darthtang aw
Active Member
And who are his "friends" that are getting rich off the war everyone keeps talking about.
Ok, political thought..only read if interested
- Thread starter darthtang aw
- Start date
am00re34
Member
this oil debate is mute... the people who are thinking bush or whoever is getting rich off this war are uninformed. You think because the price of gas has gone up $2 in the last 5 years there must be something going on.
if you look at gas prices in the 70's and increase them by inflation for the last 40 years we are still about $2 a gallon short. Also, as previously mentioned a good portion of gas prices are taxes assessed by our government. I just got back from europe and thier gas prices are the equivelant to $4-5 american dollars per LITER!!! now do we really have it so bad?
Oil is supply and demand, if you dont like the prices stop using it. my guess is you can't because you have a car that needs it and you have moved far enough away from your job that you can't walk/bike etc. who's fault is that? we are spoiled rotten in the US and just dont realize it. If you traveled to almost any other country in the entire world you would see that.
I personally feel no matter if you agree with the war or not we need to support the troops that are in it. yes we are approaching the 3,000 death toll mark in 4-5 years. More people have died from hunger, car accidents, cancer, murder in those 5 years but yet we aren't screaming about those things. The media never shows the good side of things because that doesnt get people to watch. we are doing great things over in the middle east and i feel we are the first country to have enough balls to stand up and say we aren't going to back down to these terriost cowards, I wish more countries would follow.
Personally i think if we are going to be in a war we need to fully 100% commit! send over 100k extra troops and lock that place down. No one moves w/o us saying so.
if you look at gas prices in the 70's and increase them by inflation for the last 40 years we are still about $2 a gallon short. Also, as previously mentioned a good portion of gas prices are taxes assessed by our government. I just got back from europe and thier gas prices are the equivelant to $4-5 american dollars per LITER!!! now do we really have it so bad?
Oil is supply and demand, if you dont like the prices stop using it. my guess is you can't because you have a car that needs it and you have moved far enough away from your job that you can't walk/bike etc. who's fault is that? we are spoiled rotten in the US and just dont realize it. If you traveled to almost any other country in the entire world you would see that.
I personally feel no matter if you agree with the war or not we need to support the troops that are in it. yes we are approaching the 3,000 death toll mark in 4-5 years. More people have died from hunger, car accidents, cancer, murder in those 5 years but yet we aren't screaming about those things. The media never shows the good side of things because that doesnt get people to watch. we are doing great things over in the middle east and i feel we are the first country to have enough balls to stand up and say we aren't going to back down to these terriost cowards, I wish more countries would follow.
Personally i think if we are going to be in a war we need to fully 100% commit! send over 100k extra troops and lock that place down. No one moves w/o us saying so.
reefreak29
Active Member
Am00re34 said:
darthtang aw
Active Member
Originally Posted by reefreak29
i might have went off on bush but it seems rediculus to me that oil has to be as much as it is if we got it ourselves in the usa it would be much cheaper and we wouldnt be makeing other countrys rich. its a no brainer to me. the gas prices have gone up so everything else has too. its becomeing increasingly difficult to survive anymore. just 4 years ago me and my wife were saveing 1000 dollars a month now were living paycheck to paycheck with 6 percent increases every year in are pay ? i dont get it
Actually we export most of the oil pumped In this country over seas. We truly don't need to rely on mideast oil anymore.
i might have went off on bush but it seems rediculus to me that oil has to be as much as it is if we got it ourselves in the usa it would be much cheaper and we wouldnt be makeing other countrys rich. its a no brainer to me. the gas prices have gone up so everything else has too. its becomeing increasingly difficult to survive anymore. just 4 years ago me and my wife were saveing 1000 dollars a month now were living paycheck to paycheck with 6 percent increases every year in are pay ? i dont get it
Actually we export most of the oil pumped In this country over seas. We truly don't need to rely on mideast oil anymore.
1journeyman
Active Member
Originally Posted by windmill
Bush's buddy and vice president Cheney who used to be the CEO of Halliburton still has friends there.
I'd like to see an argument saying they don't make money off this war.
How does that make them money?
Bush's buddy and vice president Cheney who used to be the CEO of Halliburton still has friends there.
I'd like to see an argument saying they don't make money off this war.
How does that make them money?
darthtang aw
Active Member
Originally Posted by windmill
Bush's buddy and vice president Cheney who used to be the CEO of Halliburton still has friends there.
