NapoleonGH wrote:Yes seaskimmer the most well funded military in the world is underfunded...yea we've heard that message from you before, but you forget this WOULDNT have happened under a Gore administration becuase a Gore administration would never have gone to war in iraq for absolutely no reason other than wanting another country to blow up for shits and giggles.
No, Gore would have kept the US military underfunded for its force structure just like his predecessor while keeping the operational tempo up.
More and more Democratic Candidate Dean's comments in a newsweek article seem more and more true "George Bush doesnt give a damn about the american people" Including our military as well as our civilians. He cares about halliburton's and other major buisness' stock's going up. Figures.
Fine then, since you enjoy harping about Halliburton so much: name an alternative company to do the massive oil contracts.
Grand Admiral Thrawn wrote:Could the US take out China's ICBMs?
A counterforce strike would be risky ... in a wartime scenario they'd probably be on alert, fueled and ready to launch. In a suprise attack from peacetime we probably could do it.
Once NMD is up to 100 interceptors or so we could ward off a Chinese attack (assuming their ICBM force remains a constant size) without difficulty counterforce or no counterforce.
Stormbringer wrote:It doesn't suprise me. It's becoming clearer and clearer that the Bush Administration for all the time it spent harping on Iraq did pathetically little planning for the actual invasion.
I doubt the Gore Administration would have been any better, if Gore was President.
That doesn't matter. Bush is president now and it's his job to do it right. He clearly hasn't.
There are several reasons that the United States military outsources work to private contractors, the two most important being:
(A) the preference by Republican officials – and several Democratic leaders – for replacing mainstream beauracracy with private-sector industries deemed “more efficient”;
(B) the high degree of technical expertise and professional education said personnel possess already possess even before they are engaged.
Our military technology is achieving unheard-of technical complexity. Although there are now increasingly vocal movements with the objective of “bringing it all back under one roof,” so to speak, private contractors remain the most economical choice.
Fine then, since you enjoy harping about Halliburton so much: name an alternative company to do the massive oil contracts.
I've tried. You will not get an answer, ever.
BoTM / JL / MM / HAB / VRWC / Horseman
I'm studying for the CPA exam. Have a nice summer, and if you're down just sit back and realize that Joe is off somewhere, doing much worse than you are.
Fine then, since you enjoy harping about Halliburton so much: name an alternative company to do the massive oil contracts.
I've tried. You will not get an answer, ever.
I admit that it seemed somewhat fishy considering VP Cheney's links to Halliburton. But from the (very) cursory research I did, Halliburton actually seems like they know their stuff and are one of the few (and perhaps the only American) company capable of taking on such a huge contract.
Fine then, since you enjoy harping about Halliburton so much: name an alternative company to do the massive oil contracts.
I've tried. You will not get an answer, ever.
I admit that it seemed somewhat fishy considering VP Cheney's links to Halliburton. But from the (very) cursory research I did, Halliburton actually seems like they know their stuff and are one of the few (and perhaps the only American) company capable of taking on such a huge contract.
Cheney was required to sell off his shares of Halliburton, actually (conflict of interest). That doesn't mean that there's no connection, but it is a fact that is often glossed over.
BoTM / JL / MM / HAB / VRWC / Horseman
I'm studying for the CPA exam. Have a nice summer, and if you're down just sit back and realize that Joe is off somewhere, doing much worse than you are.
Durran Korr wrote:
Cheney was required to sell off his shares of Halliburton, actually (conflict of interest). That doesn't mean that there's no connection, but it is a fact that is often glossed over.
He does receive a fixed pension from the company though and many people try to make a fuss about that. Course I've yet to see a shred of proof that the White House had anything to do with the contract, it would seem the Army Corps of Engineers made the decision.
"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956
Durran Korr wrote:Cheney was required to sell off his shares of Halliburton, actually (conflict of interest). That doesn't mean that there's no connection, but it is a fact that is often glossed over.
Yep. For that matter, don't the investment accounts for high-ranking politicians get put into a neutral third party for the duration of their term to minimize any possible conflict of interest?
Durran Korr wrote:Cheney was required to sell off his shares of Halliburton, actually (conflict of interest). That doesn't mean that there's no connection, but it is a fact that is often glossed over.
Yep. For that matter, don't the investment accounts for high-ranking politicians get put into a neutral third party for the duration of their term to minimize any possible conflict of interest?
I should think so, or something else like that.
BoTM / JL / MM / HAB / VRWC / Horseman
I'm studying for the CPA exam. Have a nice summer, and if you're down just sit back and realize that Joe is off somewhere, doing much worse than you are.
MKSheppard wrote:Hackworth is just as bloated and full of shit as that Anti-Stryker guy
Except that unlike the Gavin guy, he's a decorated Vietnam combat veteran. I tend to read him, even if I don't agree with him all the time. The Gavin guy doesn't have his record, so I trust him less, but even he sometimes has an ok idea- though it's much like a broken clock being right twice a day.
Fine then, since you enjoy harping about Halliburton so much: name an alternative company to do the massive oil contracts.
I've tried. You will not get an answer, ever.
I admit that it seemed somewhat fishy considering VP Cheney's links to Halliburton. But from the (very) cursory research I did, Halliburton actually seems like they know their stuff and are one of the few (and perhaps the only American) company capable of taking on such a huge contract.
The US Army Corps of Engineers isn't very happy with Halliburton apparently. They've invited competitors to bid for Halliburtons contract, which means Halliburton isn't the only company qualified to do the job.
Obviously they aren't the only company capable of doing this - at no time did I mean to imply that - but they seemed like one of the most competent at it. If the ACE isn't satisfied with their performance, then by all means see if someone else can.
But harping on Halliburton all the frickin' time gets old quick.
Vympel wrote:
Except that unlike the Gavin guy, he's a decorated Vietnam combat veteran.
So? I could point you to a bunch of screwballs who are decorated vets...Hack
is a screaming ninny like Mr. Gavin loser.
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong
"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
don't have illusions, the oil contract was the only reason to invade the IRAQ.
Saddam had never contact to any fundamentalistic terrorists, because his country was secular.. in fact, the fundamentalists hated him. The UNO-inspectors did a very good job (have the american forces found any weapons of mass destruction? There was nothing in the news), he was no danger for everybody, instead he gave the region some fragile stability.. now there is the beginning of total chaos.
So, it is not the question 'is there anyone better suited then this or that corp' it is the question should someone OUTSIDE the Iraq allowed to exploit the oilfields there?
Someone who invaded the country with falsified evidence?
Even if there would be no connection between Bush and the oil industry, it would not be wise to install a contract.
This hurts the feelings and the pride of the people.. and contracts that violated the pride and feelings of nations were allways the cause of exaggerated violence.
For the 'War againt Terror' it is wrong, because it is the fuel nationalistic and fundamentalistic terrorists need to recrute new followers.
Taliban were USA's best friends until a deal about a oil-Pipeline burst. Saddam was USA's best friend, until he invaded a country where some friends of some politicians had invested their money. The same friends that try to exploit the Iraq now.
A lot of Iraqi people (and I think most people outside of the USA) know this.. and fear a new wave of terrorism amd violence, started with a bad reasoned war, fueld by 'enemy exploitation'.
If you want to stop terrorism, you have to ask the people, what they need, what they think, what they want. If the common people are satisfied and don't feel oppressed or exploited, terrorism will die away.
Glück Auf
Volker
If you don't care about computer security, I don't care about your life.
I said it to see what the respond would be and to head off any Gore supporters here (not me).
