As per usual, I disagree with some of these opinions and the effectiveness of them.
I think you put an overabundance of blame on Bush and his administration. Congress authorized the "war" and furthermore I'm pretty certain that Gore would have pursued military action after 9/11 as well.
Secondly, it almost looks like you're implying that if the war was somehow justified it would be OK. I don't think war is ever justfied.
Finally, I have to call into question your objectivity and the honesty of your opinions since you were in the military yourself. It's kind of like when you question the objectivity of someone who used to work in the Bush administration and now works for the FDA....
so your assuming Gore would have done the same...? I assume he would have not done the same...where does that leave us..? know-where...
as for calling into question ones objectivity and honesty of opinions...is that your honest opinion or are you lying...my point is: if someone is sharing an opinion is it not honest...aren't opinions based on past experiences....? I would think someone who was involved in the Military would have a good knowlege base in address and share concerns and comments...
As per usual, I disagree with some of these opinions and the effectiveness of them.
I think you put an overabundance of blame on Bush and his administration. Congress authorized the "war" and furthermore I'm pretty certain that Gore would have pursued military action after 9/11 as well.
Secondly, it almost looks like you're implying that if the war was somehow justified it would be OK. I don't think war is ever justfied.
Finally, I have to call into question your objectivity and the honesty of your opinions since you were in the military yourself. It's kind of like when you question the objectivity of someone who used to work in the Bush administration and now works for the FDA....
you think gore would've invaded iraq??
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Umm, if you're the CEO of a major corporation, and in 3 years you've only made 78 million dollars, you're not doing that well. This is pocket change.
well, that article is a bit old, but their stock went up from $9 in Jan 02 to a little over $74 now, they made $21.44Billion in revenue last year, their yearly revenue for 2002 was just a little over $12Billion...tht's almost twice what they made before the war.
(thanks yahoo finance! )
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Not necessarily, but I think it's certain that he would have pursued some sort of military action.
Are you saying some military actions are OK?
stop dodging the points, not answering my questions and then asking me even more questions of your own.
i think if bin laden was responsable and afghanistan was hiding him then certain military actions would be acceptable.
now back to my point of the administration starting a war w/ iraq partly for porfit but none of it for actual 'spreading of democracy'....?
halliburton's stock went up from $9 in 2002 to over $74 now, obvioulsy ppl ARE profiting from this war
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
stop dodging the points, not answering my questions and then asking me even more questions of your own.
i think if bin laden was responsable and afghanistan was hiding him then certain military actions would be acceptable.
now back to my point of the administration starting a war w/ iraq partly for porfit but none of it for actual 'spreading of democracy'....?
halliburton's stock went up from $9 in 2002 to over $74 now, obvioulsy ppl ARE profiting from this war
Huh? I directly answered your question about Iraq. I said I'm not sure if he would have invaded Iraq, but I am certain that he would have pursued military action post-9/11.
We haven't found Bin Laden yet, so if that were the course that Gore pursued and Bin Laden weren't captured by now, would you be so adamantly against that military action and claim that it was faulty intelligence, lies and illegal?
Can't you read?
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Huh? I directly answered your question about Iraq. I said I'm not sure if he would have invaded Iraq, but I am certain that he would have pursued military action post-9/11.
Well, certain probably is strong wording, but my opinion is the sentiment of the country in the post 9/11 timeframe was to seek retribution. There is evidence in how the Democrats backed the war in Iraq. I think Gore would have taken some sort of military action.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Huh? I directly answered your question about Iraq. I said I'm not sure if he would have invaded Iraq, but I am certain that he would have pursued military action post-9/11.
We haven't found Bin Laden yet, so if that were the course that Gore pursued and Bin Laden weren't captured by now, would you be so adamantly against that military action and claim that it was faulty intelligence, lies and illegal?
Can't you read?
you say you're not certain and i say you don't want to admit what you really think...but anyways...it depends on how the war went if i'd call it lies and illegal. if it went how it is now then yes.
so back to the original point of halliburton and the profit from war...do you think that was a motivation in the push for war w/ iraq?
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
halliburton's stock went up from $9 in 2002 to over $74 now, obvioulsy ppl ARE profiting from this war
Dude, the whole point of any war is to profit. It's to force someone to bend to your will such that you end up better off than before the war.
Of course Halliburton's stock is going to go up during a war. They provide war-related services. Why is this shocking?
Are you upset because GIs on the ground profit from their service via education grants and cash payments?
I know, I know, somewhere in your head you think this is proof that the war is engineered such that Halliburton could profit. It's not. Nothing so complex is that simple.
