Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Would it be okay to give up the torture of detainees and running of prisons that are against international law?> You can't give up something that you don't have or aren't doing.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj Okay, then would it be okay to give up the Halliburton contracts that are fattening up the wealthy friends of the vice president at the expense of the American people?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>You can't give up something that you don't have or aren't doing.<< See also: WMDs, Iraq.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Okay, then would it be okay to give up the Halliburton contracts that are fattening up the wealthy friends of the vice president at the expense of the American people?> If that's happening, then it would be okay to give it up.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <See also: WMDs, Iraq.> Even if he didn't have the stockpiles we thought he did, Saddam was pursuing WMD and attempting to deceive the UN inspectors. That's what the Kay and Duefler reports said.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip We could actually make the situation much better very quickly and easily if we had the balls to do it, but we don't. Kill Moqtada al-Sadr. The guy is accused of murder anyway, why not take him out? Sure his army will still be there, but without a leader it will go nowhere fast. You have about 60,000 people but one brain (al-Sadr). You take out the brain and we are on our way. If only the U.S. had balls. Which it doesn't. So it's a moot point. And since we DON'T have balls, we should get the heck out!!
Originally Posted By ecdc "If that's happening, then it would be okay to give it up." It is. The evidence is both ample and appalling.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <The evidence is both ample and appalling.> Really? Last I heard, Haliburton's profits have been down since we liberated Iraq.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Kill Moqtada al-Sadr. The guy is accused of murder anyway, why not take him out?" Because we are weak, and we are there to change their "hearts and minds" which never works. You're absolutely right. We need to go in, and wipe out the insurgents, and if that means leveling towns on a large scale, then that is what you do. You don't go in and bomb and invade a country nicely. You go in, do what you have to do, and establish a strong presence. Obviously we have not established anything there, except US soldiers with large targets on their backs that the scum in Iraq get to pick off at their leisure for fun. Next time a soldier gets killed, we need to strike back with horrific and violent force and take back a couple thousand lives for every soldier killed. That's how you deal with this. If you don't want to do that, and many don't, then you simply need to leave.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj <<< Really? Last I heard, Haliburton's profits have been down since we liberated Iraq. >>> How about instead of relying on what you have "heard" you check the facts on any reputable financial page? According to the stock information on WSJ.com, here's the rundown for Halliburton -- pre-Iraq and post-Iraq. HAL Revenue 12/31/02 -- $12.6B HAL Revenue 12/31/05 -- $21B HAL Profit 12/31/02 -- $0.8B HAL Profit 12/31/05 -- $2.4B Wow! That's quite a boost to the top line and bottom line in just 3 years! And 2006 is looking to be another record year! HAL did show net losses in 2003 and 2004 due to tax write-offs for discontinuing operations. Isn't it convenient that a company of that size can conveniently almost double their revenues and then avoid paying taxes on earnings for 2 years by depreciating assets as "discontinued" so that they don't show a net profit. Cash flow was positive during that 2 year period though, indicating that even though they "lost" money they still increased the amount of money in the bank. Wouldn't be nice if the average citizen could pull off that financial trick? Oh, and if you are stock holder (like Dick Cheney), you've seen your shares nearly triple in value over the last 4 years.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <How about instead of relying on what you have "heard" you check the facts on any reputable financial page?> If I had been disputing you, instead of just questioning you, then that would have been a reasonable thing to do. My statement is still accurate; obviously, the last thing I heard was before they posted a profit in 2005. <Isn't it convenient that a company of that size can conveniently almost double their revenues and then avoid paying taxes on earnings for 2 years by depreciating assets as "discontinued" so that they don't show a net profit.> I doubt they could claim losses if they did have losses. <Oh, and if you are stock holder (like Dick Cheney), you've seen your shares nearly triple in value over the last 4 years.> VP Cheney doesn't own Halliburton stock.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I am so happy to own stock in them.> So you're admitting you're a weathly friend of Dick Cheney, huh? That's who mrichmondj said were getting fat from the contracts.
Originally Posted By jonvn "So you're admitting you're a weathly friend of Dick Cheney, huh?" Yes. He and I often go hunting together.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj <<< VP Cheney doesn't own Halliburton stock. >>> Thanks for catching the fact error. In truth, Dick Cheney has 433,333 in stock options. So, he doesn't actually "own" the stock, but can exercise the options at any time to participate in a huge windfall as though he did own the shares. What a great deal! Sign me up for that plan! Now, to be fair, after CBS News pointed out these financial interests to the VP in 2003 he willingly promised to donate all proceeds of his Halliburton stock options to charity. That was awful nice of him. I wonder what his plan would have been if no one had bothered to bring it to his attention and call him out on the national news? Dick Cheney also continues to receive a deferred salary from Halliburton that is in six figures.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Dick Cheney also continues to receive a deferred salary from Halliburton that is in six figures.> Which is in no way dependent on Halliburton's performance.
Originally Posted By ecdc Douglas, nice cover for being wrong about Halliburton. Any comment on their skyrocketing profits since the war began? How about the fact that they and other companies were awarded contracts to do things the Army always did for itself, like cooking and building its own facilities? Our tax dollars aren't just going to try and secure freedom for Iraqis (which everyone but a stubborn, foolish administration agrees isn't working) but to fatten the wallets of corporations with close ties to the vice-President. Douglas, it shouldn't matter which political party you belong to for this to bother you. We used to hang war profiteers. Those who support war in Iraq the most and who want actual success there should be the ones screaming loudest about this. But sadly, they care less about soldiers and success than they do partisanship. Who really cares most about our soldiers - those with "Support our Troops" bumper stickers that defend Bush, et al unconditionally, or those who want accountability and what's really best for our dying young men and women in Iraq?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Any comment on their skyrocketing profits since the war began?> Only that I wish I had bought Halliburton stock in 2002. <How about the fact that they and other companies were awarded contracts to do things the Army always did for itself, like cooking and building its own facilities?> I'm a big proponent of the free market. If a private company can do a job more efficiently than a government agency can, then it should do it. Of course, there should be an open bidding process whenever possible, and an open and auditable payment process. If someone is found to be doing something wrong, on either side of the process, then they should be punished as the law permits. Do you have any actual evidence that Halliburton has done anything wrong?
Originally Posted By mrichmondj So based on your above comments, you disapprove of the no-bid contracts that were awarded to Halliburton for the bulk of their Iraq work? There is very little evidence that private contractors are doing anything more efficiently than the government and military were doing previously. Go and visit some of your favorite defense contractor headquarters and let me know if you think these Taj Mahal like facilities represent the best use of your tax dollars. Heck, one of our biggest defense contractors paid a former Disney imagineer to design a corporate meeting facility that cost over $30M and looks like something out of EPCOT Center. It was an impressive place to visit -- but at what cost to the readiness of our armed forces do facilities like this get built while we pay the contractors big bucks and fail to even pay for sufficient armor to protect our troops in harm's way?
