2004 Reasons to Boot Bush...

[Bingo]

Originally posted by Savvy27@Sep 17 2004, 01:16 PM
Maybe the Haliburton employees shouldn't be there at all. If its the Iraqi's oil and they need it to recover from the war, they should be training and employing Iraqi people to profit from THEIR oil.

Are you calling for an end to all foreign investment, and a recall of all visas in every country in the world or just Iraq?

I know many Americans in the Oil patch here in Calgary that might find your views somewhat extreme.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Savvy27+Sep 17 2004, 07:16 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Savvy27 @ Sep 17 2004, 07:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Sorry going to war and telling people things which aren't true in order to drum up support for the war would be considered warmongering.

They didn't lie. Logic...follow it.

You know Dis its kind of sick to see American Soldiers guarding Haliburton oil fields in Iraq LONG before the war is over - but no, they decided to divert military resources to guard Haliburton.

1. They are not Haliburton oil fields, they are Iraqi oil fields.
2. They had to be guarded to protect the economic interests of the Iraqi people and civilian employess. I guess you feel all the evil Haliburton employees should have been left to fend for themselves?

Equally more disgusting is the handing out of these contracts before the first Soldiers set foot on Iraq soil

How is that disgusting? It's called planning. They wanted to get the system up and running ASAP so the Iraqi's could get back on their feet ASAP. It's not rocket science.

They didn't lie. Logic...follow it.

Terrorist attack coordinated by Osama Bin Laden, suggest connection between him and Saddam, realize that nobody believes Saddam and Osama to be connected, suggest WMD's present in Iraq, wait for UN to investigate... realize that nobody believes there are WMD's in Iraq, suggest to LIBERATE Iraqi's, everyone realizes that Saddam is a prick, INVADE Iraq.

It's not nearly as logical as I was hoping.

1. They are not Haliburton oil fields, they are Iraqi oil fields.

So Haliburton isn't profiting from the oil in Iraq?

2. They had to be guarded to protect the economic interests of the Iraqi people and civilian employess. I guess you feel all the evil Haliburton employees should have been left to fend for themselves?

Maybe the Haliburton employees shouldn't be there at all. If its the Iraqi's oil and they need it to recover from the war, they should be training and employing Iraqi people to profit from THEIR oil.

How is that disgusting? It's called planning. They wanted to get the system up and running ASAP so the Iraqi's could get back on their feet ASAP. It's not rocket science.

Don't you find it a little confusing that they did such a stellar job of planning how to drill for oil, but they have yet to develop a plan for exiting the country that they are occupying? [/b][/quote]
I'm loath to get involved in this but:

realize that nobody believes there are WMD's in Iraq,

The Russians told Bush WMD were in Iraq. The Presidents of Egypt and Jordan told General Franks they were sure the Iraqi's would use WMD on American troops. The head of the CIA said "slam dunk case." And Saddam refused to co-operate fully with UN weapons inspectors even as the hammer was hovering over his head, making it appear he actually had something to hide as the most paranoid and powerful nation on earth was preparing to obliterate him.

So, don't say "nobody."

As I noted in multiple threads earlier, since nothing was found, they were all idiots. Both the givers and the takers.

So Haliburton isn't profiting from the oil in Iraq?

They're profiting from rebuilding Iraqi oilfields and pipeline facilities and, as I understand it, paid by the USA government. That's why the USA Army is withholding payments to Halliburton over disputed billing.

Ironically, every time rebels stop oil production, Halliburton profits because they have to do the job again. I guess that means Halliburton is supporting the insurrection and helping the rebels destroy facilities. That would fit your theory.

Don't you find it a little confusing that they did such a stellar job of planning how to drill for oil, but they have yet to develop a plan for exiting the country that they are occupying?

I find it a little odd you wouldn't know that Iraq, like most Middle East nations, would be in the stone age without selling oil. Its the only product they have. Its real simple that way. Therefore restoring oil production is the logical underpinning of any recovery in that country. Not rocket science to figure out that's in the interests of the Iraqi population, regardless of whom might be in charge or whether Americans happened to be on the scene or Germans or the French. The dissidents know that, hence they're blowing up pipelines three times a week. Nice guys helping their local citizens out. There would be one-third the USA troops in Iraq right now if the psycho's weren't going around killing their fellow citizens. Or are you going to tell us the Americans actually want to go to the trouble and expense of keeping 135,000 troops there indefinitely?

