| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/05/2004 12:49:38 PM · #51 |
| Very astute observations by bitfarmer. Besides the US trying to install a puppet regime over in Iraq (for geopolitical and petroleum reasons) by destroying a good amount of the Iraqi infrastructure, American companies now come in and try to rebuild the country and at exhorbitant costs. I wonder how many of these companies were big contributers to the Bush campaign of 2000 and of 2004. I would like to know who is overseeing this rebuilding and who is accountable for making sure these companies are doing as they are supposed to. Dick Cheney's company, Halliburton, has made something like 2 billion dollars so far from the war. It's already been reported in the press that they overbilled the government by 61 million dollars. I'll bet there is a lot of corruption with this war and rebuilding process. |
|
|
|
10/05/2004 01:18:21 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Very astute observations by bitfarmer. Besides the US trying to install a puppet regime over in Iraq (for geopolitical and petroleum reasons) by destroying a good amount of the Iraqi infrastructure, American companies now come in and try to rebuild the country and at exhorbitant costs. I wonder how many of these companies were big contributers to the Bush campaign of 2000 and of 2004. I would like to know who is overseeing this rebuilding and who is accountable for making sure these companies are doing as they are supposed to. Dick Cheney's company, Halliburton, has made something like 2 billion dollars so far from the war. It's already been reported in the press that they overbilled the government by 61 million dollars. I'll bet there is a lot of corruption with this war and rebuilding process. |
1) If you were more interested in finding the answers to your questions than in positing them only to create doubt in the minds of those who read your innuendo, you could probably find those answers easily with a few Google searches.
2)Speaking of puppets - I notice that, like a ventriloquist's dummy, you give voice to the Democratic Party in LYING about the connection between Haliburton and Vice-President Cheney. You KNOW perfectly well that Haliburton is not Dick Cheney's company. His only ties to Haliburton are these:
a) his termination severance payment which, instead of being paid as a lump sum is being paid in annual installments as deferred compensation payments - these are insured payouts that Cheney will receive regardless of whether Haliburton makes Billions, or goes Bankrupt.
b) stock options which have been place in a trust such that ANY and ALL PROFITS upon sale will go to charity - so, if the stock goes UP, he gains NOTHING personally; but if it goes DOWN, he loses.
To put it simply, Mr. Cheney cannot benefit from Haliburton's business dealings. And you know that - or you should. |
|
|
|
10/05/2004 01:52:36 PM · #53 |
Ron stop it. You fully did not acknowledge a long post from a person living in Spain who has an outside view. Instead tried to throw down Olyuzi for "ennuendo"; much of which is true.
How about commenting on that article? Or on bitfarmers post? Or on the 15 page article on this topic which nobody has touched?
Message edited by author 2004-10-05 13:53:28. |
|
|
|
10/05/2004 02:33:02 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Ron stop it. You fully did not acknowledge a long post from a person living in Spain who has an outside view. Instead tried to throw down Olyuzi for "ennuendo"; much of which is true.
How about commenting on that article? Or on bitfarmers post? Or on the 15 page article on this topic which nobody has touched? |
What is there to respond to in bitfarmer's post besides what was already discussed? The crux of it comes down to "a small group of people waitting to earn A LOT OF MILLIONS DOLLARS in that war". Which is exactly what Ron responded to, and with facts which you haven't rebutted, because you can't. It amazes me that the "hate the rich" class envy plays out so well against Bush and Cheney, when together they're worth about 1/10th of what Kerry is worth alone. (Or is that with his widowed heiress wife's money?)
And I'm curious... What special powers of perception do you believe are bestowed on a person when living in Spain? Is it simply that he agrees with you and believes the Michael Moore propaganda that makes you think he has some deep insight on the matter? I think that's it.
(And, no offense meant to bitfarmer. He is fully entitled to his opinion, and to post it here. I'm simply responding to the supposed weight given to an opinion just because it is supposedly an "outside view". There is no "outside view". This is a world issue, and Spain has suffered directly at the hands of the Islamo-fascists.) |
|
|
|
10/05/2004 03:58:45 PM · #55 |
Most Americans are ignorant to the world around them outside their direct world bubble.