I'm against this war as much, if not more so, than you are. But you're just reaching man. You're not going to end war by bitching about those who get rich off of it or dying from it. That's the whole point of those who start it. You're only going to end war by convincing people that they have no right to to get rich off of it or kill with it.
Dude, the whole point of any war is to profit. It's to force someone to bend to your will such that you end up better off than before the war.
Of course Halliburton's stock is going to go up during a war. They provide war-related services. Why is this shocking?
Are you upset because GIs on the ground profit from their service via education grants and cash payments?
I know, I know, somewhere in your head you think this is proof that the war is engineered such that Halliburton could profit. It's not. Nothing so complex is that simple.
I'm against this war as much, if not more so, than you are. But you're just reaching man. You're not going to end war by bitching about those who get rich off of it or dying from it. You're only going to end war by convincing people that they have no right to to get rich off of it or kill with it.
no-bid contracts
over priced bills
double charges
charges for services never rendered
feeding the soldiers spoiled food
and much more
then...bonuses for their work!!
and no, i'm not upset about the troops getting benefits, they are the ones risking their lives for a greedy agenda
why was halliburton awarded all those no-bid contracts...oh, right, i remember they are the only company that is capable of running a mess hall and transporting fuel :rolleyes:
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
you say you're not certain and i say you don't want to admit what you really think...but anyways...it depends on how the war went if i'd call it lies and illegal. if it went how it is now then yes.
so back to the original point of halliburton and the profit from war...do you think that was a motivation in the push for war w/ iraq?
I thought the original point was that the CEO had profited greatly since the beginning of the war - to which I said that anyone who bought stock in Halliburton at that time would have made just as much money (percentage-wise), so it has nothing to do with the CEO.
To answer your question, I do not think Halliburton was a motivation to push to go to war.
I do think that SOME of the motivation for invading Iraq may have come from the elder Bush's foray into it years earlier.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I'm against this war as much, if not more so, than you are. But you're just reaching man. You're not going to end war by bitching about those who get rich off of it or dying from it. That's the whole point of those who start it. You're only going to end war by convincing people that they have no right to to get rich off of it or kill with it.
To add to this - and I've said this before as well - you are never going to drive home the anti-war message until you are against ALL WARS for whatever the reason, and stop grasping at straws disguised as reasons, conspiracies or justifications for the war.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Know what i don't give a rats ass who is profiteering from this war...someone was going to...thats a FACT we ALL know....lets put our heads together and get everyone involved out of this fucking mess....its a damn fact most of the people here are against the war (DEMS AND REPS) argueing over who is making money is never going to change things in fact its just leading to more division...like come on people the whole idea of the war is crumbling from both sides lets keep that momentum going and get the boys and girls back home to their famalies (that is somethine WE ALL want to see sooner rather than later)...like really does it matter who is making money...hell everyone is...except your government and thats where it counts....and thats where it will bite you in the ass....but thats just my opinioon...if Haliburton got illegal contract okay whatever (which I tend to believe)....however that knowledge will not end this war...
also, the point wasn't just about the profit...you and others claimed my opinion on it was 'secret' so i replied w/ what i thought...the major theme being war for profit and control of land and resources
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
also, the point wasn't just about the profit...you and others claimed my opinion on it was 'secret' so i replied w/ what i thought...the major theme being war for profit and control of land and resources
Hey buddy I believe what you are saying...I have known this since CBC did a special on it in 2003....its not new news...just trying to say who cares who makes money someone always will....not everyone is going to believe it and some will....we need to become more productive on ending this thing and I find bitching about who is making money is a wasted effort...in the end someone was going to make money reagardless if it was fair or not bidding...and in a nut shell through fair bidding they would still be techincally making money off people dying....to me I find time should be spent keeping the momentum rolling and ending this thing...lets end the war first then put illegal profiteering on forefront when the boys get home...thats my point....as well if you cannot figure out that a bit of the war was about oil you are extremely cluelss...so I hope you dont think I fall in that category because I dont.....
no-bid contracts
over priced bills
double charges
charges for services never rendered
feeding the soldiers spoiled food
and much more
then...bonuses for their work!!
Yes. You also ignore the following:
bid contracts
correct bills
charges for services rendered
feeding the soldiers good food
and much more
Halliburton is a pretty shitty company. But they do what they do better than nearly anyone else who does it. I've talked to lots of guys who have been overseas in Iraq who have nothing but great things to say about the work Halliburton's people are doing there. Have they made mistakes? Definitely. Are there instances of willful neglect or downright theft? Of course. But those mistakes and negligent acts are like 1% of the whole. That doesn't make them right, but it also makes anyone who fixates on that 1% to explain an entire war a fool.