The reasons for the conflict are certainly arguable. The management of the post-conflict scenario is very arguable, in fact, I'm on your side on a lot of it.

Some of you guys are a little overboard though.

Cowperson

[CaramonLS]

Originally posted by Bingo+Sep 17 2004, 07:34 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Bingo @ Sep 17 2004, 07:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Savvy27@Sep 17 2004, 01:16 PM
Maybe the Haliburton employees shouldn't be there at all. If its the Iraqi's oil and they need it to recover from the war, they should be training and employing Iraqi people to profit from THEIR oil.

Are you calling for an end to all foreign investment, and a recall of all visas in every country in the world or just Iraq?

I know many Americans in the Oil patch here in Calgary that might find your views somewhat extreme. [/b][/quote]
Actually Bingo - how about ones that don't really have autonomy over their own country. That is what I have the problem with.

[Lurch]

The article is obviously critical of Kerrynomics. You may offer counterpoints to the argument presented, which is fair, but to say its not a criticism of Kerry is rather bizarre.

How is it bizarre?

Say I'm in favor of Kerry's proposal to limit malpractice lawyers. Your response: John Edwards made a lot of money as a malpractice lawyer, wink wink. If you can point out the critique of Kerry's plan (which by the way I know nothing about, but it is apparent neither does the author) other than innuendo, I'd like to hear it. Similarly with Kerry's tax plan. John Kerry wants to tax the 'working man' earning over $200,000, but his rich wife doesn't pay any taxes, nudge nudge. Again, where is the criticism of Kerry's actual plan??? IMO, criticism implies rational analysis of a policy, not just innuendo and opinion.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Lurch@Sep 17 2004, 08:32 PM

How is it bizarre?

Here's how its bizarre:

I guess you missed my earlier post where I noted I was on record on this forum from BEFORE the Iraq conflict saying I hope Bush is voted out of office in 2004.

Since I'm a Kerry supporter - except on the war - I'm not going to be put in a position of arguing FOR Reaganomics/Bushnomics!!!

That's essentially what you're trying to do.

You've offered an interpretation of the opinion expressed in the article, which is fine. But I won't be arguing in favour of the opinion expressed in the article even though I can clearly see specific points being raised like this:

"I strongly believe," wrote Kerry, "that America must engage in the global economy, and I voted for trade opening from NAFTA to the WTO. But at the same time, I have always believed that we need to fight for a level playing field for American workers."

Translation: If foreigners don’t do what I tell them to do, I will restrict free trade with the U.S. For all you guys and gals out there who work for a foreign car company or other "insourced job," watch out, your job is in jeopardy.

Your objection to that was:

1. Outsourcing: ascribes a 'translation' to Kerry that is in his own mind only - America clearly does have loopholes that incent companies to outsource. ONE outcome may be increased trade friction, but it is possible to improve the system without alienating partners. His 'prediction' is an opinion not backed by any fact, analysis, rationale, etc.

I really don't see where your response is any more detailed than the original opinion. In fact, its simply your opinion.

As I noted earlier, I posted the column and labelled it as opinion piece likely from a Republican - even though I favour the other side - and left it out for discussion in the interests of fairness as a voice from the other side.

Shooting the messenger - myself - is a little extreme.

If you've got a problem, take it up with the author. it shouldn't be hard to find his e-mail address on his company website.

Cowperson

[octothorp]

Originally posted by HOZ@Sep 17 2004, 12:39 AM
10's of thousands lost because he saw a way to profiteer off of medicines supposedly to go to the needy.

