Originally posted by BigfootNZ

Thing is, just at what point did America actually get 'attacked' by any of the people it supposedly is currently at war with?... 9/11?, wasnt that done by Saudis? Dont see no damn american troops any where near their damn place.

*** INVALID ARGUMENT ALERT! ***

Sure, it was "the Saudis" that attacked the US. Sure.

Unless, on any given day, it promotes some loon's argument further to say it was "the CIA", or "The Mossad", or "the US Government". Y'all decide once and for all who did this, and get back to me, K?

It was Al-Qaeda, last time I checked on who was crowing about having done it.

The same Al-Qaeda that the Taliban tried to give aid, comfort, and safe harbor to. You know, all those actions that brought war to the Taliban.

The same Al-Qaeda that decided to stir the Shia/Sunni rift in Iraq.

Yeah, THAT Al-Qaeda. You know, the "other" foreign fighters. The ones it's so easy for you folks to conveniently fail to mention, when it suits your purpose.

as if it wasnt already cut and dryed years ago.

greenspan et al are philanphropists. .. so are the bush family and their billionaire oil producing buddies.

george bushes and dicks haliburton.



Halliburton's role in post-war Iraq includes operating Iraqi oil fields, new documents have revealed.

Previously, the US Army Corps of Engineers had described the contract given to Halliburton - run by US Vice President Dick Cheney between 1995 and 2000 - as putting out fires at oil wells during the conflict.

The emergency contract for firefighting and capping Iraqi oil wells was awarded to Halliburton without a bidding process in March.

Responding to questions from a US Congressman, the US Army Corps of Engineers has revealed that the contract included "operation of facilities and distribution of products".

In a letter to senior Democrat Henry Waxman on Friday, Army Corps Lt. Gen. Robert Flowers added the contract with Halliburton's subsidiary KBR was a "bridge" to one that is open to other bidders.

"We will limit orders under this contract to those services required prior to the availability of competitively awarded contracts," he wrote

'Helping out'

Halliburton said the wider role for its subsidiary KBR was announced on 24 March, when the deal was made public.

"KBR's initial task involves hazard and operational assessment, extinguishing oil well fires, capping oil well blowouts, as well as responding to any oil spills," the original Halliburton statement said.

"Following this task, KBR will perform emergency repair, as directed, to provide for the continuity of operations of the Iraqi oil infrastructure," it continued.

The Halliburton spokeswoman said KBR was currently assisting Iraq's oil ministry.

"Only now, over five weeks after the contract was first disclosed, are members of Congress and the public learning that Halliburton may be asked to pump and distribute Iraqi oil under the contract," said senior Democrat Henry Waxman, who received the confirmation from the US Army.

New deal

Mr Waxman sits on the House of Representatives' committee on government reform.

Mr Cheney's office has repeatedly denied the vice president had a role in awarding the contract.

The US government has been criticised for its handling of the reconstruction of Iraq because only a select group of US companies have been invited to bid for the contracts.

The US Army Corps of Engineers said the Halliburton deal was a temporary measure before a contract was put out to tender in the coming months.

It expects a replacement contract to be signed by the end of August.

The US Army said in early April that Halliburton had been paid $50.3m out of the contract that could be worth up to $7bn over two years.

so they threw a few bones to the dogs that howled loudest.

9% cheap.





[edit on 15-10-2009 by manxman2]

Originally posted by jam321
Don't you find it odd that people think we invaded Iraq for oil, when Canada, Mexico, Brazil, and Mexico are closer.

I don't know about Mexico and Brazil, but we did plan to invade Canada on multiple occasions to exploit their natural resources, especially Aluminum. War Plan Red was drafted in the 1920's, approved by Congress in 1930, and reconsidered in 1931, 1934, and 1939. Apparently we had another plan to invade Canada in the 1950s (I forget what plan that was called).

Granted, those Cannucks do more than just play a mean game of Hockey, and shouldn't be underestimated. They did plan to invade the United States with Defence Scheme No. 1 in 1921.

