companies and so on cannot rely on draggin enlisted personnel out of combat and patrol to protect their factilities or escort their workers. At the end of the day you will need security, if you can't get hold of the real military you turn to the next thing that is packing assault rifles and armoured vehicles, which is the private companies.Braddock wrote:
So war is no longer about one country against another it is also about business opportunities and profit. That's pretty sick.SgtHeihn wrote:
The problem with comparing the 2 is this, the US military in Vietnam was alot bigger and had a larger manpower pool (the draft)Braddock wrote:
That's why I had always thought, what happened along the way since then that made private companies became an important part of war?