Whoa, you want to talk about profiteering off of medicine for the needy? Nobody in the world is worse for this than the US drug companies and government.
The US spent 2.4 billion on AIDS relief for Africa. Good for them. Except that the administration had a catch. The only thing that the relief agencies could buy with this money was brand-name prescription American drugs. Now, to treat a single victim for a single year costs $700. So under the US plan, roughly 3.5 million people received treatment. However, there are cheap drugs produced in countries such as Thailand that have been proved to be just as effective, and generally cost around $150 per victim per year. If the US had allowed money to be spent on generic drugs, treatment could have been provided to something like 16 million people. That's a difference of around 12.5 million sufferers. Now, not all of those are going to result in lives saved. But the US basically sacrificed the lives of millions (just in this last year) of Africans so that 1.9 billion or so of funding could go directly to American drug companies. America could easily spend half the money, and provide treatment to twice the number of people, just by allowing the money to be spent on generic drugs.
I'm not trying to draw any similarities here between Bush and Hussein with this, far from it. The AIDS profiteering is the result of simple greed and ignorance, while Hussein's were probably largely motivated by malice. Did Bush even have a role in this? Well, it was implemented by his administration, but it's hard to say whether he's even aware of this. But if this isn't one of the worst example of profiteering off of medicine ever, I don't know what is. Anyway, I realize this is way off topic, but I couldn't let it pass.

[Bingo]

Originally posted by CaramonLS+Sep 17 2004, 02:22 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (CaramonLS @ Sep 17 2004, 02:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Are you calling for an end to all foreign investment, and a recall of all visas in every country in the world or just Iraq?

I know many Americans in the Oil patch here in Calgary that might find your views somewhat extreme.

Actually Bingo - how about ones that don't really have autonomy over their own country. That is what I have the problem with. [/b][/quote]
So leave them be and hope they get their oil fields up on their own, perhaps in the year 2026?

They should be in really good economic shape by then.

[Lurch]

A critical examination of Kerrynomics from a guest columnist, a Wall Street type and probably a Republican, at CBSnews.com.

Here is the intent of my response. I had no idea of your viewpoint - being relatively new, I would have put you very solidly in the Bush camp based on your comments. As such, it seemed to me you were putting forward the article as a reasoned response to Kerry's plan, i.e. the phrase 'critical examination' to me implies something more than opinion, more along the lines of a non-partisan critique. I saw nothing but opinion in the article, and in most cases worse than opinion in that it was loaded with misleading arguments and innuendo. All in all, it seemed a lot like O'Reilly to me, rather than a 'critical examination'. My bad in that I misunderstood your intent to present it as opinion.

[CaramonLS]

Originally posted by Bingo+Sep 17 2004, 09:14 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Bingo @ Sep 17 2004, 09:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Actually Bingo - how about ones that don't really have autonomy over their own country. That is what I have the problem with.

So leave them be and hope they get their oil fields up on their own, perhaps in the year 2026?

They should be in really good economic shape by then. [/b][/quote]
So when we invade countries its ok to steal their resources as well?

So much for this being about the "Iraqi people". But I'm sure there is already a plan for Haliburton to hand over power of their natural resources when Iraq gets their political situation sorted out... Oh wait there isn't?

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by CaramonLS@Sep 17 2004, 11:07 PM
So when we invade countries its ok to steal their resources as well?

So much for this being about the "Iraqi people". But I'm sure there is already a plan for Haliburton to hand over power of their natural resources when Iraq gets their political situation sorted out... Oh wait there isn't?

Uh...Iraq already has power over their natural resources....and free use of Haliburton and it's services...and free use of the American and British military to protect their production.

Not sure why you're so confused on this. But you are.

[Savvy27]

Originally posted by Bingo@Sep 17 2004, 07:34 PM
Are you calling for an end to all foreign investment, and a recall of all visas in every country in the world or just Iraq?

I know many Americans in the Oil patch here in Calgary that might find your views somewhat extreme.

Invest all you want. I'm just suggesting that maybe you don't have to have your government invade their country first. I thought it was fairly obvious what I was suggesting... but apparently there was some confusion.

I think that if the main objective of the invasion was really to liberate and help the people of Iraq, then it would be better for the people of Iraq to be trained so that they can rebuild their own country with money from oil that they drilled.

Of course I don't think that all foreign investment should halted. And I think its absurd that you would interpret what I wrote as that. Give your head a shake Bingo, I wasn't trying to insult your oil buddies.

So leave them be and hope they get their oil fields up on their own, perhaps in the year 2026?

They should be in really good economic shape by then.