Although it would make much more sense, if we were going to invade an independent sovereign nation under false pretense for the purpose of exploiting their natural resources to invade someone much closer to home for the economic savings. Considering that our machines of war consume 3x more Oil to occupy Iraq than we are actually getting from the occupation of Iraq, it makes all the more sense. But then again, our Military isn't renown for their Mathematical Prowess, considering they routinely purchase $700 Toilet Seats, $700 Screwdrivers, contract for $240 Billion for Chem/Rad/Bio Environmental Suits that upon receipt they sell Surplus for $24 Million, and pay $3 Billion for planes that were contracted for $240 Million (and only cost $240 Million), this doesn't come as a surprise. This kind of inefficiency in the DoD is what happens when children are left behind and we spend 62x more money on Defense than we do on Education in America.

Originally posted by manxman2
as if it wasnt already cut and dryed years ago.

greenspan et al are philanphropists. .. so are the bush family and their billionaire oil producing buddies.

[edit on 15-10-2009 by manxman2]

You say that like being a philanthropist is a bad thing.

Wait! Do you even know what a philanthropist is?

It's someone who likes to give money away to worthy causes.

[sarcasm]
How horrible!
[/sarcasm]

Originally posted by fraterormus
But then again, our Military isn't renown for their Mathematical Prowess, considering they routinely purchase $700 Toilet Seats, $700 Screwdrivers, contract for $240 Billion for Chem/Rad/Bio Environmental Suits that upon receipt they sell Surplus for $24 Million, and pay $3 Billion for planes that were contracted for $240 Million (and only cost $240 Million), this doesn't come as a surprise.

I'm going to put on my tin foil hat (I think that's the first time it's been worn!) and say that I don't believe they actually spent $700 on toilet seats and screw drivers. I believe they bought toilet seats and screw drivers, but I think they bought it for a fraction of that $700 and spent the rest on things the public at large doesn't need to know about.

*takes off the tin foil hat*

Wow, I've been reading too many conspiracies lately.

Originally posted by Jenna
I'm going to put on my tin foil hat (I think that's the first time it's been worn!) and say that I don't believe they actually spent $700 on toilet seats and screw drivers. I believe they bought toilet seats and screw drivers, but I think they bought it for a fraction of that $700 and spent the rest on things the public at large doesn't need to know about.

*takes off the tin foil hat*

Wow, I've been reading too many conspiracies lately.

Our Black Ops Budget is pretty open. We know how much Congress approves for Black Ops in total, and we even get an itemized list of what each Black Ops project costs, although we have no idea what that money is really funding.

However, that isn't to say that something SUPER Top-Secret isn't funded by the DoD under the table.

In the case of the Screw Drivers and Toilet Seats for $700 per unit that is simply Cronyism and Political Favors. For any Federal Governmental Expense under $1000 per unit, they do not have to entertain competing bids. Therefore, it's some General or Senator's way of rewarding a Contractor for scratching their back or making Political Campaign Contributions.

However, in the case of 3 Billion dollar aircraft that the manufacturer insists to a Senate Sub-committee and to the G.A.O. only cost 240 Million, then yes, something doesn't add up. What happened to the other 2.76 Billion per aircraft that the Senate paid the DoD for?

I suppose the same could be said about the $245 Billion dollar Chem/Rad/Bio Environmental Suits that were sold upon receipt as Surplus for $25 Million. It could have been a clerical error. The DoD may have found them to be substandard. It may have been discovered that they weren't really effective. Or it could have been that we weren't paying $245 Billion for Chem/Rad/Bio Environmental Suits for our entire Military, but were paying for something else and they were just the cover to justify the expenditure.

However, since the DoD is already getting a Black Ops Budget on top of their regular Budget, if they are wheeling and dealing under the table then they aren't just double-dipping but triple-dipping into the cookie jar.

this is the military industrial complex at work as eisenhower warned you all about.