I'd like to see an argument saying they don't make money off this war.
Employees of Haliburton have a set pay scale including the CEO. So no matter if Haliburton makes more money due to the contracts they received no other company could do, Their "Buddies" aren't getting a higher salary"...so try again.
Bush's buddy and vice president Cheney who used to be the CEO of Halliburton still has friends there.
I'd like to see an argument saying they don't make money off this war.
Employees of Haliburton have a set pay scale including the CEO. So no matter if Haliburton makes more money due to the contracts they received no other company could do, Their "Buddies" aren't getting a higher salary"...so try again.
reefreak29
Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
Actually we export most of the oil pumped In this country over seas. We truly don't need to rely on mideast oil anymore.
why would we do that. isnt that oil we could use, sounds stupid
Actually we export most of the oil pumped In this country over seas. We truly don't need to rely on mideast oil anymore.
why would we do that. isnt that oil we could use, sounds stupid
darthtang aw
Active Member
Originally Posted by reefreak29
why would we do that. isnt that oil we could use, sounds stupid
Because oil in itself isn't plentiful in Europe and some of asia...So we sell it to them at higher cost (more than what the would get here). Capitalism baby!!!!
why would we do that. isnt that oil we could use, sounds stupid
Because oil in itself isn't plentiful in Europe and some of asia...So we sell it to them at higher cost (more than what the would get here). Capitalism baby!!!!
reefreak29
Active Member
that just doesnt make sense we sell are oil and buy from other countries . coo coo
1journeyman
Active Member
Originally Posted by reefreak29
that just doesnt make sense we sell are oil and buy from other countries . coo coo
Oil is a global commodity.
that just doesnt make sense we sell are oil and buy from other countries . coo coo
Oil is a global commodity.
reefreak29
Active Member
wouldnt gas be cheaper if we just used all are own oil and opened up more refineries
darthtang aw
Active Member
Originally Posted by reefreak29
wouldnt gas be cheaper if we just used all are own oil and opened up more refineries
Yes, the main problem is refineries. We used to have over 300...now we have just under 150. The problem is getting the democratic left to approve the building of more refineries....
wouldnt gas be cheaper if we just used all are own oil and opened up more refineries
Yes, the main problem is refineries. We used to have over 300...now we have just under 150. The problem is getting the democratic left to approve the building of more refineries....
reefreak29
Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
Yes, the main problem is refineries. We used to have over 300...now we have just under 150. The problem is getting the democratic left to approve the building of more refineries....
we havnt built a new refinary since 1970s , whats the problem they see that we need more. im sick of all this global warming crap its gonna ruin this economy
Yes, the main problem is refineries. We used to have over 300...now we have just under 150. The problem is getting the democratic left to approve the building of more refineries....
we havnt built a new refinary since 1970s , whats the problem they see that we need more. im sick of all this global warming crap its gonna ruin this economy
aandwrobert
Member
Originally Posted by reefreak29
we havnt built a new refinary since 1970s , whats the problem they see that we need more. im sick of all this global warming crap its gonna ruin this economy
odd I figured a solar power plant or a hydo dam would work but you never know maybe after the german or the dutch stop useing oil we will try to at lest
Finally finished reading the rise of the taliban in afganistian anyone who doesnt know the captial of afganistian of the top of their head should read it
it really clears up the invadtion of the USSR to who that were not alive yet
again remember I'm a bad speller
we havnt built a new refinary since 1970s , whats the problem they see that we need more. im sick of all this global warming crap its gonna ruin this economy
odd I figured a solar power plant or a hydo dam would work but you never know maybe after the german or the dutch stop useing oil we will try to at lest
Finally finished reading the rise of the taliban in afganistian anyone who doesnt know the captial of afganistian of the top of their head should read it
it really clears up the invadtion of the USSR to who that were not alive yet
again remember I'm a bad speller
jmick
Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
Employees of Haliburton have a set pay scale including the CEO. So no matter if Haliburton makes more money due to the contracts they received no other company could do, Their "Buddies" aren't getting a higher salary"...so try again.
Come on, we know that the average employee isn't getting rich but the people who own large shares of stocks are...wonder who they are???
Employees of Haliburton have a set pay scale including the CEO. So no matter if Haliburton makes more money due to the contracts they received no other company could do, Their "Buddies" aren't getting a higher salary"...so try again.
