Just in....Rumsfeld finally stepping down..

bobman1235

marker wrote:

OK, enlighten us all then. What was it really about?

Government and intelligence ineptitude? Is that really harder for you to swallow than a conspiracy? You would rather believe that everyone in the higher up positions of government is willing to risk (take) the lives of thousands of people to make some money rather than they were just wrong? The whole world, including the UN, thought that Iraq had WMD. I know everyone forgets this, but right or wrong (apparently wrong) EVERYONE in the world was telling Iraq to release their weapons "or else." The US went out on a limb - WRONGLY, IMO - and said "we're not waiting anymore" and got us into this mess. It was obviously a mistake, and it's becoming more and more of a mistake as the months roll by. But I find that very simple and reasonable explanation much more feasible than "Bush and his buddies are the next Hitler, and willing to sacrifice what is now THOUSANDS OF LIVES for the sake of their stock options."

tommyboy wrote:

right wing? your calling him a conservative

I said right-wing conspiracy blog. As in blogs about right-wing conspiracies.

marker

Polkersince85 wrote:

From your responses, you may still be young enough to join and go see for yourself what we are doing over there. It may answer some of your questions.

Nice try at a non-answer there. Next time, just admit that you don't know.

brettw22

Polkersince85 wrote:

From your responses, you may still be young enough to join and go see for yourself what we are doing over there. It may answer some of your questions.

Seems a bit disingenuous for you to tell him he needs to go overseas to see what's goin on while you're not willing to do the same thing to justify your thoughts.

marker

bobman1235 wrote:

Government and intelligence ineptitude?

Answering a question with a question huh?

marker

brettw22 wrote:

Seems a bit disingenuous for you to tell him he needs to go overseas to see what's goin on while you're not willing to do the same thing to justify your thoughts.

Do as I say, not as I do huh?

tommyboy

bobman1235 wrote:

I said right-wing conspiracy blog. As in blogs about right-wing conspiracies.

oops:o

I have never agreed about going into Iraq. But that really doesn't matter anymore... We are in now and we have to find a way to keep stability in this country because if we just leave with that country in ruins, not only did we lose 3000 troops, but no country would have trust in us ever again IMO. We have to stay and win, and thats all there is to it...

marker

Personally, and admittedly this is just theory and speculation on my part, but I have always believed that maybe this was not much more than a personal vendetta and agenda more than anything else right from the start to get "daddies' revenge". Remember the "but he wanted to kill my daddy" comment?

But obviously, he needed more than that to try to sell it.

univera

Polkersince85 wrote:

From your responses, you may still be young enough to join and go see for yourself what we are doing over there. It may answer some of your questions.

I'm trying to stay out of this but....

The reason we continue to be there now is not the reason we originally set out for. Yes, terrorists abound, but Iraq wasn't overrun with them before that. I may not agree with the war, but I'm not one saying we should cut and run. The job we have to do now is not the one we set out to do. Unfortunately, we have to deal with it and keep things from really going off the deep end.

univera

tommyboy wrote:

oops:o

I have never agreed about going into Iraq. But that really doesn't matter anymore... We are in now and we have to find a way to keep stability in this country because if we just leave with that country in ruins, not only did we lose 3000 troops, but no country would have trust in us ever again IMO. We have to stay and win, and thats all there is to it...

Tommyboy, I actually agree with you as I mentioned above. Didn't agree with going, but we have to stay and make all these deaths worth something and keep that place from becoming a haven for terrorists. As much as I dislike our "leadership," leaving would be a big mistake. Unfortunately, we have to finish the job. And I'm no Iraq backer..IMO, Rumsfeld is the Bose of Iraq: all talk and little performance...(inside joke.)

MacLeod

I think this is a crock. The ink isnt even dry on the ballots and Bush has caved in already. I know he's trying to make nice with the Democrats but he tried that for years and they still hate his guts.

If Bush thought Rumsfeld needed to go, he shouldve done it before.

Im so tired of Bush. Im starting to think he's the worst thing to happen to the GOP since his daddy's "read my lips" snafu. I cant wait til 08.

In fact, Im sick of politics completely. This whole election year just burned me out. I think Im going to take a sabbatical from politics as a whole for a while. I wish I could be like my wife. She couldnt care less about politics. As long as she gets to watch Rachel Ray, she's happy.

