Bush and his Faith

[tu_holmes]

1.  Private companies are working in Iraq.  It's not the government. 

2.  Neither one of us has seen any contracts, so how can you say "we're contractually there for a very long time"?

3.  Because neither one of us has seen any contracts, debating the substance of those contracts is pointless.

4.  There is no evidence whatsoever that Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq so a handful of private U.S. companies could make some money. 

So, when I say there is no proof, there really isn't.  There is conjecture. 

1. Actually, it's both... there are soldiers and private companies doing the same job... Private people just get paid an ASSLOAD more.

2. True, we haven't, but we do know there are contracts, private firms like Haliburton would be there if they weren't getting paid, and no one gets paid without a contract... 1+1 does still equal 2.

3. See above item marked "2". We could debate them, but the fact is, we don't know how they're laid out, but we do know that no private company would be there if they weren't getting paid... which relates directly to previous point.

4. Maybe not, but isn't his dad on the board of a large firm that just so happens to be in Iraq? I just remember the Michael Moore movie mentioning it.

Conjecture, yes, but probable conjecture... When you have eliminated the "impossible" that which is "improbable" no matter how unlikely, must be the truth.

[240 is Back]

"1.  Private companies are working in Iraq.  It's not the government.  "
Our firms bring that oil to the US.   And our 180k men (once the 2007 surge kicks in) are also working in iraq, you know that.

"2.  Neither one of us has seen any contracts, so how can you say "we're contractually there for a very long time"?
Gates and Bush and Snow said so.  Said it'll be decades.  Do you think we're going to build our bases along a pipeline they'll sell to the chinese?  Do you think haliburton will build the whole thing, then turn it over? C'mon.

"3.  Because neither one of us has seen any contracts, debating the substance of those contracts is pointless."
Standard thing.  Do ya think haliburton will sell that oil to China in 2009 if China offers more $? No.

"4.  There is no evidence whatsoever that Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq so a handful of private U.S. companies could make some money.  "
No, it was about long term US securement of oil for NATIONAL goals.  i've said this ten times tonight.  The coprs getting paid is a fun byproduct for bush buddies.  the bigger goal is that we own the large oil reserves, silly.  not china, not russia.


BB, this is where you and Bruce get so mad, but IMO you just don't understand, or you'rejust being naive.  

Do you really think Bush, US, and haliburton are going to rebuild the infrastructure (pipeline, bases, etc), then just leave?  Every other time we've rebuilt, we've stayed.  It's what we do, and it allows us to ensure no one crosses the border and no one makes deals.  

Forget it, we shuldn't discuss this.  i have my beliefs - profit and preeservation.  you have yours - honor and freedom.  While yours looks great on tv and makes good slogans, mine is the reality behind the great things we volunteer to do.  

No harm,w e just have diff perspectives.

[Dos Equis]

1. Actually, it's both... there are soldiers and private companies doing the same job... Private people just get paid an ASSLOAD more.

2. True, we haven't, but we do know there are contracts, private firms like Haliburton would be there if they weren't getting paid, and no one gets paid without a contract... 1+1 does still equal 2.

3. See above item marked "2". We could debate them, but the fact is, we don't know how they're laid out, but we do know that no private company would be there if they weren't getting paid... which relates directly to previous point.

4. Maybe not, but isn't his dad on the board of a large firm that just so happens to be in Iraq? I just remember the Michael Moore movie mentioning it.

Conjecture, yes, but probable conjecture... When you have eliminated the "impossible" that which is "improbable" no matter how unlikely, must be the truth.

1.  Soldiers doing any work related to oil are actually costing us money, so in terms of profit, it is not the government involved in oil.  

2.  The issue isn't whether they're getting paid.  Of course they are.  What we don't know is who the parties to the contract are, whether the contract can be terminated at will or is for a specific length of time, which forum a breach of contract claim would be decided in (i.e., the U.S. or Iraq--most likely Iraq), and even the subject matter of the contract.  You need that information before you can reasonably conclude that we started a war to obtain this "secret" contract.

3.  See point 2.  

4.  Michael Moore??  C'mon.    But let's assume Bush Sr. is on the board of directors of a private company that is in Iraq.  So what.  You might be thinking about Cheney and his involvement with Halliburton?    

I don't follow your last line.  

[tu_holmes]

1.  Soldiers doing any work related to oil are actually costing us money, so in terms of profit, it is not the government involved in oil. 