Come on, we know that the average employee isn't getting rich but the people who own large shares of stocks are...wonder who they are???
jmick
Active Member
here is some interesting info about the 2 largest war contracts:
Haliburton:
On March 25, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers awarded Halliburton Co. subsidiary Kellogg, Brown & Root the main contract to fight oil well fires and reconstruct oil fields in Iraq. The open-ended contract, which has no specified time or dollar limit, was given to the company without a bidding process. But Halliburton's ties to Washington have made it a target of criticism in the latest bidding process. Vice President ---- Cheney headed the company for five years before becoming George W. Bush's runningmate in 2000. Lawrence Eagleburger, former U.S. secretary of state under President George H. W. Bush, sits on the company's board. The Contributions: $708,770 (95 percent to Republicans).
Bechtel Group:
USAID awarded the largest of its postwar Iraq contracts to Bechtel Group Inc. April 17. The capital construction contract gives Bechtel an initial award of $34.6 million, but provides for funding of up to $680 million over 18 months subject to Congress’ approval. Bechtel’s primary activities under the contract will include rebuilding power generation facilities, electrical grids, water and sewage systems and airport facilities in Iraq. The privately owned firm, which had revenues of $13.3 billion last year, has made a number of friends in Washington over the years. Former Secretary of State George Shultz, once Bechtel’s president, now serves on the company’s board of directors.
Haliburton:
On March 25, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers awarded Halliburton Co. subsidiary Kellogg, Brown & Root the main contract to fight oil well fires and reconstruct oil fields in Iraq. The open-ended contract, which has no specified time or dollar limit, was given to the company without a bidding process. But Halliburton's ties to Washington have made it a target of criticism in the latest bidding process. Vice President ---- Cheney headed the company for five years before becoming George W. Bush's runningmate in 2000. Lawrence Eagleburger, former U.S. secretary of state under President George H. W. Bush, sits on the company's board. The Contributions: $708,770 (95 percent to Republicans).
Bechtel Group:
USAID awarded the largest of its postwar Iraq contracts to Bechtel Group Inc. April 17. The capital construction contract gives Bechtel an initial award of $34.6 million, but provides for funding of up to $680 million over 18 months subject to Congress’ approval. Bechtel’s primary activities under the contract will include rebuilding power generation facilities, electrical grids, water and sewage systems and airport facilities in Iraq. The privately owned firm, which had revenues of $13.3 billion last year, has made a number of friends in Washington over the years. Former Secretary of State George Shultz, once Bechtel’s president, now serves on the company’s board of directors.
seasalt101
Active Member
just so you know when you work for halliburton as i have, you have a stock option plan you can choose to participate or not, if he did, and i can't see why he would not that is his business, not ours, he was not just handed the job he earned it, would you want the ceo of enron up there and i know he is dead so you all want the local manager of mc donalds up there i guess as the v.p. you guys are so naive i guess we will put any failure in life to be 2nd in command of the worlds most powerful country we don't want a successful business man up there give me a break...tobin
jmick
Active Member
this is from the New Yorker:
In the spring of 2000, Cheney’s two worlds—commerce and politics— merged. Halliburton allowed its C.E.O. to serve simultaneously as the head of George W. Bush’s Vice-Presidential search committee. At the time, Bush said that his main criterion for a running mate was “somebody who’s not going to hurt you.” Cheney demanded reams of documents from the candidates he considered. In the end, he picked himself—a move that his longtime friend Stuart Spencer recently described, with admiration, as “the most Machiavellian
[hr]
thing I’ve ever seen.”
One man who was especially pleased by Cheney’s candidacy was Ahmed Chalabi, the Iraqi dissident who was the leading proponent of overthrowing Saddam Hussein. Cheney had come to know Chalabi through conservative circles in Washington. “I think he is good for us,” Chalabi told a U.P.I. reporter in June, 2000.
For months there has been a debate in Washington about when the Bush Administration decided to go to war against Saddam. In Ron Suskind’s recent book “The Price of Loyalty,” former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill charges that Cheney agitated for U.S. intervention well before the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Additional evidence that Cheney played an early planning role is contained in a previously undisclosed National Security Council document, dated February 3, 2001. The top-secret document, written by a high-level N.S.C. official, concerned Cheney’s newly formed Energy Task Force. It directed the N.S.C. staff to coöperate fully with the Energy Task Force as it considered the “melding” of two seemingly unrelated areas of policy: “the review of operational policies towards rogue states,” such as Iraq, and “actions regarding the capture of new and existing oil and gas fields.”