Message edited by author 2004-10-05 16:44:54. |
|
|
|
10/05/2004 05:39:34 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Most Americans are ignorant to the world around them outside their direct world bubble. |
A stupid and elitist statement on its face. |
|
|
|
10/05/2004 05:59:53 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Most Americans are ignorant to the world around them outside their direct world bubble. |
No offense, but not just Americans are guilty of this. The people I have had the pleasure of meeting from other countries (both stateside and abroad) have been equally blissfully ignorant. It is not an American problem, solely. It is a global characteristic, I believe.
|
|
|
|
10/05/2004 07:32:16 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Most Americans are ignorant to the world around them outside their direct world bubble. |
No offense, but not just Americans are guilty of this. The people I have had the pleasure of meeting from other countries (both stateside and abroad) have been equally blissfully ignorant. It is not an American problem, solely. It is a global characteristic, I believe. |
I agree but I do think Americans overall have the most waking up to do.
Message edited by author 2004-10-05 19:33:28. |
|
|
|
10/05/2004 09:46:04 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Very astute observations by bitfarmer. Besides the US trying to install a puppet regime over in Iraq (for geopolitical and petroleum reasons) by destroying a good amount of the Iraqi infrastructure, American companies now come in and try to rebuild the country and at exhorbitant costs. I wonder how many of these companies were big contributers to the Bush campaign of 2000 and of 2004. I would like to know who is overseeing this rebuilding and who is accountable for making sure these companies are doing as they are supposed to. Dick Cheney's company, Halliburton, has made something like 2 billion dollars so far from the war. It's already been reported in the press that they overbilled the government by 61 million dollars. I'll bet there is a lot of corruption with this war and rebuilding process. |
1) If you were more interested in finding the answers to your questions than in positing them only to create doubt in the minds of those who read your innuendo, you could probably find those answers easily with a few Google searches.
2)Speaking of puppets - I notice that, like a ventriloquist's dummy, you give voice to the Democratic Party in LYING about the connection between Haliburton and Vice-President Cheney. You KNOW perfectly well that Haliburton is not Dick Cheney's company. His only ties to Haliburton are these:
a) his termination severance payment which, instead of being paid as a lump sum is being paid in annual installments as deferred compensation payments - these are insured payouts that Cheney will receive regardless of whether Haliburton makes Billions, or goes Bankrupt.
b) stock options which have been place in a trust such that ANY and ALL PROFITS upon sale will go to charity - so, if the stock goes UP, he gains NOTHING personally; but if it goes DOWN, he loses.
To put it simply, Mr. Cheney cannot benefit from Haliburton's business dealings. And you know that - or you should. |
Ron, you crack me up sometimes. I love the comment about me being the ventrioquist's dummy! :). It may be true, but I'm surely not the democratic party's dummy. lol As a matter of fact, I wouldn't be voting for Kerry if it weren't for the fact that George Bush is such a bad choice and there is no other choice if I want to make my vote count so that we don't have another 4 years of the shananigans Bush has put us through. My views regarding party politics is that there really is only one party with two names...Dems and Repubs. I think they're pretty much the same, but think that the dems are a little less malevolent. They are both in bed with the corporations and that is who both parties are beholden to.
As far as Cheney goes, well, haven't you heard of the revolving door between corporations execs, PAC's and big time campaign contributors and government agency positions. Halliburton is Cheney's company and they are benefiting grandly from the war in Iraq. Whenever Cheney leaves government service I'm sure he will return to work for them or something related.
From THIS ARTICLE:
"Even before the war in Iraq began March 20, the Bush administration was considering plans to help rebuild the country after fighting ceased. According to news reports in early March, the U.S. Agency for International Development secretly asked six U.S. companies to submit bids for a $900 million government contract to repair and reconstruct water systems, roads, bridges, schools and hospitals in Iraq.
The six companies -- Bechtel Group Inc., Fluor Corp., Halliburton Co. subsidiary Kellogg, Brown & Root, Louis Berger Group Inc., Parsons Corp. and Washington Group International Inc. -- contributed a combined $3.6 million in individual, PAC and soft money donations between 1999 and 2002, the Center reported on its news site, CapitalEye.org. Sixty-six percent of that total went to Republicans."
Halliburton is listed there, along with Kellog, Brown & Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton. The article goes on...
"The bidding process has been criticized for including only a handful of companies, some with substantial political clout and none of which is based outside the United States..."
Halliburton Co.