2.  The issue isn't whether they're getting paid.  Of course they are.  What we don't know is who the parties to the contract are, whether the contract can be terminated at will or is for a specific length of time, which forum a breach of contract claim would be decided in (i.e., the U.S. or Iraq--most likely Iraq), and even the subject matter of the contract.  You need that information before you can reasonably conclude that we started a war to obtain this "secret" contract.

3.  See point 2.   

4.  Michael Moore??  C'mon.     But let's assume Bush Sr. is on the board of directors of a private company that is in Iraq.  So what.  You might be thinking about Cheney and his involvement with Halliburton?   

I don't follow your last line. 

It's ok... the point really is moot... We won't be out of there for a very long time, no matter which side of the fence you're on... I do still think the whole thing is fucked up and wrong.

[Dos Equis]

BB, this is where you and Bruce get so mad, but IMO you just don't understand, or you'rejust being naive.  

Didn't you learn anything from Bruce's posts which quoted your posts?    

Listen.  It is okay to disagree.  There is nothing wrong with having a different opinion.  A person isn't dumb or naive simply because they disagree with you.  You need to learn that lesson.  

But then again, you believe most Americans are stupid.  

January 31, 2007, 08:20:01 AM » Quote  

"In terms of understanding politics, history, and economics, most americans are stupid."

[Dos Equis]

It's ok... the point really is moot... We won't be out of there for a very long time, no matter which side of the fence you're on... I do still think the whole thing is fucked up and wrong.

Perhaps. 

But the contract thing really makes no sense.  Contracts are broken all the time.  If the contract is with the Iraqi government they could breach tell Halliburton to scram.  And good luck getting and collecting on a judgment in an Iraqi court against the Iraqi government.  It's really absurd.   

[240 is Back]

Perhaps. 

But the contract thing really makes no sense.  Contracts are broken all the time.  If the contract is with the Iraqi government they could breach tell Halliburton to scram.  And good luck getting and collecting on a judgment in an Iraqi court against the Iraqi government.  It's really absurd.   

Dude, you're completely unaware of Bush1's affil with Carlyle group?  Come on!
And your belief that the US military would let Iraq just DROP haliburton and others?  LOL!  We started a war with afghanistan over taleban burning us, from halfway around the world.  You SERIOUSLY think we'd sit idly as they brought in a chinese oil co. to finish what haliburton started?  OMG I seriously would love to see you debate these points in public, I would pay to see it.  Telling a group that you believe a project costing the US govt 400b so far and 1.2T projected as of today, could be railroaded on a whim by al-Maliki, LOL>.. there are control in place my friend, it will not happen.  But hey, if that's the level of belief you choose to exhibit, run with it.  We could use a laugh!

[gtbro1]

majority of Americans want out.
majority of congress want out.
iraqis want us out.
saddam is dead.
they held elections - democracy is alive.
they've had 2 years to train police.

why are we still there again, planning  a 48k men increased in 2007 and 92k over the following 5 years?

"strategery"

[Dos Equis]

Dude, you're completely unaware of Bush1's affil with Carlyle group?  Come on!
And your belief that the US military would let Iraq just DROP haliburton and others?  LOL!  We started a war with afghanistan over taleban burning us, from halfway around the world.  You SERIOUSLY think we'd sit idly as they brought in a chinese oil co. to finish what haliburton started?  OMG I seriously would love to see you debate these points in public, I would pay to see it.  Telling a group that you believe a project costing the US govt 400b so far and 1.2T projected as of today, could be railroaded on a whim by al-Maliki, LOL>.. there are control in place my friend, it will not happen.  But hey, if that's the level of belief you choose to exhibit, run with it.  We could use a laugh!

I see.  Let's follow this absurd notion to its logical conclusion.  Why don't you explain how President Hillary, Obama, McCain, etc., as Commander in Chief will order the United States Army to force the Iraqi government to honor a "secret" contract with a private company. 

Hillary as Commander in Chief.  *shudder*

[ToxicAvenger]

What? Do you actually believe that?

Iran, led by their crazed dictator, is threatening to wipe Israel off the map.  In case you forgot, they're an ally of ours.

at BESt israel is a liability..

why oh why do you give a rats ass about israel?  ally? lol..you mean a liability..because of who WE become targets..iran and israel wanna wipe eachother out..well hell plenty of countries in africa do that ..we dont seem to care..we r thousands of miles away..let em.

its a little country someplace in the middle east..why do we care soo much about what happens to israel..