A source who worked at the N.S.C. at the time doubted that there were links between Cheney’s Energy Task Force and the overthrow of Saddam. But Mark Medish, who served as senior director for Russian, Ukrainian, and Eurasian affairs at the N.S.C. during the Clinton Administration, told me that he regards the document as potentially “huge.” He said, “People think Cheney’s Energy Task Force has been secretive about domestic issues,” referring to the fact that the Vice-President has been unwilling to reveal information about private task-force meetings that took place in 2001, when information was being gathered to help develop President Bush’s energy policy. “But if this little group was discussing geostrategic plans for oil, it puts the issue of war in the context of the captains of the oil industry sitting down with Cheney and laying grand, global plans.”
The Bush Administration’s war on terror has became a source of substantial profit for Halliburton. The company’s commercial ties to terrorist states did not prevent it from assuming a prominent role. The Navy, for instance, paid Halliburton thirty-seven million dollars to build prison camps in Cuba’s Guantánamo Bay for suspected terrorists. The State Department gave the company a hundred-million-dollar contract to construct a new embassy in Kabul. And in December, 2001, a few years after having lost its omnibus military-support contract to a lower bidder, Halliburton won it back; before long, the company was supporting U.S. troops in Afghanistan, Kuwait, Jordan, Uzbekistan, Djibouti, the Republic of Georgia, and Iraq. Halliburton’s 2002 annual report describes counterterrorism as offering “growth opportunities.”
The Department of Defense’s decision to award Halliburton the seven-billion-dollar contract to restore Iraq’s oil industry was made under “emergency” conditions. The company was secretly hired to draw up plans for how it would deal with putting out oil-well fires, should they occur during the war. This planning began in the fall of 2002, around the time that Congress was debating whether to grant President Bush the authority to use force, and before the United Nations had fully debated the issue. In early March, 2003, the Army quietly awarded Halliburton a contract to execute those plans.
In the spring of 2000, Cheney’s two worlds—commerce and politics— merged. Halliburton allowed its C.E.O. to serve simultaneously as the head of George W. Bush’s Vice-Presidential search committee. At the time, Bush said that his main criterion for a running mate was “somebody who’s not going to hurt you.” Cheney demanded reams of documents from the candidates he considered. In the end, he picked himself—a move that his longtime friend Stuart Spencer recently described, with admiration, as “the most Machiavellian
[hr]
thing I’ve ever seen.”
One man who was especially pleased by Cheney’s candidacy was Ahmed Chalabi, the Iraqi dissident who was the leading proponent of overthrowing Saddam Hussein. Cheney had come to know Chalabi through conservative circles in Washington. “I think he is good for us,” Chalabi told a U.P.I. reporter in June, 2000.
For months there has been a debate in Washington about when the Bush Administration decided to go to war against Saddam. In Ron Suskind’s recent book “The Price of Loyalty,” former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill charges that Cheney agitated for U.S. intervention well before the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Additional evidence that Cheney played an early planning role is contained in a previously undisclosed National Security Council document, dated February 3, 2001. The top-secret document, written by a high-level N.S.C. official, concerned Cheney’s newly formed Energy Task Force. It directed the N.S.C. staff to coöperate fully with the Energy Task Force as it considered the “melding” of two seemingly unrelated areas of policy: “the review of operational policies towards rogue states,” such as Iraq, and “actions regarding the capture of new and existing oil and gas fields.”
A source who worked at the N.S.C. at the time doubted that there were links between Cheney’s Energy Task Force and the overthrow of Saddam. But Mark Medish, who served as senior director for Russian, Ukrainian, and Eurasian affairs at the N.S.C. during the Clinton Administration, told me that he regards the document as potentially “huge.” He said, “People think Cheney’s Energy Task Force has been secretive about domestic issues,” referring to the fact that the Vice-President has been unwilling to reveal information about private task-force meetings that took place in 2001, when information was being gathered to help develop President Bush’s energy policy. “But if this little group was discussing geostrategic plans for oil, it puts the issue of war in the context of the captains of the oil industry sitting down with Cheney and laying grand, global plans.”