The Contributions: $708,770 (95 percent to Republicans)
Total to President Bush: $17,677
Many people are aware of the insider trading shananigan that george Bush took part in at his company, Harken Energy in 1990. It is also known that he is good friends with Ken Lay of Enron fame (who has also contributed large sums of money to Bush 2000 election campaign), but many people aren't aware of the shananigan that Cheney had taken part in: From THIS ARTICLE:
"In 1998, when Cheney was CEO, Halliburton secretly changed its accounting techniques to show a higher level of profit. Without the change, it would have come in below expectations, which would have hurt its price. The change was unorthodox and "aggressive," and should have been communicated to the stockholders, which only happened after a long and quite improper delay. Halliburton finally settled this case with the Securities Exchange Commission, by paying a paltry $7.5 million fine."
Has the president and vice president acted in illegal ways? It seems so. My conclusion is that there is a lot of corruption coming from this administration and they are not to be trusted.
Message edited by author 2004-10-06 04:14:02. |
|
|
|
10/07/2004 03:12:40 AM · #60 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
From THIS ARTICLE:
"Even before the war in Iraq began March 20, the Bush administration was considering plans to help rebuild the country after fighting ceased. According to news reports in early March, the U.S. Agency for International Development secretly asked six U.S. companies to submit bids for a $900 million government contract to repair and reconstruct water systems, roads, bridges, schools and hospitals in Iraq.
|
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
...the US went into Iraq...get their hands on all those oil reserves (Iraq has only tapped about 15% of the possible oil fields...only Saudi Arabia has more).
|
Hey wait! I thought the administration didn't have a plan for post war Iraq. Reconstruct water systems, roads, bridges, schools and hospitals? That kind of blows a great big hole in that whole "war for oil" thingy. Aren't you guys capable of supporting your arguments without contradicting your previous theories? |
|
|
|
10/07/2004 07:04:24 AM · #61 |
Originally posted by thelsel:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
From THIS ARTICLE:
"Even before the war in Iraq began March 20, the Bush administration was considering plans to help rebuild the country after fighting ceased. According to news reports in early March, the U.S. Agency for International Development secretly asked six U.S. companies to submit bids for a $900 million government contract to repair and reconstruct water systems, roads, bridges, schools and hospitals in Iraq.
|
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
...the US went into Iraq...get their hands on all those oil reserves (Iraq has only tapped about 15% of the possible oil fields...only Saudi Arabia has more).
|
Hey wait! I thought the administration didn't have a plan for post war Iraq. Reconstruct water systems, roads, bridges, schools and hospitals? That kind of blows a great big hole in that whole "war for oil" thingy. Aren't you guys capable of supporting your arguments without contradicting your previous theories? |
Ok, here's the updated "theory:"
The Bush administration invaded Iraq for oil, and to give certain companies (those that heavily contributed to both the Bush 2000 campaign and the republican party) contracts to do the rebuilding there. And in the case of Cheney's company, Halliburton, it's gotten no-bid contracts and it has been shown that they have abused those contracts, as in overbilling the government for 61 million dollars, or sending their truckers on missions with empty trucks across the desert so as to bill the government for services not rendered. This also put the truckers at risk.
So how is the reconstruction going? |
|
|
|
10/07/2004 08:56:38 AM · #62 |
| All the focus seems to be on Iraq. I was surpised that neither debate mentioned that the elections in Afghanistan are actually THIS Saturday, Oct.9th. That's in two days. Where is the media coverage? Please think about our troops there asthis couldbe a most dangerous time for them. |
|
|
|
10/07/2004 09:03:01 AM · #63 |
| Cheney did in his debate several times... |
|
|
|
10/07/2004 09:09:36 AM · #64 |
So Olyuzi, this might be asking too much of you, but please expand on something for me...
How do you feel about Clinton giving so many no-bid contracts to Halliburton?
What other company on earth has the capabilities of doing the job that Halliburton does?
The next company in line is a French company which is a very distant 2nd place in capabilities. There certainly are not any American companies that come close... I for one would not want to export this kind of work to another country.
The Halliburton company has been credited with many many feats. some of those include many inventions for fighting oil fires in the first Gulf war. Because of Halliburton, all the fires set by Saddam's soldiers were extiguished years before the industry thought possible. Saving BILLIONS if not trillions of dollars and saving the enviroment in the process...
I understand you've been brainwashed into just bluting out Halliburton. But use your head will you. Biding on a contract assumes there are multiple people that can do the job.
How can Bush be the dumbest man alive and at the same time, scheme to start a major war in order for contributing companies to make lots of money? If you are gonna go with the second (which you have), I'd like to hear you start calling him one of the smartest presidents ever...
