Iraq war costs more per month than Vietnam

SHOTS:

I think that is the point though. Agreed that those companies have been involved before - and had there been a bid on the job this would be an issue(Or at least not as large of one), but because there were no bid's, and it was awarded to the VP, there is a huge conflict of interest and the system to make sure the voters get the best deal were upsurped was intentionally worked around.

Whether there is any problem or not is not even the issue now, but because they didn't go through proper channels, because they avioded the due process, and because the benfactor of these non decisions is directly involved with the decision making process makes this a mucking thing, that anyone that gave any forth thought to what the voting public had to say would know this would be a huge slap in the face to many of them - once again underlining the notion that "they" didn't consider what the voters, their constituents, their Bosses, w4ere going to think.... That is the problem IMO.

Originally posted by shots
There was a very valid reason for that decision WestPoint, they were the only company that had the infrastructure in place on a moments notice, that could handle the job.

No fooling?

Man it was almost as if they had foreknowledge of what was going to be needed.....

Man it is a good thing Haliburton had a Fortune Chaney.....errrr. cookie for them to be able to take advantage of the immediate need that was obviously required, seeing as they didn't have time to actually do their jobs and save the tax payer money huh?

Congress usually decides on who wins the bids, its not like the people vote on it. Also since the congress is controlled by a republican majority you can guess the outcome.

Man it was almost as if they had foreknowledge of what was going to be needed.....

They have done work in the mid east before hence their resources and infrastructure there.


[edit on 31-8-2005 by WestPoint23]

but does haliburton have a stranglehold on the mid-east?
were there any other countries present that can handle a few other objectives in the infrastructures so it wont look blatant that halliburton would have a monopoly of the contracts?

these are honest questions for those who can enlighten me as i don't want to assume there were already other companies out there that would've been able to outbid halliberton on certain contracts.

well it cost more because of more sophisticated weapons and higher pay. its kind of like like comparing gas prices back in the 50s and now. o yeah aircraft more expensive like the F-22 compare to the old aircraft used during Vietnam. yep its worse here boys and girls.

Originally posted by Passer By
SHOTS:

I think that is the point though. Agreed that those companies have been involved before - and had there been a bid on the job this would be an issue(Or at least not as large of one), but because there were no bid's, and it was awarded to the VP, there is a huge conflict of interest and the system to make sure the voters get the best deal were upsurped was intentionally worked around.

In order to submit a bid on a contract you have to get bidders who are qualified and they have to be able to respond as per the contract. In this case there were no other companies that had the resources and infrastructure available on a moments notice, why people do not understand the reason for no bid is beyond me.

As for awarding the contract to the VP that is not relevant since he had to resign from the company prior to taking office and at that time Halliburton et el were already under several contracts with the government. Keep in mind that means Halliburton was under contract during the Clinton administration and no one said a word about it then. Some people just like to use the current administration as a scape goat, that is all it is and that is wrong.

Excuse me, but haliburton history is a very interesting one, from oil drilling company base in Texas to separating very conveniently in 2002 to have a "construction" company just in time for Iraq.

In March 2002, Halliburton announced plans to separate our business groups into two wholly-owned operating subsidiaries: Halliburton's Energy Services Group, and KBR, the engineering and construction group. This realignment will create two independently run, pure-play companies.

I wonder if cheney infuences as a CEO and then vice president had to do with it and occurs all the contracts for "Reconstruction"

www.halliburton.com...

Originally posted by marg6043
Excuse me, but haliburton history is a very interesting one, from oil drilling company base in Texas to separating very conveniently in 2002 to have a "construction" company just in time for Iraq.

I wonder if cheney infuences as a CEO and then vice president had to do with it and occurs all the contracts for "Reconstruction"

So are you suggesting that anyone at Halliburton had knowledge prior to 2000 that the war in Iraq was going to take place? Kind of sounds like it to me and allow me to point out that election could have gone either way.

What song would you be singing if it had gone the other way?

The figures (I forget who mentioned it) used in Souljah's post were adjusted for inflation.

It wasn't a case of using "then" dollars versus "now" dollars.

They were already adjusted.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
This angers me so much, it’s our money we can do with it whatever we want. The problem in Africa or the rest of the world is not my fault, and I should pay for it because it’s the right thing to do??? Give me a freaking break! If we want to sped more on our DoD bugged so what? Mind your business!

Well it is MY money too. And as an American, I think the whole Iraq war is a horrible waste. We aren't rebuilding anything. Most of what you are talking about "rebuilding" is in worse shape than it was before we got there. The point of this post was (that you obviously missed :@@ was to show the incredible amount of money that is being spent for nothing. The only thing coming out of this whole fiasco are more terrorists, and more people who distrust the US. You pro Iraq war supporters really make me wonder. You are roughly 50% of the US population (I have a feeling the actual number is FAR lower) and 2.5% of the WORLD population. You never listen to anything coming from outside the US unless it serves the purpose of the right.

As an American, I do see the point of this post - I am sorry that you are too caught up in your own patriotism to do the same.

Originally posted by shots

Originally posted by marg6043
Excuse me, but haliburton history is a very interesting one, from oil drilling company base in Texas to separating very conveniently in 2002 to have a "construction" company just in time for Iraq.