The Bush Administration’s war on terror has became a source of substantial profit for Halliburton. The company’s commercial ties to terrorist states did not prevent it from assuming a prominent role. The Navy, for instance, paid Halliburton thirty-seven million dollars to build prison camps in Cuba’s Guantánamo Bay for suspected terrorists. The State Department gave the company a hundred-million-dollar contract to construct a new embassy in Kabul. And in December, 2001, a few years after having lost its omnibus military-support contract to a lower bidder, Halliburton won it back; before long, the company was supporting U.S. troops in Afghanistan, Kuwait, Jordan, Uzbekistan, Djibouti, the Republic of Georgia, and Iraq. Halliburton’s 2002 annual report describes counterterrorism as offering “growth opportunities.”
The Department of Defense’s decision to award Halliburton the seven-billion-dollar contract to restore Iraq’s oil industry was made under “emergency” conditions. The company was secretly hired to draw up plans for how it would deal with putting out oil-well fires, should they occur during the war. This planning began in the fall of 2002, around the time that Congress was debating whether to grant President Bush the authority to use force, and before the United Nations had fully debated the issue. In early March, 2003, the Army quietly awarded Halliburton a contract to execute those plans.
wattsupdoc
Active Member
Originally Posted by jmj6239
ok a couple thoughts from a vetran of both OEF (pakistan 02) and OIF (Iraq 03).
1. Most importantly what you see on tv is not everything that happens, has happened, or goes on in Iraq. How often does the media report all of the positive???
2. Every Iraqi I met was glad we were there, and thanked us continuiously, they traded with us and tried to help us. A lot of those fighting us there are not even iraqi!
3. If we were not over there they (terrorists) would most definately be here. We leave, they will come.
4. Those who are talking about N. Korea, we are still at war with them have been since the 50's, we signed a cease fire agreement, not a peace treaty!
5. The U.S. is the only country to take control of another only to give control back to the people of that country. S. Korea, Germany, Philipines, AFGANISTAN and IRAQ (Soon).
6. How many people get killed in our nation's capital everyday??? I'd bet it is more than the troops we loose in battle!
Just a little thought, look at the big picture and look at it from every angle before you go making your decisions and run your mouths. don't trust the media or politions. Trust the troops and their commanders, we can and have made Iraq a better place.
I'd would gladly go back again if I had the opportunity.
Man what a thread. So far I havent made it but to this post and just had to say... There it is, as seen personally from a veteran of this particular battle in the war against terrorism. Thank you for posting and more importantly for serving our country and my family.
I have a few over there currently, they say the same thing. Iraqi's want the violence to stop, but want their freedom. They are happy to have us as their military would, at this point, surely fail them.
MY nepphew is doing his second tour. He signed up in the infantry, to go to Iraq. He was just recently injured when a roadside bomb when off and killed a couple of his buddys, waiting to here how he is. I do know his hand was injured by scarp metal. He's my hero!
I'll continue reading now and catch up.
ok a couple thoughts from a vetran of both OEF (pakistan 02) and OIF (Iraq 03).
1. Most importantly what you see on tv is not everything that happens, has happened, or goes on in Iraq. How often does the media report all of the positive???
2. Every Iraqi I met was glad we were there, and thanked us continuiously, they traded with us and tried to help us. A lot of those fighting us there are not even iraqi!
3. If we were not over there they (terrorists) would most definately be here. We leave, they will come.
4. Those who are talking about N. Korea, we are still at war with them have been since the 50's, we signed a cease fire agreement, not a peace treaty!
5. The U.S. is the only country to take control of another only to give control back to the people of that country. S. Korea, Germany, Philipines, AFGANISTAN and IRAQ (Soon).
6. How many people get killed in our nation's capital everyday??? I'd bet it is more than the troops we loose in battle!
Just a little thought, look at the big picture and look at it from every angle before you go making your decisions and run your mouths. don't trust the media or politions. Trust the troops and their commanders, we can and have made Iraq a better place.
I'd would gladly go back again if I had the opportunity.
Man what a thread. So far I havent made it but to this post and just had to say... There it is, as seen personally from a veteran of this particular battle in the war against terrorism. Thank you for posting and more importantly for serving our country and my family.
MY nepphew is doing his second tour. He signed up in the infantry, to go to Iraq. He was just recently injured when a roadside bomb when off and killed a couple of his buddys, waiting to here how he is. I do know his hand was injured by scarp metal. He's my hero!
I'll continue reading now and catch up.