Early B.

bobman1235 wrote:

Government and intelligence ineptitude? Is that really harder for you to swallow than a conspiracy? You would rather believe that everyone in the higher up positions of government is willing to risk (take) the lives of thousands of people to make some money rather than they were just wrong?

YES.

There is no other plausible reason for going to war with Iraq.

Believe it or not, there are some people in the world who are perfectly willing to sacrifice lives (except their own) for financial gain.

bobman1235

Early B. wrote:

YES.

There is no other plausible reason for going to war with Iraq.

Believe it or not, there are some people in the world who are perfectly willing to sacrifice lives (except their own) for financial gain.

I equate comments like this to ancient times, when people couldn't figure out why it thundered so they just made something up, like the god Zeus was making magical thunderbolts. I love how the "enlightened ones" make fun of all the "redneck morons" but they'll buy into the first ridiculous conspiracy that vilifies the person they didn't vote for.

TroyD

Ok, so who made the money?

marker

Haliburton

fireshoes

MacLeod wrote:

As long as she gets to watch Rachel Ray, she's happy.

Hey nothing wrong with that!

TroyD

marker wrote:

Haliburton

Haliburton was already making mints of cash on gov't contracts awarded on an equally dubious basis before the war and had been doing so for over a decade.

Pure speculation without the slightest trace of proof.

Again, if you want to be take seriously, go out and do the research and make informed choices. As I've said, I think it's good that we have differing opinions so long as they are informed.

BDT

MacLeod

marker wrote:

Haliburton

Im suprised it took this long for somebody to bring up Haliburton.

I guess Clinton was in bed with them too because he used Haliburton for contracts just like this more than any other company. Know why? Because therye the best at doing **** like this! Besides, there arent a whole lot of companies that specialize in rebuilding bombed out coutries.

univera

I think the bigger picture, which no one can reasonably deny, is that history shows the War Machine is generally a big stimulus for the economy. I am not a conspiracy theorist, but if one examines things in a reasonable light, there is no denying the economy was perceived as being down at the begginning of the Iraq war. I don't think its such a stretch to think that ONE of many factors involved was to stimulate the economy.

Let's assume Bush really did feel ousting Hussein was the right thing to do and that was his main impetus. If the fact that economies tend to thrive during war times was an added asset, how can one deny that possibly played into the thinking. While I agree Haliburton stood to gain billions, the real picture likely has to do with the economy as a whole.

And, while I still disagree with going to war, the fact that we gained a strategic base there can't go without notice. HOWEVER; I am not condoning going to war or supporting it. I just see obvious factors that combined with the POSSIBLE fact that Bush's main reasoning was a suppossed WMD threat, all the other factors would be a bonus. Quite frankly, I really don't know what Bush was truly thinking. That's probably the number one question everyone would like to know.

I am admittedly a Democratic supporter, yet, I can come to the middle and see the forest for the trees. Why do so many people refuse to budge one inch and admit the other side has valid points? I truly hope Kerry doesn't run again and possibly even Hillary, even though I think she has the balls to lead. We need someone in the middle. MC, if you think McCain and Graham are liberals, we will never have any peace at home.

univera

MacLeod wrote:

I think this is a crock. The ink isnt even dry on the ballots and Bush has caved in already. I know he's trying to make nice with the Democrats but he tried that for years and they still hate his guts.

If Bush thought Rumsfeld needed to go, he shouldve done it before.

Im so tired of Bush. Im starting to think he's the worst thing to happen to the GOP since his daddy's "read my lips" snafu. I cant wait til 08.

In fact, Im sick of politics completely. This whole election year just burned me out. I think Im going to take a sabbatical from politics as a whole for a while. I wish I could be like my wife. She couldnt care less about politics. As long as she gets to watch Rachel Ray, she's happy.

I felt the same way when Bush won the first time around. I couldn't take being angry all the time. You'll be back in a while...If we find someone who can unite this country instead of polarizing us all, we won't be angry all the time.

marker

TroyD wrote:

Haliburton was already making mints of cash on gov't contracts awarded on an equally dubious basis before the war and had been doing so for over a decade.

Maybe so, but I suppose it's also just a mere coincidence that they made all time record breaking profits last year too, huh? :rolleyes:

Pure speculation without the slightest trace of proof.

Again, if you want to be take seriously, go out and do the research and make informed choices. As I've said, I think it's good that we have differing opinions so long as they are informed.