Do you define the entire US military based on Abu Grahib??? I hope not.
Do you define the entire democratic party based on John Kerry??? I hope not.
Do you define the entire communistic philosophy based on Castro??? I hope not.
and no, i'm not upset about the troops getting benefits, they are the ones risking their lives for a greedy agenda
As are hundreds of halliburton employees. Don't you get that??? These are people "profitting" from war...they're doing their jobs and most of them are doing them bravely and doing them well and doing them honestly. We may disagree with what they're doing, but I have a lot less trouble with a guy just trying to build a gas pipeline than the guy trying to blow them up.
why was halliburton awarded all those no-bid contracts...oh, right, i remember they are the only company that is capable of running a mess hall and transporting fuel :rolleyes:
They're not the only company, certainly. They're one of only a few though that do it in conflict zones. Did you complain about their no-bid contracts during the Bosnia conflict?
Look, I'm not trying to whitewash the problems with Halliburton. They're numerous and they deserve to be punished by the American public for those problems. But for God's sake, this is your issue in wartime???? No-bid-fucking-contracts??? That's your protest??? It demonstrates with how much levity so many "anti-war" people actually look at war.
Nowhere. But you seem to think somehow that this information is being ignored, and if people only realized it they'd impeach George Bush or something and then the world would be better off.
also, the point wasn't just about the profit...you and others claimed my opinion on it was 'secret' so i replied w/ what i thought...
What are you talking about? I never claimed your opinion was "secret". Your opinion is painfully obvious. But you're free to reply with what you think for whatever reason you choose. Just understand that I have that freedom as well.
the major theme being war for profit and control of land and resources
Wow...alert the town elders. What else would the "major theme" of war be? The only men who would ever go to war are those who seek control of land and/or other men. That's the only reason anyone ever goes to war, the only reason imaginable for war, and it's flawed reasoning because no man has the right to control another. That's the reason you have to attack if you're going to end war and the abuses that stem from it.
Of course Halliburton's stock is going to go up during a war. They provide war-related services. Why is this shocking?
I don't think pointing out the rise in stock prices was for shock value...it shows who's making money from this mess, which happens to be a company that still has ties to our current VP....if that does not concern you, I'm unsure what would...
I know, I know, somewhere in your head you think this is proof that the war is engineered such that Halliburton could profit. It's not. Nothing so complex is that simple.
Really, why...? our current Energy Policy was created behind closed doors...we have no idea how things have been engineered....
I'm against this war as much, if not more so, than you are. But you're just reaching man. You're not going to end war by bitching about those who get rich off of it or dying from it. That's the whole point of those who start it. You're only going to end war by convincing people that they have no right to to get rich off of it or kill with it.
since when did raising awareness mean someone is bitching...? I have to say, I really don't understand the remainer of you point here...If I read it correctly, you are saying the same thing KaBong is saying....
I don't think pointing out the rise in stock prices was for shock value...it shows who's making money from this mess, which happens to be a company that still has ties to our current VP....if that does not concern you, I'm unsure what would...
We need to be shown that companies that provide war-related services will profit from a war? I think everyone in America, dumbest to smartest, either knows that already or can figure it out. Regardless, I don't really take issue with those who post the obvious. That's not the problem here. The problem here is those who pretend that the obvious is the esoteric.
The issue of the ties to our current VP doesn't really concern me because in any conflict someone is going to profit and someone within the political sphere will likely have connections to those who profit. Sometimes it's innocuous, sometimes it's fraudulent. It's never the sole cause though. And it pales in comparison to the greater injustice that all of the subsequent injustices stem from.
a strech at best...I call the about benefits and a paycheck...
How is it "a stretch"? Because it's less money??? If Dick Cheney or the Halliburton CEO made $1,000 from this war people would still be screaming "PROFITEER" and claiming that the war was engineered for that profit.
Really, why...? our current Energy Policy was created behind closed doors...we have no idea how things have been engineered....
So in other words we should pretend we have an idea by launching vast conspiracy theories with contradictory premises? A war is a complex machine and requires thousands of inputs, rationalities and reasons. It cannot be explained by pointing to a fucking stock price, and to even suggest that it can demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of the intricacies of the events.
since when did raising awareness mean someone is bitching...? I have to say, I really don't understand the remainer of you point here...If I read it correctly, you are saying the same thing KaBong is saying....
