NtheSeaOrSky 0 #26 September 5, 2005 I am still waiting on a repy to my question to better help me understand your position. BUT, I will answer the base rescue question in my own opinion.... If a BASE jumper needs resuce SEND 'em in, get them out and to a hospital if needed. Should they pay, um yeah. If I incur expenses I suspect I am accountable for those. Now in the instance that said BASE jumper has no insurance, the same rules apply just as they would to the homeless, poor, drug addicted, people from other countries, and others who can not afford to pay..the hospitals/emergency crews eat the cost and it goes on their credit report. The runaway bride had to help pay for her 'rescue efforts' I really dont see much difference. Do our tax dollars pay for this, I am sure they do to a point. Have other people needed rescuing from objects other than BASE jumpers, oh hell yeah. I know my tax dollars go to help pay for the cost of all of these situations and it does not matter to me one bit. It is a small price to pay for the freedoms I enjoy in my humble opinion. I pay city, county, state, federal and sales taxes, do they spend the money the way I would, no, but then again you would be hard pressed to find two people that agreed on all points of the budget. BUT I don't have to write a check to the Sherriff when they come out to arrest trespassers on my property. When I vote, I vote for people that share my views and opinions and hope they make informed logical decisions, if not, well guess what happens next election?Life is not fair and there are no guarantees... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
busaunit 0 #27 September 5, 2005 ok my position is i have no position other then troops are for defending there own nation but when sent to another country for other means other then to save lives i think that is wrong:ie katrina, troops good thing dont know y they need guns but. tidal wave hits troops needed good thing need to own all the oil wells in the world and kill people defending there country wrong if someone attacked thge usa would you fight for it, if that armys govenment thought your govenment had lost the plot,. or would you fight anyway because its you country. for me i would be fuked to let someone does not matter who that is take it? thats where i stand i do see a right and wrong here but thats only my optinon and that accounts for fuk all,. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NtheSeaOrSky 0 #28 September 5, 2005 Quotekatrine troops good thing dont know y they need guns but. This I think is confusing because you are not familiar with the situation. THey have the guns to ensure the safety of the aid workers and protect the citizens from the unruly (for example people attacking aid workers for more supplies, or unruly types taking advantage of the lack of police presence) this is not isolated to the US. Search at any type disaster and you will see the need...I hope you never personally experience it, because it is indeed a very ugly and unsafe thing. Quoteneed to own all the oil wells in the world and kill people defending there country wrong If you think this is why the USA is there, then I can understand you feelings. I do not claim to know all the intricacies, and only the head people truly know what all is going on, but I think if you do a lot of research you will see the US presence in the mideast is not to 'own all the oil'. I am not trying to be mean, but I have a hard time understanding this part, but I will respond as best I can... Quoteif someone attacked usa would you fight for it Umm, yeah, part of the reason we are after the terrorists responsible for the NYC attack. Quote if that army govenment thought you govenment had lost the plot or would you fight anyway because its you country and i be fuked to let someone ,does not matter who that is take it? Not quite sure what this means exactly, but if someone is trying to take our land away, well we have fought wars for that. If we become a dictatorship, or other type government and someone was coming in to help restore order I would help them with whatever they needed. Again, I was not quite sure what you were asking. Questions are never a bad thing, they help us all to understand things better. I certainly do not have all the answers, and I know the general public only has a small idea of the details of everything the government knows. I would not want it any other way.Life is not fair and there are no guarantees... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Bryguy1224 12 #29 September 5, 2005 BUSAUNIT, One of your first points in this discussion was that you were an Aussie. Well... I work with aussie's over here quite often. Are they baby killers as well? I think this topic is getting quite old. I am over your ignorance. My intention is not to get into wether or not the war is right or wrong. That isn't my job to decide. My job is to do whatever the president tells me. It could be go to Iraq, or help in Louisiana, or anything else. I don't get to pick and choose my assignments. Regardless of what my duty assignment is, soldiers, sailers, and marines deserve the support of their country. You don't just pick and choose when to support those people to defend your country. You either back them or you don't. Obviously you don't back them. Why not move to a country that doesn't have a govt. or the freedoms you enjoy. Or come here for a while. I bet you will change your opinion of the military real fast. You still might disagree with the war and that is your god given right. Anyone can disagree with the war. I don't care, but the whole meaning here is to support those people that support you no matter what. Bryan J Ody U.S. Army Iraq Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites busaunit 0 #30 September 5, 2005 ok all i can say to you is you sould look into your government agenders more so you know what is going on ,if you think it is all about freedom and not making money, i dont know what you mean who does something for free? i sure as fuk dont and seems clear to me that numbers dyeing in your thoughts dont count so do you think its a good thing please i need to understand. i am putting myself in the iraqis shoes deffending there country.saddam i think is bad but he is going to have a trial to see if anything the usa government has said is fact. and fact is the key here if all freedom means is to be able to vote in your own govenment how did bush get in? still