I wonder if cheney infuences as a CEO and then vice president had to do with it and occurs all the contracts for "Reconstruction"

So are you suggesting that anyone at Halliburton had knowledge prior to 2000 that the war in Iraq was going to take place? Kind of sounds like it to me and allow me to point out that election could have gone either way.

What song would you be singing if it had gone the other way?

Well why dont you go to www.newamericancentury.org... and see for yourself. They have had this planned since 1997. The approached Clinton and tried to get him to go into Iraq - he refused. Then the Monica thing happened..............interesting huh?

Oh, and by the way... these people formed PNAC - project for a new american century - years ago and regime change in Iraq was one of their objectives. The following people are listed on their Statement of Purpose:

Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush

Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes

Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle

Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz

Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen

Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz


Pay particular attention to the names Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz & Donald Rumsfeld.

Originally posted by Souljah
Interesting no?

5.6 billion $ per month.

That's almost 186 million $ a day.

I wonder whats next...

Erm, no, it is not interesting, nor is it a proper or fair comparative, IMHO. It is simply another smear attempt by Reuters, an anti-war media source, to insinuate that Iraq is another Vietnam. Simple as that.

This presentation of yours, based upon the Reuters article and report cited within the article, does not fairly take into account the rate of inflation of the dollar since Vietnam, though it claims/ asserts such.
The report citing numbers for Vietnam are low-ball numbers, "adjusted for inflation", and those numbers cited for Iraq are high-ball numbers, "adjusted for inflation".
Furthermore, there is no factoring in the cost of technology used today versus then.





seekerof

[edit on 31-8-2005 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by LogansRun

Originally posted by shots

Originally posted by marg6043
Excuse me, but haliburton history is a very interesting one, from oil drilling company base in Texas to separating very conveniently in 2002 to have a "construction" company just in time for Iraq.

I wonder if cheney infuences as a CEO and then vice president had to do with it and occurs all the contracts for "Reconstruction"

So are you suggesting that anyone at Halliburton had knowledge prior to 2000 that the war in Iraq was going to take place? Kind of sounds like it to me and allow me to point out that election could have gone either way.

What song would you be singing if it had gone the other way?

Well why dont you go to www.newamericancentury.org... and see for yourself. They have had this planned since 1997. The approached Clinton and tried to get him to go into Iraq - he refused. Then the Monica thing happened..............interesting huh?

Pay particular attention to the names Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz & Donald Rumsfeld.

Why not answer my question. Keep in mind that had the other side won Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Cheney would be out of the picture.

Originally posted by shots

Why not answer my question. Keep in mind that had the other side won Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Cheney would be out of the picture.

Keep in mind, that 50%+ of this country think that the election DID go the other way in 2000 & in 2004, yet we are still stuck with brainless and his group of jack-asses running the show. They were ready to go into Iraq from the get-go. The problem is, they needed a reason. Pre 911, it would have never been allowed to happen. Interesting how convenient 911 was, huh? Interesting how virtually ALL of our attention since 911 has been on Iraq and not Al-Quada or Osama.

Originally posted by LogansRun

Originally posted by shots

Why not answer my question. Keep in mind that had the other side won Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Cheney would be out of the picture.

Keep in mind, that 50%+ of this country think that the election DID go the other way in 2000 & in 2004,

That is not the point, obviously you are unable to answer my question as was Marg just as I expected.

Wow I feel sorry for anyone still in denial about the 2000 and especially about the 2004 election. I guess when things don't go your way it must have been a scam, it must have, or else you wind up looking like a real DumbA

Wonder if I will ever get a reply to my post....
One thing that does intrest me here is why its being compared to vietnam?

Originally posted by Seekerof

Originally posted by Souljah
Interesting no?

5.6 billion $ per month.

That's almost 186 million $ a day.

I wonder whats next...

Erm, no, it is not interesting, nor is it a proper or fair comparative, IMHO. It is simply another smear attempt by Reuters, an anti-war media source, to insinuate that Iraq is another Vietnam. Simple as that.

This presentation of yours, based upon the Reuters article and report cited within the article, does not fairly take into account the rate of inflation of the dollar since Vietnam, though it claims/ asserts such.
The report citing numbers for Vietnam are low-ball numbers, "adjusted for inflation", and those numbers cited for Iraq are high-ball numbers, "adjusted for inflation".

seekerof

[edit on 31-8-2005 by Seekerof]

Care to back that up or should we just take your word for it?

OK, well regardless on all that other stuff, what about the topic?

For those that are "for the war in Iraq", is the a dollar figure that you would feel is too high?

Originally posted by Souljah
The War in Iraq Costs the United States
$191,260,395,448

Instead, we could have fully funded global anti-hunger efforts for 7 years.

Instead, we could have fully funded world-wide AIDS programs for 19 years.

Instead, we could have ensured that every child in the world was given basic immunizations for 63 years.

Hey Souljah,

yep thats very true, it also could've been invested in environment, something_more_generous, etc., etc.

But heey there's no profit, interest or other agenda from it - so no one is interested. I'm afraid that this "problem" is still very global.

[edit on 2005-9-1 by zer69]