This is not "raising awareness". I'm not going to let that excuse slide this time. No one is unaware of these issues. Furthermore, this "awareness" isn't going to lead anywhere because it's completely biased and one-sided.
Kabong and I agree that this war is bullshit, I'm sure. But we likely disagree with why it's bullshit. It's not bullshit because somebody makes money off it. That injustice stems from the bullshit....it doesn't cause it. This war is bullshit because individual human lives are being destroyed against the will of those individuals and that is the most serious crime imaginable. But the anti-war establishment doesn't want to talk about those crimes because they sanction them for their own ends. The have no problem with destroying the individual for their own purposes. So instead they fixate on drivel like this. And it simply exposes who they are. They're not anti-war. They're anti-war when they're not holding the gun.
This war is bullshit because individual human lives are being destroyed against the will of those individuals and that is the most serious crime imaginable. But the anti-war establishment doesn't want to talk about those crimes because they sanction them for their own ends. The have no problem with destroying the individual for their own purposes. So instead they fixate on drivel like this. And it simply exposes who they are. They're not anti-war. They're anti-war when they're not holding the gun.
Bingo. This is exactly what I've tried to express in the past...I just didn't do it as eloquently as you...
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
We need to be shown that companies that provide war-related services will profit from a war? I think everyone in America, dumbest to smartest, either knows that already or can figure it out. Regardless, I don't really take issue with those who post the obvious. That's not the problem here. The problem here is those who pretend that the obvious is the esoteric.
The issue of the ties to our current VP doesn't really concern me because in any conflict someone is going to profit and someone within the political sphere will likely have connections to those who profit. Sometimes it's innocuous, sometimes it's fraudulent. It's never the sole cause though. And it pales in comparison to the greater injustice that all of the subsequent injustices stem from.
How is it "a stretch"? Because it's less money??? If Dick Cheney or the Halliburton CEO made $1,000 from this war people would still be screaming "PROFITEER" and claiming that the war was engineered for that profit.
So in other words we should pretend we have an idea by launching vast conspiracy theories with contradictory premises? A war is a complex machine and requires thousands of inputs, rationalities and reasons. It cannot be explained by pointing to a fucking stock price, and to even suggest that it can demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of the intricacies of the events.
This is not "raising awareness". I'm not going to let that excuse slide this time. No one is unaware of these issues. Furthermore, this "awareness" isn't going to lead anywhere because it's completely biased and one-sided.
Kabong and I agree that this war is bullshit, I'm sure. But we likely disagree with why it's bullshit. It's not bullshit because somebody makes money off it. That injustice stems from the bullshit....it doesn't cause it. This war is bullshit because individual human lives are being destroyed against the will of those individuals and that is the most serious crime imaginable. But the anti-war establishment doesn't want to talk about those crimes because they sanction them for their own ends. The have no problem with destroying the individual for their own purposes. So instead they fixate on drivel like this. And it simply exposes who they are. They're not anti-war. They're anti-war when they're not holding the gun.
a) not everyone knows...but you can think that if you want...
b) what the hell...you are anti-war...so you have different approach...so what and BFD...really, sometimes I think people want to argue just to argue....you want to focus on loss of life...???!?!!? you were bitching a while about about Iraq being in chaos, but were upset with the the phrase death and distruction...I'm sure you have some other answer of the day...perhaps you should change your name to answerofday or stanceshifter...
a) not everyone knows...but you can think that if you want...
Ok. Did it ever occur to you, however, that not everyone cares?
b) what the hell...you are anti-war...so you have different approach...so what and BFD...really, sometimes I think people want to argue just to argue....you want to focus on loss of life...???!?!!?
It's not about a "different approach". It's about a different way of thinking. And the way of thinking I'm attacking is the way of thinking that pits men against each other and brings them to war. Whether it's coming from George Bush or El_Kabong or you, I don't really care. I'm not going to pretend someone is anti-war just because they complain about Halliburton. I'll acknowledge that someone is anti-war when I hear them say that men have no right to subjugate their neighbors' will with bombs and bullets.
you were bitching a while about about Iraq being in chaos, but were upset with the the phrase death and distruction...I'm sure you have some other answer of the day...perhaps you should change your name to answerofday or stanceshifter...
I may have my faults, but inconsistency is not one of them.
I'm not bemoaning "death and destruction" as an end unto itself. That is not the tragedy of war. The tragedy of war is the absence of life and creation. A true anti-war stance isn't one that stands opposed to "death and destruction". It is a stance that cherishes life and the thoughts and actions that come with it. To be anti-war is to be pro-life, not anti-death. War is not synonymous with death, it is antonymous with life and the freedoms inherent to it. The opposition to death and destruction simply stems from that.