BTW: I thought it was the nut far right not the general left that was suppose to come out with dumbass fear mongering conspiracy theories?
Message edited by author 2004-10-07 09:14:00. |
|
|
|
10/07/2004 02:22:47 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
And in the case of Cheney's company, Halliburton
|
Contrary to popular belief Dick Cheney doesn't own or work for Halliburton.
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
sending their truckers on missions with empty trucks across the desert
|
Correct, trucks are usually empty when returning from deliveries.
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
This also put the truckers at risk.
|
That's why they're paid so well.
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
So how is the reconstruction going? |
Glad you asked!
Photo gallery of Iraqi reconstruction
USAID Photo Gallery
List of reconstruction contracts from January to April
USAID accomplishments
Iraq Project and Contracting Office Website
Recent Coalition Provisional Authority Contracts
Coalition Provisional Authority Website |
|
|
|
10/07/2004 02:47:50 PM · #66 |
There's also lots of info about progress in the reconstruction in these reports (thanks to MadMordegen for the link):
Iraq Weekly Update - 9/23/04
Iraq Weekly Update - 9/30/04
|
|
|
|
10/08/2004 02:38:12 PM · #67 |
All this info if ok, but real question is: Why would the US gov. take is country into a war like this? They know it is going to be unpopular, soldiers will die or will be wounded, billions of dollars will be spent, and they still have the shadow of Vietnam on their headsa... ssowhy?
First they told us they have info on massive destuction weapons, but was a lie, and US have not punished other countries in such a real situation (China, Corea...).
Then that Al Quaeda was "living there", also seems untrue now (and insuficient for such a war).
Then that human rights were terrible in Irak. Thats is true, but really insuficient to make an expensive war, and also many countries can claim this "right to be attack", but they are not.
So, if you considerone by one the possible reasons, none of then can convice you really, so, what is left? The most obvious and old one: Money.
I would really like to hear from some of you a real reason why to start such a war on Irak on not on ooter countries... and i really don't belong to any partie, I am foreigner and know a little about your local politics.
Also have to say that Spain gov. helped US to star the war (well, just a little, we spent our taxes in other things, like free medicine for ALL people, even ilegal ones, including any surgery, or paying a small salary to "home less" so they can live until they find a job), together with UK, but here in Spain it was so unpopular that they lost next elections and I haven't still found a single spanish person saying it was right to help US in this.
This is, i think, a real diference, here in Europe, may be because we have had some wars in the near past, are much more conscient of the real mesh of people diying just because started a war... for no known reason!
Just think in all the money you in the US spennd in weapons... big cake! And weapons are to be used in wars, admit it... the more you have, the more you need a war to use them. |
|
|
|
10/08/2004 02:44:22 PM · #68 |
I think most of the hatred for america and the war in Iraq and the Bush comes from mis-information (also known as lies) from the main stream media and governments. After watching a few weeks of non-american media, it's no wonder people hate us...
This war was not stared for money or oil but because he thought it was the right thing to do. I can understand someone disagreeing with that, but I can't believe it was stared due to some sort of conspiracy....
Message edited by author 2004-10-08 14:50:53. |
|
|
|
10/08/2004 03:06:54 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by Russell2566:
I think most of the hatred for america and the war in Iraq and the Bush comes from mis-information (also known as lies) from the main stream media and governments. After watching a few weeks of non-american media, it's no wonder people hate us...
This war was not stared for money or oil but because he thought it was the right thing to do. I can understand someone disagreeing with that, but I can't believe it was stared due to some sort of conspiracy.... |
So, if all the non-US main stream media outlets, and non-US governments appear to disagree with or present a different picture than the US media and current incumbent government in the US, it is all lies on a world wide scale and only your local news is correct ?
I've been amazed at how biased and blinkered the US media is, since I've been here. The fact that they don't really bother with news and just share opinion is just the starting point of my amazement. The 'opinion polls' to let people express their views on facts, the entire news stations filled with op-ed pieces and no actual factual news, it just never ends. It isn't what's the truth that's important - its what you believe is true, seems to be the 'journalistic' approach. George Orwell over-engineered his conspiracy theories by a long way.
It is also always strange to here people bang on about a 'liberal' media in the US, when all you have is extreme right wing or mildly right wing media outlets, again putting it on a world wide scale. Though that could just be living in Texas I guess. The democrats here make most republicans around the US look left wing.