BDT

Try following your very own advise here by typing in a google search on Haliburton's profits and see what comes up instead of just saying what you uninformingly think is right, and then maybe YOU will be taken more seriously next time. :cool:

Or just click on this link::D

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&rls=RNWE,RNWE:2005-20,RNWE:en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=halliburton+profits&spell=1

TroyD

univera wrote:

I think the bigger picture, which no one can reasonably deny, is that history shows the War Machine is generally a big stimulus for the economy. I am not a conspiracy theorist, but if one examines things in a reasonable light, there is no denying the economy was perceived as being down at the begginning of the Iraq war. I don't think its such a stretch to think that ONE of many factors involved was to stimulate the economy.

Let's assume Bush really did feel ousting Hussein was the right thing to do and that was his main impetus. If the fact that economies tend to thrive during war times was an added asset, how can one deny that possibly played into the thinking. While I agree Haliburton stood to gain billions, the real picture likely has to do with the economy as a whole.

And, while I still disagree with going to war, the fact that we gained a strategic base there can't go without notice. HOWEVER; I am not condoning going to war or supporting it. I just see obvious factors that combined with the POSSIBLE fact that Bush's main reasoning was a suppossed WMD threat, all the other factors would be a bonus. Quite frankly, I really don't know what Bush was truly thinking. That's probably the number one question everyone would like to know.

I am admittedly a Democratic supporter, yet, I can come to the middle and see the forest for the trees. Why do so many people refuse to budge one inch and admit the other side has valid points?

I'm going to disagree with the pretext that we went to war to boost the economy.

The model for this rationale is, obviously, WWII (which ended the Depression, not the New Deal) and to a lesser extent Vietnam. What stimulated the economy in those conflicts was the mobilization of troops and the massive amount of gear that they required. That's just not the case in this war. While SOME industries benefited, really, it's a drop in the bucket. We aren't mass producing ships, planes, guns etc etc.

The economy stimulus was the tax cut. The fact is, it's been proven, lower the tax rates, it stimulates the economy and in the end, tax receipts increase.

My take on the reason for war is simple. Preemption. Al Qaeda was on the run. Iraq was a perfect fit. Now I'm NOT implying that there WAS collusion but I think that had we NOT acted, it was a pretty likely scenario. Plus, I think the WMD thing DID have a lot to do with it. EVERYONE was convinced they were there. Not to mention that it's come to light that his nuke program was more advanced than we thought.

An ancilliary benefit that I think DID have an influence is that by toppling Saddam, it gave AQ a front to come out and take us on AWAY from our shores. As Gen. Franks said, I'd rather fight them there (Iraq) than here (CONUS).

Lee, that problem exists on both sides of the aisle. If we are going on purely public statements, Bush has been far more civil and gracious than his opponents.

BDT

TroyD

marker wrote:

Maybe so, but I suppose it's also just a mere coincidence that they made all time record breaking profits last year too, huh? :rolleyes:



Try following your very own advise here by typing in a google search on Haliburton's profits and see what comes up instead of just saying what you uninformingly think is right, and then maybe YOU will be taken more seriously next time. :cool:

Or just click on this link::D

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&rls=RNWE,RNWE:2005-20,RNWE:en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=halliburton+profits&spell=1

LOTS of companies are making record profits. Does that mean that they all wanted us to invade Iraq as well?

Until someone can prove collusion, and don't you just know there are a LOT of people would like nothing more than that, it's a conspiracy theory. Nothing more.

BDT

exalted512

Its going to be ok people. An Aggie is taking over the job
-Cody

marker

TroyD wrote:

LOTS of companies are making record profits. Does that mean that they all wanted us to invade Iraq as well?

Until someone can prove collusion, and don't you just know there are a LOT of people would like nothing more than that, it's a conspiracy theory. Nothing more.

BDT

I'd say all the no bid contracts awarded to them pretty much should meet proof of collusion, no?

Many of which they themselves turned right around and subcontracted out to other third part companies.

marker

exalted512 wrote:

Its going to be ok people. An Aggie is taking over the job
-Cody

It is pretty much pointless to argue about it. Many people have already formed their opinion and won't change it no matter what either way.

Bottom line though, spin it anyway you wish (on either side), but if Rummy was doing such a great job and the war was going so well, we wouldn't be having this conversation on this thread right now and the election results wouldn't have turned out the way they did yesterday.

TroyD

marker wrote:

I'd say all the no bid contracts awarded to them pretty much should meet proof of collusion, no?