Every single person in Iraq will die someday. That is not a tragedy. The tragedy comes when no true life precedes that death because other men believed they had the right to whitewash the wills and purposes of those men.
Ok. Did it ever occur to you, however, that not everyone cares?
It's not about a "different approach". It's about a different way of thinking. And the way of thinking I'm attacking is the way of thinking that pits men against each other and brings them to war. Whether it's coming from George Bush or El_Kabong or you, I don't really care. I'm not going to pretend someone is anti-war just because they complain about Halliburton. I'll acknowledge that someone is anti-war when I hear them say that men have no right to subjugate their neighbors' will with bombs and bullets.
I may have my faults, but inconsistency is not one of them.
I'm not bemoaning "death and destruction" as an end unto itself. That is not the tragedy of war. The tragedy of war is the absence of life and creation. A true anti-war stance isn't one that stands opposed to "death and destruction". It is a stance that cherishes life and the thoughts and actions that come with it. To be anti-war is to be pro-life, not anti-death. War is not synonymous with death, it is antonymous with life and the freedoms inherent to it. The opposition to death and destruction simply stems from that.
Every single person in Iraq will die someday. That is not a tragedy. The tragedy comes when no true life precedes that death because other men believed they had the right to whitewash the wills and purposes of those men.
what on god's green earth are you talking about...?
this whole post is Tomato vs Toma'to...you say the same thing but in an opposite manner...do you really think that those opposed to this occupation don't "cherish life"...wake up, brother, that's why so many oppose it...just because it's not said like you like it or want it, does not mean it's wrong...
what on god's green earth are you talking about...?
Why war is wrong of course. War in all forms, by all combatants.
this whole post is Tomato vs Toma'to...you say the same thing but in an opposite manner...do you really think that those opposed to this occupation don't "cherish life"...
In many cases, I do think that.
wake up, brother, that's why so many oppose it...just because it's not said like you like it or want it, does not mean it's wrong...
Hey buddy I believe what you are saying...I have known this since CBC did a special on it in 2003....its not new news...just trying to say who cares who makes money someone always will....not everyone is going to believe it and some will....we need to become more productive on ending this thing and I find bitching about who is making money is a wasted effort...in the end someone was going to make money reagardless if it was fair or not bidding...and in a nut shell through fair bidding they would still be techincally making money off people dying....to me I find time should be spent keeping the momentum rolling and ending this thing...lets end the war first then put illegal profiteering on forefront when the boys get home...thats my point....as well if you cannot figure out that a bit of the war was about oil you are extremely cluelss...so I hope you dont think I fall in that category because I dont.....
i understand ppl will profit from war...my whole point is i think certain ppl (like cheney) perpetuate war and manufacture threats to ensure there will always be some war or conflict for them to profit off and further strengthen their grip of control.
my point is i think this war was pushed by ppl like cheney partly b/c the profit that would come from it, of course there are other reasons as cheney's pnac group spelled out in 9/00.
i think the no-bid contracts are further proof of this, in my mind. i do not believe, like ffg, that halliburton was the ONLY or the BEST company at operating a mess hall and transporting fuel (obviously as we've seen them charge for meals they never served, served spoiled food and the several other problems) just like our energy policy which was decided behind a closed door w/ ppl like enron and other energy companies/investors/friends...this policy will effect everyone in the US and yet a select few helped shape it and we're not even allowed to know what was said or ANYTHING...democracy is supposed to be transparent (at least at those levels) and this is far from it.
obvioulsy someone will have to be paid for the rebuilding and the mess halls and transporting fuel...but when it's one of teh biggest chicken hawks old company (which he still owns a shit load of stock in, and also was fined for doing business w/ enemy nations and terrorist nations, which bush reversed after taking office...) and they get the contracts w/o anyone else having a shot AND THEN we see all the fraud and problems and overcharges and BONUSES...it just seems too obvious to be an innocent byproduct
maybe the ppl in canada know, but down here in the south you wouldn't believe what ppl think...lots of ppl still think iraq was involved in 9/11 for fuck's sake!!
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
I refused to read any of these post so if what I post has been stated oh well!!!! Haliburton has 516,188,000 shares outstanding.....The stock rising 78 millon dollars in the last 3 yrs is not good news!!!! Go to college or something or get atleast get a brain!!!! I will explain the way the stock market works for you if you want to argue this!!!!
