Iraq and MONEY!
- Thread starter ByteMe
- Start date
This is one reason why no-bid contracts in this conflict in Iraq, or in medicare (hello democoder 
), are bad.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/1004142.asp?0cv=CA01
What? Halliburton price gouging in Iraq? Never.......
Now of course by charging the army more than twice the price to import oil, that cost gets passed directly to the american taxpayer. Way to go no-bid contracts. $87 Billion in the past couple of months you say? $200 Billion since the start of this whole mess, and counting, you say? This isn't going directly to corporations who are pricing their services far higher than necessary you say? This whole operation wasn't about giving US corporations huge contracts in Iraq you say?
This just gets worse and worse...
[EDIT]The article didn't mention that the Iraqis themselves have the means to import oil for roughly 70-80 cents. But of course we can't let them do it themselves and save ourselves some money in the process. No that little bit of common and fiscal sense is simply out of touch and unpatriotic. The Iraqis are simply too incompetant to do it themselves.[/EDIT]
), are bad.http://www.msnbc.com/news/1004142.asp?0cv=CA01
What? Halliburton price gouging in Iraq? Never.......
Now of course by charging the army more than twice the price to import oil, that cost gets passed directly to the american taxpayer. Way to go no-bid contracts. $87 Billion in the past couple of months you say? $200 Billion since the start of this whole mess, and counting, you say? This isn't going directly to corporations who are pricing their services far higher than necessary you say? This whole operation wasn't about giving US corporations huge contracts in Iraq you say?
This just gets worse and worse...
[EDIT]The article didn't mention that the Iraqis themselves have the means to import oil for roughly 70-80 cents. But of course we can't let them do it themselves and save ourselves some money in the process. No that little bit of common and fiscal sense is simply out of touch and unpatriotic. The Iraqis are simply too incompetant to do it themselves.
[/EDIT]Tahir said:Mind if I puke?
You dont even know what Islam is, ever since the day you posted your rubbish about the Prophet being a 'terrorist' I have tried to ignore most of your idiotic political/religious rants.
You have zero credibility here, do you realise that?
I don't remember ever saying your prophet being a terrorist. Either way it matters none. Do you think I give a rats ass about what you think? The facts are simple; the majority of the leaders in your religion (Islam) are tyrants. This is going to change one way or another. Your religion will adopt or be killed off.
You don't like the sounds of that? Well I not even going to try and be politically correct. The time for that has passed. You should be trying to help Islam adopt (you are directly involved?). Instead you sit behind your keyboard in the comfort of your home trying to justify/defend those vile people (leaders). While you do this so smug in your superior intelligence... millions suffer.
So do you think you have any credibility? I would think many would hate you. You are part of the problem along with the rest that aren't willing to put their ass on the line to help these people.
Do me a favor. Don't ever reply to a post of mine. You disgust me.
Comparitively, it is.Clashman said:
Ignoring the Iraqi people in mindless opposition of Bush is disgusting.
The whole God damn progressive movement is completely topsy turvey, blinded by its rage over some "chimp" in the whitehouse.
They've sold out their moral standing in their knee jerk reactions, just so they can remain anti-establishment. They should get a clue and realize that sometimes (just maybe), the people they hate so much aren't evil, they just approach problems differently.
Willmeister
Newcomer
I thought most people believed that being gungho, running into a war under false pretenses, with false expectations and with no contingency plans was merely a dangerous approach to world affairs? Silly me for mistaking for now what it was. It was Bush's different approach.
Considering the opposite side of the coin is that (as I believe) the whole of the western world was content to pacify, further the status quo, and was not willing to stand up for freedom, democracy and human rights for several reasons including:Willmeister said:
-their own financial interests
-fear of retribution
-lack of ability
Whereas the rest of the world was too busy oppressing their own population to support freeing of another.
But somehow, Bush=Hitler in the whole equation.
As I said, its topsy turvey when so called "progressives" will make the "unilateral" argument, followed by the "we were lied to", and capped off with "gung ho", not withstanding the "its about oil/multinational corporations/contracts" when freedom from oppression for 25 million people is what's at stake.
Willmeister
Newcomer
What will your defense of Bush be when the Iraqi 'democracy' fails to materialize? WE KNOW it's not going to materialize. The USA requires a vassal state in the region just to maintain it's illegal selloff of Iraqi national assets. It's even illegal by the US Army's code of conduct...
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20031124&s=klein
Natoma said:This is one reason why no-bid contracts in this conflict in Iraq, or in medicare (hello democoder
Natoma please think, this thread is not about bidding. There will be bidding so that argument is moot. Too many democrats are making it b/c they are pissed and want to whine and complain, but the truth is there is going to be bidding.
Complain all you want about haliburton, there was no bidding then Bush basically said it is to unstable so I will appoint those who I owe my election to... er I mean it is to unstable so I will appoint those who will rip of the taxpayer...err those who have the experience to rip off... deal with the threatening environment.
But that is completely irrelevant. And the medicare bill is as much the fault of the democrats as the repubs, everyone is afraid to veto that monster, so now we are all screwed...
I see. Upholding the socialist "paradise" is worth brutal oppression, eh?
As I said...."progressives" are all topsey-turvey.
As I said...."progressives" are all topsey-turvey.
Willmeister
Newcomer
To be fair, Bush isn't a chimp. He's a marionnette with all his strings controlled by the special interests who bought his election.
Joe DeFuria
Legend
Willmeister said:
Right...it couldn't be possible that Bush actually acts primarily on his principals (whether or not you care to agree with them.)
Joe DeFuria said:
Bush's principles
1) Reward those that buy your election
2) Reward the rich, punish the future generations
3) Don't bother telling citizens the truth, lies are more convincing.
4) Wars and dying soldiers are good distractions
You see, you have to specify which "principles" he has, I don't honestly know what his principles are, but I can see what his actions have been.
Joe DeFuria
Legend
Sxotty said:
Conservative principals: less restrictions on business in general, lower taxes, etc.
Conservative principals: broad tax cuts, helping future generations. (Bush's tax cuts actually but a LARGER burden ,percentage wise, of tax revenues on the so-called "rich".)
What lies...and in comparison to what other politicians are we talking about?Protecting the welfare of the U.S. population is perhaps the single most important and relevant task that the President has, of all his duties.
To be clear, I don't agree with all of Bush's policies. But it really is quite amusing (though a bit disturbing) to see how much "personal hatred" there is out there against the man.
The way liberals react when they are not in power......
I myself am a little shocked by their reaction to Bush's involvement in Iraq when they, with such conviction, backed Clinton's "war on terrorism" aka "Wag the Dog" scenerio.
I have gathered from recent times leftist ideology values the avoidance of war over acheiving peace in all situations. They prefer prefer selfaggrandizing "peaceful" negotiations with dictators (purely masterbatory in nature) to appear to be enforcing some world humanitarian view while lining their pockets with blood money.