Message edited by author 2004-10-08 15:12:31.
|
|
|
|
10/08/2004 03:25:26 PM · #70 |
I would hold that almost no new station actualy reports news, but they ALL claim that they do.
As far as how the news media is balanced, here is how I would break it down.
Most world news stations = socialist
Most US news = liberal
Fox news would be somewhere on the right, but it's placement is very polorized by how far to the left world and main-stream media is.
I don't think a lot of the worldly news I watch is really as wrong as just anti-armerican & very biased... |
|
|
|
10/08/2004 04:16:51 PM · #71 |
Russell, this is for you, from another thread. Your opinion of the US media is flawed. Educate yourself below.
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
PIPA / Knowledge Networks Poll - October 2 2003
PIPA / Knowledge Networks report
Support for the war and misperception Iraqi WMD found
(May - Sept 03)
Support for war among those who believed:
US has found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction 73%
US has NOT found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction 41%
.
Support for War and Misperception of Evidence of Iraqi Links to al Qaeda
(June - Sept 03)
Support for going to war among those who believed:
The US has found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al Qaeda terrorist organization 67%
The US has NOT 29%
.
Pre-War (Feb 03) Approval for Unilateral Action and Beliefs About al Qaeda Links
Aprove if President proceeds without UN approval among those who believed:
58% Iraq was directly involved in carrying out the September 11th Attacks.
37% Iraq gave substantial support to al Qaeda, but was not involved in the September 11th attacks.
32% A few al Qaeda individuals visited Iraq or had contact with Iraqi officals.
25% There was no connection at all.
.
Washington Post pole Aug 2003:
"How likely is it that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the September 11th Terrorist attacks?"
32% Very likely
37% Somewhat likely
12% Not very likely
3% Not at all likely
.
A more recent September 19-21st 2003 CNN/USA Today poll asked
"Do you think Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the September 11th terrorist attacks, yes or no?"
43% Said yes, down from 51% in March 2003.
.
Network Statistics
.
Weapons of Mass Destruction
Since the war with Iraq ended, is it your impression that the US has or has not found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction?
US has:
Fox 33%
CBS 23%
NBC 20%
CNN 20%
ABC 19%
Print Media 17%
PBS-NPR 11%
.
Evidence of Links Between Iraq and al Qaeda
Is it your impression that the US has or has not found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al Qaeda terrorist organization?
US has:
Fox 67%
CBS 56%
NBC 49%
CNN 48%
ABC 45%
Print media 40%
PBS-NPR 16%
.
World Public Opinion
Thinking about how all the people in the world feel about the US having gone to war with Iraq, do you think:
The majority of people favor the US having gone to war:
Fox 35%
CBS 28%
CNN 27%
NBC 20%
Print media 17%
PBS-NPR 5%
.
Frequency of Misperceptions
Evidence of al Qaeda Links, WMD Found, World public Opinion Favorable.
Respondents with one or more misperceptions:
Fox 80%
CBS 71%
ABC 61%
NBC 55%
CNN 55%
Print media 47%
PBS-NPR 23%
.
The list goes on and on. I wonder how the American public could come to such conclusions if nobody was saying or implying such things. Hmm.
Had the American media been liberal leaning as many say, there may not be a war. |
Message edited by author 2004-10-08 16:17:46. |
|
|
|
10/08/2004 04:30:51 PM · #72 |
| that post does not make my opinion flawed and it certainly doesn't prove that the mainstream media is conservative... |
|
|
|
10/08/2004 04:47:51 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
So, if all the non-US main stream media outlets, and non-US governments appear to disagree with or present a different picture than the US media and current incumbent government in the US, it is all lies on a world wide scale and only your local news is correct ?
|
Of course Gordon didn’t you know? America is always right and always honest and anyone who disagrees or says otherwise is biased or anti-American. Duh.. |
|
|
|
10/08/2004 04:52:36 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Originally posted by Gordon:
So, if all the non-US main stream media outlets, and non-US governments appear to disagree with or present a different picture than the US media and current incumbent government in the US, it is all lies on a world wide scale and only your local news is correct ?
|
Of course Gordon didn’t you know? America is always right and always honest and anyone who disagrees or says otherwise is biased or anti-American. Duh.. |
Isn't it a little easir to just read my comments for what they are instead of making up end meanings... |
|
|
|
10/08/2004 05:03:57 PM · #75 |
| Russell, why don’t you read up on that study I posted instead of ignoring important information contrary to your already made up opinion? |
|