I refused to read any of these post so if what I post has been stated oh well!!!! Haliburton has 516,188,000 shares outstanding.....The stock rising 78 millon dollars in the last 3 yrs is not good news!!!! Go to college or something or get atleast get a brain!!!! I will explain the way the stock market works for you if you want to argue this!!!!
wow, thanks for...not reading...
halliburton's stock has increased from $9 a share in 2002 (before the war) to over $74 now...in 2002 (before the war) their revenue was a little over $12Billion, last year it almost doubled to $21.44Billion...plz do explain how these aren't good numbers
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
halliburton's stock has increased from $9 a share in 2002 (before the war) to over $74 now...in 2002 (before the war) their revenue was a little over $12Billion, last year it almost doubled to $21.44Billion...plz do explain how these aren't good numbers
OK my bad I was just going on what the title of the thread said!!!! I didn't read shit so I'm at fault.....
Comments
so your assuming Gore would have done the same...? I assume he would have not done the same...where does that leave us..? know-where...
as for calling into question ones objectivity and honesty of opinions...is that your honest opinion or are you lying...my point is: if someone is sharing an opinion is it not honest...aren't opinions based on past experiences....? I would think someone who was involved in the Military would have a good knowlege base in address and share concerns and comments...
you think gore would've invaded iraq??
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
well, that article is a bit old, but their stock went up from $9 in Jan 02 to a little over $74 now, they made $21.44Billion in revenue last year, their yearly revenue for 2002 was just a little over $12Billion...tht's almost twice what they made before the war.
(thanks yahoo finance!
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Not necessarily, but I think it's certain that he would have pursued some sort of military action.
Are you saying some military actions are OK?
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
stop dodging the points, not answering my questions and then asking me even more questions of your own.
i think if bin laden was responsable and afghanistan was hiding him then certain military actions would be acceptable.
now back to my point of the administration starting a war w/ iraq partly for porfit but none of it for actual 'spreading of democracy'....?
halliburton's stock went up from $9 in 2002 to over $74 now, obvioulsy ppl ARE profiting from this war
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Huh? I directly answered your question about Iraq. I said I'm not sure if he would have invaded Iraq, but I am certain that he would have pursued military action post-9/11.
We haven't found Bin Laden yet, so if that were the course that Gore pursued and Bin Laden weren't captured by now, would you be so adamantly against that military action and claim that it was faulty intelligence, lies and illegal?
Can't you read?
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
what makes you certain...?
Well, certain probably is strong wording, but my opinion is the sentiment of the country in the post 9/11 timeframe was to seek retribution. There is evidence in how the Democrats backed the war in Iraq. I think Gore would have taken some sort of military action.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
you say you're not certain and i say you don't want to admit what you really think...but anyways...it depends on how the war went if i'd call it lies and illegal. if it went how it is now then yes.
so back to the original point of halliburton and the profit from war...do you think that was a motivation in the push for war w/ iraq?
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Dude, the whole point of any war is to profit. It's to force someone to bend to your will such that you end up better off than before the war.
Of course Halliburton's stock is going to go up during a war. They provide war-related services. Why is this shocking?
Are you upset because GIs on the ground profit from their service via education grants and cash payments?
I know, I know, somewhere in your head you think this is proof that the war is engineered such that Halliburton could profit. It's not. Nothing so complex is that simple.
I'm against this war as much, if not more so, than you are. But you're just reaching man. You're not going to end war by bitching about those who get rich off of it or dying from it. That's the whole point of those who start it. You're only going to end war by convincing people that they have no right to to get rich off of it or kill with it.
no-bid contracts
over priced bills
double charges
charges for services never rendered
feeding the soldiers spoiled food
and much more
then...bonuses for their work!!
and no, i'm not upset about the troops getting benefits, they are the ones risking their lives for a greedy agenda
why was halliburton awarded all those no-bid contracts...oh, right, i remember they are the only company that is capable of running a mess hall and transporting fuel :rolleyes:
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
I thought the original point was that the CEO had profited greatly since the beginning of the war - to which I said that anyone who bought stock in Halliburton at that time would have made just as much money (percentage-wise), so it has nothing to do with the CEO.
To answer your question, I do not think Halliburton was a motivation to push to go to war.