And when do you think the people are going to be in really good economic shape at this rate? I'm sure that all the oil companies are going to just step aside once the people of Iraq are ready to take over production.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by Savvy27@Sep 17 2004, 11:50 PM
I'm sure that all the oil companies are going to just step aside once the people of Iraq are ready to take over production.

What makes you think that Iraq isn't in control of production NOW?

[CaramonLS]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan+Sep 17 2004, 11:54 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Displaced Flames fan @ Sep 17 2004, 11:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Savvy27@Sep 17 2004, 11:50 PM
I'm sure that all the oil companies are going to just step aside once the people of Iraq are ready to take over production.

What makes you think that Iraq isn't in control of production NOW? [/b][/quote]
hahaha good one Dis.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by CaramonLS+Sep 17 2004, 11:57 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (CaramonLS @ Sep 17 2004, 11:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

What makes you think that Iraq isn't in control of production NOW?

hahaha good one Dis. [/b][/quote]
No answer?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan+Sep 17 2004, 05:21 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Displaced Flames fan @ Sep 17 2004, 05:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-CaramonLS@Sep 17 2004, 11:07 PM
So when we invade countries its ok to steal their resources as well?

So much for this being about the "Iraqi people". But I'm sure there is already a plan for Haliburton to hand over power of their natural resources when Iraq gets their political situation sorted out... Oh wait there isn't?

Uh...Iraq already has power over their natural resources....and free use of Haliburton and it's services...and free use of the American and British military to protect their production.

Not sure why you're so confused on this. But you are. [/b][/quote]
Now come on. Are you suggesting that the Iraqi "government" is calling the shots? Telling Halliburton what to do, giving orders to Rumsfeld, that kind of thing?

[RougeUnderoos]

My stars (and stripes), what is this?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...0030522-15.html

I'm no lawyer, but I'm absolutely certain it isn't saying "Iraqis have control over their own oil and all the money that it generates".

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@Sep 17 2004, 11:54 PM

What makes you think that Iraq isn't in control of production NOW?

The 180,000 GI Joe action figures running around Iraq, a lot of which are guarding the oil fields and escorting Halliburton employees. I wish I could find a link, but there was a story about a week ago that stated the Iraqis have very little to do with the rebuilding of their economy. Halliburton has not bothered to hire Iraqis for hardly any jobs. Its Americans or other foreigners who were already employed by Halliburton that got the jobs in Iraq. A great example was the cooks over there were not Iraqis as you would expect, they were Thais being paid a less than twenty bucks a day (a very good salary where they are from). Its a complete mess over there Dis. Its not a quagmire like Viet Nam (I really hate that term) but it is a disaster all unto itself. I'm not sure what an effective exit strategy is, but the US has to get the hell out of there and fast.

[Savvy27]

So, don't say "nobody."

As I noted in multiple threads earlier, since nothing was found, they were all idiots. Both the givers and the takers.

Ok I get your point, it wasn't only Bush. But, at the same time how does that defend someone calling it logical that they invaded Iraq. If he truly believed that Saddamn Hussein had WMD's and was willing to use them on American troops then why would he send them there? Maybe, I just think differently than you guys, but I would try and keep my guys away from the madman with chemical weapons. Of course then I wouldn't be nearly as benevolent a leader as W. wanting to save all the people living in other nations and all.

I guess that means Halliburton is supporting the insurrection and helping the rebels destroy facilities. That would fit your theory.

Cute. Now I'm being labelled an extremist because I'm skeptical about the good deeds supposedly being done by a big oil company and a government that invaded a country who wasn't even a threat to them based on faulty intelligence, paranoia and an agenda.

Soon I guess I'll be facing accusations of being the #1 most liberal poster on the board and questions will be brought up about me throwing my flames jersey over the glass after the Fleury trade...

I find it a little odd you wouldn't know that Iraq, like most Middle East nations, would be in the stone age without selling oil.

I feel totally overwhelmed with this new information... Actually I'm a little confused as to why you'd bring it up. I completely agree with you that it is mostly through oil exports that Iraq is going to be able to recover. In fact, I'll even go as far as saying that of the options available, the Americans are probably the best ones to be there right now, because if it wasn't them it'd be some other rich folks who weren't concerned about making it look like they were there to help. I just don't see how this situation is a sign of good leadership. Halliburton was only mentioned by me because of my personal distaste for Cheney.