North Korea just went atomic. 

and we aren't gonna do shit..you dont attack countries that actually HAVE WMDs 

[Dos Equis]

why oh why do you give a rats ass about israel?  ally? lol..you mean a liability..because of who WE become targets..iran and israel wanna wipe eachother out..well hell plenty of countries in africa do that ..we dont seem to care..we r thousands of miles away..let em.

its a little country someplace in the middle east..why do we care soo much about what happens to israel..

and we aren't gonna do shit..you dont attack countries that actually HAVE WMDs 

We did in 1990.   

[240 is Back]

I see.  Let's follow this absurd notion to its logical conclusion.  Why don't you explain how President Hillary, Obama, McCain, etc., as Commander in Chief will order the United States Army to force the Iraqi government to honor a "secret" contract with a private company. 

Hillary as Commander in Chief.  *shudder*

cause these actions take place above the presidency level.  Observe the food chain:


Decision makers at defense firms
Generals and joint chiefs
President

then down the list that is in your history books.

You don't have to believe this.  But it sure does line up with what we're seeing in Iraq, eh?

[gtbro1]

Fuck Iraq. Let's bomb Mexico.

[240 is Back]

f**k Iraq. Let's bomb Mexico.

we'd save money on shipping costs.  Plus we already have what some would call the refugee crisis.  I'm down!

[OzmO]

f**k Iraq. Let's bomb Mexico.

Just don't bomb any of the "all enclusive" resorts

[240 is Back]

Just don't bomb any of the "all enclusive" resorts

we will put our military bases there.

[Dos Equis]

Just don't bomb any of the "all enclusive" resorts

Screw the resorts.  Preserve the restaurants.   

[Camel Jockey]

Hahaha

Bruce, you don't honestly think we're building bases there to protect the Iraqi people do you? 

[BRUCE]

Hahaha

Bruce, you don't honestly think we're building bases there to protect the Iraqi people do you? 

Notice I said the word 'wealth' in that comment.  You'll no doubt be able to point out another group or nation that is doing more for the protection of the Iraqi people than the US, though.

[240 is Back]

Notice I said the word 'wealth' in that comment.  You'll no doubt be able to point out another group or nation that is doing more for the protection of the Iraqi people than the US, though.

LOL!

Will you admit we're installing oil pipeline managed by US firms in iraq?

[gtbro1]

Notice I said the word 'wealth' in that comment.  You'll no doubt be able to point out another group or nation that is doing more for the protection of the Iraqi people than the US, though.

  That's cause we don't care about the "people" in Iraq.I know what I said about being there for Bush's ego....but I will admit that the more I read the more I agree with 240 on this subject.(why we are there) But come on now...we can't exactly come out and say that is the reason.I just don't see how anyone honestly thinks we care enough about "THE IRAQI PEOPLE" to justify this war.I know I don't....sorry.

[240 is Back]

 That's cause we don't care about the "people" in Iraq.I know what I said about being there for Bush's ego....but I will admit that the more I read the more I agree with 240 on this subject.(why we are there) But come on now...we can't exactly come out and say that is the reason.I just don't see how anyone honestly thinks we care enough about "THE IRAQI PEOPLE" to justify this war.I know I don't....sorry.

We flew over Darfur, Sudan - a FAR WORSE humanitarian crisis, on the way to Iraq.
it would have been a pushover to stop the slaughter there.
We would have saved many more lives, without losing 3000.

At the time, people asked "If you want a humanitarian cause, why not take on this more easily solveable, less dangerous one that's closer to home?"

[240 is Back]

Once we say it's the reason, the UN will ask us to leave.  Period.

As long as we can obfuscate the issue and confuse the world with 1) WMD 2) Sadaam is mean 3) democracy 4) save lives...

Even smart Americans here don't know we're actually there for 5) Oil to go into the brand new afghan pipeline, right next door

by the time the rest of the world knows, we'll have it, and they can't do anything.

[tu_holmes]

why oh why do you give a rats ass about israel?  ally? lol..you mean a liability..because of who WE become targets..iran and israel wanna wipe eachother out..well hell plenty of countries in africa do that ..we dont seem to care..we r thousands of miles away..let em.

its a little country someplace in the middle east..why do we care soo much about what happens to israel..






 

and we aren't gonna do shit..you dont attack countries that actually HAVE WMDs 

I'm with you on this one... I don't give a shit about anyone of them... let them blow each other the fuck up... who cares?

As far as WMDs... We don't attack anyone who an really cause us damage... we don't want THAT kinda fucked up'ed ness.