I do think that SOME of the motivation for invading Iraq may have come from the elder Bush's foray into it years earlier.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
To add to this - and I've said this before as well - you are never going to drive home the anti-war message until you are against ALL WARS for whatever the reason, and stop grasping at straws disguised as reasons, conspiracies or justifications for the war.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
also, the point wasn't just about the profit...you and others claimed my opinion on it was 'secret' so i replied w/ what i thought...the major theme being war for profit and control of land and resources
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Hey buddy I believe what you are saying...I have known this since CBC did a special on it in 2003....its not new news...just trying to say who cares who makes money someone always will....not everyone is going to believe it and some will....we need to become more productive on ending this thing and I find bitching about who is making money is a wasted effort...in the end someone was going to make money reagardless if it was fair or not bidding...and in a nut shell through fair bidding they would still be techincally making money off people dying....to me I find time should be spent keeping the momentum rolling and ending this thing...lets end the war first then put illegal profiteering on forefront when the boys get home...thats my point....as well if you cannot figure out that a bit of the war was about oil you are extremely cluelss...so I hope you dont think I fall in that category because I dont.....
Yes. You also ignore the following:
bid contracts
correct bills
charges for services rendered
feeding the soldiers good food
and much more
Halliburton is a pretty shitty company. But they do what they do better than nearly anyone else who does it. I've talked to lots of guys who have been overseas in Iraq who have nothing but great things to say about the work Halliburton's people are doing there. Have they made mistakes? Definitely. Are there instances of willful neglect or downright theft? Of course. But those mistakes and negligent acts are like 1% of the whole. That doesn't make them right, but it also makes anyone who fixates on that 1% to explain an entire war a fool.
Do you define the entire US military based on Abu Grahib??? I hope not.
Do you define the entire democratic party based on John Kerry??? I hope not.
Do you define the entire communistic philosophy based on Castro??? I hope not.
As are hundreds of halliburton employees. Don't you get that??? These are people "profitting" from war...they're doing their jobs and most of them are doing them bravely and doing them well and doing them honestly. We may disagree with what they're doing, but I have a lot less trouble with a guy just trying to build a gas pipeline than the guy trying to blow them up.
They're not the only company, certainly. They're one of only a few though that do it in conflict zones. Did you complain about their no-bid contracts during the Bosnia conflict?
Look, I'm not trying to whitewash the problems with Halliburton. They're numerous and they deserve to be punished by the American public for those problems. But for God's sake, this is your issue in wartime???? No-bid-fucking-contracts??? That's your protest??? It demonstrates with how much levity so many "anti-war" people actually look at war.
Nowhere. But you seem to think somehow that this information is being ignored, and if people only realized it they'd impeach George Bush or something and then the world would be better off.
What are you talking about? I never claimed your opinion was "secret". Your opinion is painfully obvious. But you're free to reply with what you think for whatever reason you choose. Just understand that I have that freedom as well.
Wow...alert the town elders. What else would the "major theme" of war be? The only men who would ever go to war are those who seek control of land and/or other men. That's the only reason anyone ever goes to war, the only reason imaginable for war, and it's flawed reasoning because no man has the right to control another. That's the reason you have to attack if you're going to end war and the abuses that stem from it.
If I read this correctly, I agree....
I don't think pointing out the rise in stock prices was for shock value...it shows who's making money from this mess, which happens to be a company that still has ties to our current VP....if that does not concern you, I'm unsure what would...
a strech at best...I call the about benefits and a paycheck...
Really, why...? our current Energy Policy was created behind closed doors...we have no idea how things have been engineered....
since when did raising awareness mean someone is bitching...? I have to say, I really don't understand the remainer of you point here...If I read it correctly, you are saying the same thing KaBong is saying....
If you read it literally, you read it correctly.
We need to be shown that companies that provide war-related services will profit from a war? I think everyone in America, dumbest to smartest, either knows that already or can figure it out. Regardless, I don't really take issue with those who post the obvious. That's not the problem here. The problem here is those who pretend that the obvious is the esoteric.
The issue of the ties to our current VP doesn't really concern me because in any conflict someone is going to profit and someone within the political sphere will likely have connections to those who profit. Sometimes it's innocuous, sometimes it's fraudulent. It's never the sole cause though. And it pales in comparison to the greater injustice that all of the subsequent injustices stem from.
How is it "a stretch"? Because it's less money??? If Dick Cheney or the Halliburton CEO made $1,000 from this war people would still be screaming "PROFITEER" and claiming that the war was engineered for that profit.
So in other words we should pretend we have an idea by launching vast conspiracy theories with contradictory premises? A war is a complex machine and requires thousands of inputs, rationalities and reasons. It cannot be explained by pointing to a fucking stock price, and to even suggest that it can demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of the intricacies of the events.