Many of which they themselves turned right around and subcontracted out to other third part companies.

You know, this is the same tired crap people have been peddling for almost four years. The contracts were handed out in the same way during the 90's...g'head and look it up.

You nor anyone else has managed to find anything illegal. Go ahead and look for yourself.

Now, do you have anything ideological to debate or just more stuff you read on moveon.org?

Good luck, good bye.

BDT

TroyD

marker wrote:

It is pretty much pointless to argue about it. Many people have already formed their opinion and won't change it no matter what either way.

Bottom line though, spin it anyway you wish (on either side), but if Rummy was doing such a great job and the war was going so well, we wouldn't be having this conversation on this thread right now and the election results wouldn't have turned out the way they did yesterday.

Correct in that Rumsfeld needed to go but, IMO, not for the reasons you gave.

Now, if we want to talk election results, ok, as I've pointed out...the Democrats did win and fairly convincingly. HOWEVER, the news isn't all good. One, if you go back and look...the midterm elections for two terms presidents have historically been bloodbaths. This was actually pretty tame. Two, people weren't voting for Democrats, they were voting against Bush. People are tired of Iraq. They should be. We have proved again that we aren't great nation builders. We haven't been in half a century.

Two, look at the Democrats that were elected in a lot of places. CT is a great example. Given the choice, voters REJECTED the classic liberal. In spades.

I actually think that this election is a good thing. A lot of good CAN come from it if the elected pay attention to what the voters were REALLY saying.

BDT

marker

TroyD wrote:

You know, this is the same tired crap people have been peddling for almost four years. The contracts were handed out in the same way during the 90's...g'head and look it up.

You nor anyone else has managed to find anything illegal. Go ahead and look for yourself.

Now, do you have anything ideological to debate or just more stuff you read on moveon.org?

Good luck, good bye.

BDT

So how did you in your mind interpret that it was ever said on this thread that anything was illegal? Or that it hadn't been going on for more than just 4 years? Go ahead, look for yourself and see if it ever was, by me anyway. Maybe this is your idea of an "ideological" debate, to invent things that were never even said?

You asked who was making money off of the war. I pointed out how Halli. had been enjoying all time record breaking profits. Now, just do a search from public disclosures (through reputable sources at that, and not just "moveon.org") as to just how many billions of $$$ from the Iraq war has gone directly to them. Including, among other things, vast profits from the subsidizing of gas by US taxpayers for citizens in one of the most oil rich countries in the world.

Now, you tell me, do you really and truly believe that Halli. isn't profiting immensely off of this war? While they are not the only ones, but they are getting theirs, and then some.

Now if you own a lot of their stock, then this wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing though. Do you own any?

univera

Troy, I didn't say the war was entirely about money. I said it was certainly one factor that couldn't possibly have been overlooked. As much spinning and analyzing that goes down in any White House, there's no way that didn't get mentioned and considered. If you are saying you believe we went to Iraq to fight terrorists, I respectfully disagree. I have yet to see one thing that showed there was any huge numbers of terrorists in Iraq pre-war. There were some camps, but nothing widescale like A-stan.

Are we there now to fight terrorists? For certain. They have overrun the joint and new ones are joining up everyday. Many of the people we attempted to save from Hussein are likely now the terrorists themselves. I'm in no way implying that we turned them into that. Those people have such a vacummn of anything stable that it doesn't take much to push them one way or the other. Anger at the U.S. combined with the rest of the nut jobs already there is all it takes.

Was the war conceived to fatten up Haliburton? Maybe not, but they definitely have benefitted tremendously. Again, its the chicken and egg discussion. Maybe they weren't initially the reason to go, but it seems in many ways they have unfairly benefitted without proper competion. Yes, I know they do things the best and have the experience. However; no bid contracts NEVER do anything other than lead to suspicion, so you can't fault anyone for being dubious. It's not that far fetched even if I don't personally buy into it 100%. It would be impossible or ignorant to totally overlook and dismiss long standing connections between the Bush family and Cheney. Again, its all part of the big picture with a bunch of "good" reasons to go to war.

marker

TroyD wrote:

Correct in that Rumsfeld needed to go but, IMO, not for the reasons you gave.

OK, so tell me, what reasons did I give that he had to go?

I actually think that this election is a good thing. A lot of good CAN come from it if the elected pay attention to what the voters were REALLY saying.

BDT

It looks like it has already started.