The reasons for the conflict are certainly arguable. The management of the post-conflict scenario is very arguable, in fact, I'm on your side on a lot of it.

Those points are both questions of leadership and I mentioned them because this thread is about Bush's leadership.

Or are you going to tell us the Americans actually want to go to the trouble and expense of keeping 135,000 troops there indefinitely?

Well they couldn't of been that concerned about it or there would have been an exit strategy in place.

[Cowperson]

If he truly believed that Saddamn Hussein had WMD's and was willing to use them on American troops then why would he send them there? Maybe, I just think differently than you guys, but I would try and keep my guys away from the madman with chemical weapons.

Geez, you sure wouldn't want to send your army of trained killers someplace where someone might get hurt!!

Of course then I wouldn't be nearly as benevolent a leader as W. wanting to save all the people living in other nations and all.

Liberating Iraqi's was about fifth on the list of priorities if you ask me. There's lots of places you can go to save people with less hassle.

Soon I guess I'll be facing accusations of being the #1 most liberal poster on the board and questions will be brought up about me throwing my flames jersey over the glass after the Fleury trade...

You did? That was a little extreme wasn't it? The guy was going to walk in a few months whether you traded him or not. Waste of a sweater if you asked me. STOP READING ERIC FRANCIS!!

In fact, I'll even go as far as saying that of the options available, the Americans are probably the best ones to be there right now, because if it wasn't them it'd be some other rich folks who weren't concerned about making it look like they were there to help.

That's right. Like the UN with its scandalalous food for oil program. Or a certain country of surrender monkeys.

Anyway, the Bill Maher Theory is that the USA should have lobbied to have those nasty sanctions dropped, propped Saddam up (once again if you will) and sent Halliburton in to bring his oil industry up to modern standards so they could export as much as they could. Better to hire people to kill others for you than to invade and do it yourself according to Maher, aka The Ugly American.

Nasty world ain't it?

By the way, there's a nice story about John Kerry, Dick Cheney and Halliburton on the front page of the New York Times site right now. Go have a look.

Those points are both questions of leadership and I mentioned them because this thread is about Bush's leadership.

I suppose we can say the election is a referendum on that very thing . . . . if we could ever get off the pot of what happened four decades ago.

Well they couldn't of been that concerned about it or there would have been an exit strategy in place.

If they lied about WMD, they would have planted the evidence to support their claims later too. If wishes were fishes. . . .

Management of the post-conflict situation has been terrible. Even Bush conceded that a little while ago.

I'll just state the obvious though - if the local lunatics weren't going around blowing things up in Iraq, there would be two-thirds less USA troops there right now and the money might be pouring in.

EDIT: FOR THOSE INTERESTED, A GOOD WASHINGTON POST EXAMINATIONT TODAY OF THE CONNECTION BETWEEN HALLIBURTON'S IRAQ CONTRACTS AND DICK CHENEY.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6032364/

Cowperson

[Cowperson]

New York Times/CBS poll puts Bush in the lead 50-42 over Kerry.

Sixty percent of respondents said they did not have confidence in Mr. Kerry to deal wisely with an international crisis; that is a jump from 52 percent in June. By contrast, 48 percent said they were uneasy with Mr. Bush's ability to manage a foreign crisis.

About 80 percent of respondents said that Mr. Bush was either "hiding something" or "mostly lying" in talking about the war in Iraq. A plurality of voters disapproved of how he had managed the war. But the disapproval was not as sharp as it was before the handover of power to an Iraqi government in June, even though Mr. Kerry has turned up his attacks on Mr. Bush's handling of the war and the American death toll recently passed 1,000.

And

In one particularly troublesome sign for Mr. Kerry, a majority of voters said he was spending too much time attacking Mr. Bush and talking about the past, rather than explaining what he would do as president. In contrast, half of the registered voters said Mr. Bush had offered a clear vision of what he wanted to do in a second term.

You may have to register to view:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/18/politics.../18poll.html?hp

Cowperson