This is not "raising awareness". I'm not going to let that excuse slide this time. No one is unaware of these issues. Furthermore, this "awareness" isn't going to lead anywhere because it's completely biased and one-sided.
Kabong and I agree that this war is bullshit, I'm sure. But we likely disagree with why it's bullshit. It's not bullshit because somebody makes money off it. That injustice stems from the bullshit....it doesn't cause it. This war is bullshit because individual human lives are being destroyed against the will of those individuals and that is the most serious crime imaginable. But the anti-war establishment doesn't want to talk about those crimes because they sanction them for their own ends. The have no problem with destroying the individual for their own purposes. So instead they fixate on drivel like this. And it simply exposes who they are. They're not anti-war. They're anti-war when they're not holding the gun.
Bingo. This is exactly what I've tried to express in the past...I just didn't do it as eloquently as you...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
a) not everyone knows...but you can think that if you want...
b) what the hell...you are anti-war...so you have different approach...so what and BFD...really, sometimes I think people want to argue just to argue....you want to focus on loss of life...???!?!!? you were bitching a while about about Iraq being in chaos, but were upset with the the phrase death and distruction...I'm sure you have some other answer of the day...perhaps you should change your name to answerofday or stanceshifter...
Ok. Did it ever occur to you, however, that not everyone cares?
It's not about a "different approach". It's about a different way of thinking. And the way of thinking I'm attacking is the way of thinking that pits men against each other and brings them to war. Whether it's coming from George Bush or El_Kabong or you, I don't really care. I'm not going to pretend someone is anti-war just because they complain about Halliburton. I'll acknowledge that someone is anti-war when I hear them say that men have no right to subjugate their neighbors' will with bombs and bullets.
I may have my faults, but inconsistency is not one of them.
I'm not bemoaning "death and destruction" as an end unto itself. That is not the tragedy of war. The tragedy of war is the absence of life and creation. A true anti-war stance isn't one that stands opposed to "death and destruction". It is a stance that cherishes life and the thoughts and actions that come with it. To be anti-war is to be pro-life, not anti-death. War is not synonymous with death, it is antonymous with life and the freedoms inherent to it. The opposition to death and destruction simply stems from that.
Every single person in Iraq will die someday. That is not a tragedy. The tragedy comes when no true life precedes that death because other men believed they had the right to whitewash the wills and purposes of those men.
what on god's green earth are you talking about...?
this whole post is Tomato vs Toma'to...you say the same thing but in an opposite manner...do you really think that those opposed to this occupation don't "cherish life"...wake up, brother, that's why so many oppose it...just because it's not said like you like it or want it, does not mean it's wrong...
Why war is wrong of course. War in all forms, by all combatants.
In many cases, I do think that.
Ok.
i understand ppl will profit from war...my whole point is i think certain ppl (like cheney) perpetuate war and manufacture threats to ensure there will always be some war or conflict for them to profit off and further strengthen their grip of control.
my point is i think this war was pushed by ppl like cheney partly b/c the profit that would come from it, of course there are other reasons as cheney's pnac group spelled out in 9/00.
i think the no-bid contracts are further proof of this, in my mind. i do not believe, like ffg, that halliburton was the ONLY or the BEST company at operating a mess hall and transporting fuel (obviously as we've seen them charge for meals they never served, served spoiled food and the several other problems) just like our energy policy which was decided behind a closed door w/ ppl like enron and other energy companies/investors/friends...this policy will effect everyone in the US and yet a select few helped shape it and we're not even allowed to know what was said or ANYTHING...democracy is supposed to be transparent (at least at those levels) and this is far from it.
obvioulsy someone will have to be paid for the rebuilding and the mess halls and transporting fuel...but when it's one of teh biggest chicken hawks old company (which he still owns a shit load of stock in, and also was fined for doing business w/ enemy nations and terrorist nations, which bush reversed after taking office...) and they get the contracts w/o anyone else having a shot AND THEN we see all the fraud and problems and overcharges and BONUSES...it just seems too obvious to be an innocent byproduct
maybe the ppl in canada know, but down here in the south you wouldn't believe what ppl think...lots of ppl still think iraq was involved in 9/11 for fuck's sake!!
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
wow, thanks for...not reading...
halliburton's stock has increased from $9 a share in 2002 (before the war) to over $74 now...in 2002 (before the war) their revenue was a little over $12Billion, last year it almost doubled to $21.44Billion...plz do explain how these aren't good numbers
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
OK my bad I was just going on what the title of the thread said!!!! I didn't read shit so I'm at fault.....