[edit on 15-10-2009 by manxman2]

Lets just say the American government didn't kill anyone, that we came bearing candy and building schools, and hospitals. The point is... We invaded and are still occupying another country that has several times demanded we leave.
They want us out so that they can rebuild their lives, maybe get a little electricity going - you know the little things.

I sure as hell wouldn't like it if someone invaded the US and bombed our neighborhoods (we did level neighborhoods) then wouldn't leave. I'd be throwing some bricks too. Some big ones.

Great thread KS. S&F

Originally posted by fraterormus
However, since the DoD is already getting a Black Ops Budget on top of their regular Budget, if they are wheeling and dealing under the table then they aren't just double-dipping but triple-dipping into the cookie jar.

Would you really be surprised if they were triple-dipping? I know I wouldn't. There's not much that the government does that actually surprises me anymore which is why I don't see it as too big of a stretch to think that they have been adding in a bit here and there to the costs of things to make up for the cash they're spending on things we don't know about. Could be something completely unrelated to the DoD but they just add the costs in there because everyone already expects it to cost a fortune.

But like I said, I've been reading too many conspiracies lately I think.

Originally posted by nenothtu
*** INVALID ARGUMENT ALERT! ***

Sure, it was "the Saudis" that attacked the US. Sure.

Unless, on any given day, it promotes some loon's argument further to say it was "the CIA", or "The Mossad", or "the US Government". Y'all decide once and for all who did this, and get back to me, K?

It was Al-Qaeda, last time I checked on who was crowing about having done it.

The same Al-Qaeda that the Taliban tried to give aid, comfort, and safe harbor to. You know, all those actions that brought war to the Taliban.

The same Al-Qaeda that decided to stir the Shia/Sunni rift in Iraq.

Yeah, THAT Al-Qaeda. You know, the "other" foreign fighters. The ones it's so easy for you folks to conveniently fail to mention, when it suits your purpose.

I think you should read my comment again in the context of the two quotes I quoted since they where what my post was addressing, Jericho65 was basically stating Iraq was the reason behind the 'attack' on American soil, which as we all know was just ridiculous.

My primary point was im my mind, if America had stuck to Afghanistan in those first few years after 9/11 rather than getting 'bored' and devising a more lucrative and entertaining, and more 'winnable' war in Iraq, you might well have old Osamas head on a plate by now, and the Taliban would have been crushed well and good rather than having a resurgence in number and time to gain influence and support and now actually being a true threat, you where justified in the eyes of the world then... but you dropped the ball, and for what?

Seeing how you took my Saudi comment to literal, I was making the statement that Osama is a Saudi, the hi jackers where Saudi... but what, if anything happened to the Saudi? Was there any form of questions raised and answers demanded from them?... hell no they are/where Bushs bath tub buddies.

And how was Al-Qaeda able to start fermenting inter sect violence in Iraq... thats right the stabilizing force was removed, sure Saddam was a tyrannical nut job, but at least he kept that sort of thing and those sorts of groups in check. You dont try to fight gangrene by cutting a new wound next to the old one...

People havent forgotten about Al-Qaeda im just pointing out that America for a long time seems to be a real poor shot when it comes to actually hitting the supposed target. The problem is the targets getting harder hit every year, and in the mean time your just making new targets with every miss. And thats what a shoot first ask questions latter type attitude tends to result in...

[edit on 15-10-2009 by BigfootNZ]

theres an old saying my father told me about his time in france.

he said when the british fired the germans ducked and when the germans fired we ducked .. and when the yanks fired everybody ducked.

nothings changed shoot anyone that gets in the way.

Originally posted by KSPigpen
This is ONLY ONE SIDE, I realize that. A 'bleeding heart', perhaps. To be fair, I KNOW there are atrocities on ALL sides of conflicts, but the ENEMY is supposed to be the bad guy.

Well at least you admit it now. So when can we look forward to a thread condemning all the beheadings of US troops when they were captured, or a thread condemning all the Iraqi's who are killing other Iraqi's over religion?