looking for those wepons off mass destruction sounds like a band dosent it freedom free to do what i am told Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NtheSeaOrSky 0 #31 September 5, 2005 Well we will just agree to disagree...I am not the one who needs to understand...you are (by your own admission) so you can either research it so you know what you are talking about, or continue with your rambling does not matter one bit to me. We are not taking the country from the Iraquis as you keep saying. If you do your homework you would see we are in fact giving it to them. You say fact is key, but you have shown nothing to support your claims, which leads me to believe you still have no clue what the facts are...again do your homework. Not sure about the voting comment, because Bush became president because we voted him there. No one held a gun to our heads and told us to. I am not going to get into my beliefs of the weapons of mass destruction because I do not have all the facts. And since that is what you say you are basing things on... Free to do what you are told? Not sure what that means. We agree as citizens to follow laws and rules or suffer the consequences. But, then again I think it is the same where you are. I hope you do your research before slamming anyone or their country, it will help your understanding and make your theories sound less ignorant/naive.Life is not fair and there are no guarantees... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites busaunit 0 #32 September 5, 2005 baby killers do you or do you not kill babys or that was some other guy that pulled that trigger please if you just said we kill babys i would say fine but dont hide behind someone calling you a baby killer buy your own admission you would if you where told to. i did not call any one a baby killer at first you put those words out there for more affect to make you post sound like it means something other then it does thank you come again Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NtheSeaOrSky 0 #33 September 5, 2005 Put the crack pipe down! Spend a few minutes looking at the posts and you can see I never said anything about a baby killer. On second thought, inhale deeply many many timesLife is not fair and there are no guarantees... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites busaunit 0 #34 September 5, 2005 ignorant/naive. cantfukastan (can not understand) the new state in america an american explain this new state to me last time i was there. it pretty much is central america where people dont get out much. i have traveled to countrys where the affects of a good war are still ripe i suggest doing the same. where is iraq again without looking on the map? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ViperPilot 0 #35 September 5, 2005 Quoteso were the people who supported the troops right or wrong Are you meaning support the individual troop or just speaking in generalities, i.e. their mission? Quotebefore the us put trade sanctions on iraq i think that country was doing just fine Doing just fine? Well apparently thousands of murders, rape "parties" and unprecedented government corruption is "fine" to you. Quoteyou and troops just like you have killed kill over 400 000 people since 1992 Ok, and what are you refering to? Some magical war that I'm not aware of? Where has the US military killed over 400000 people? I think I'm looking forward to this answer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites busaunit 0 #36 September 5, 2005 STANBUL : The World Tribunal on Iraq (WTI), a grouping of NGOs, intellectuals and writers opposed to the war in Iraq, on Friday accused the United States of causing more deaths in Iraq than ousted president Saddam Hussein. "With two wars and 13 years of criminal sanctions, the United States have been responsible for more deaths in Iraq than Saddam Hussein," Larry Everest, a journalist, told hundreds of anti-war activists gathered in Istanbul. Founded in 2003, the WTI is modelled on the 1960s Russell Tribunal, created by the British philosopher Bertrand Russell to denounce the war in Vietnam. It has held about 20 sessions so far in different locations around the world. A symbolic verdict was to be handed down on Monday by the 14 "jurors of conscience" -- including the militant Indian novelist Arundhati Roy, winner of the 1997 Booker Prize for "The God of Small Things." The tribunal has for the past two years been gathering what it says is evidence that the war launched in March 2003 to oust Saddam was illegal, and it has also been gathering evidence of exactions allegedly committed by coalition troops. Its verdict on Monday after its final session is expected to condemn both the United States and Britain. Roy told the gathering here: ""The evidence collated in this tribunal should ... be used by the International Criminal Court -- whose jurisdiction the United States does not recognize -- to try as war criminals George Bush, Tony Blair, John Howard, Silvio Berlusconi, and all those government officials, army generals, and corporate CEOs who participated in this war and now benefit from it." She added that the tribunal was "an act of resistance," "a defense mounted against one of the most cowardly wars ever fought in history." Hans von Sponeck, former director of the UN's so-called oil-for-food programme for Iraq, told the Istanbul gathering that the humanitarian programme "was totally irrelevant." Von Sponeck ran the programme until 2000 when he resigned because he said it failed to meet the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people. The oil-for-food programme ran from 1996 to 2003. It allowed Baghdad to sell oil in exchange for humanitarian goods the country lacked due to international sanctions imposed in 1990 after Iraq invaded Kuwait. Critics said the sanctions led to the deaths of tens of thousands of children and a drastic decline in living standards for almost the entire Iraqi population. The Iraqi government under Saddam swindled millions of dollars from the 64-billion-dollar scheme, and the scandal has become a huge embarrassment for the United Nations. "The UN handling of Iraq will be listed as a massive failure," von Sponeck said. "We didn't speak out despite knowing what the economic sanctions had created as a human disaster." He singled out the United States and British governments for allegedly blocking projects that would, he said, have allowed more people to survive. Some 200 non-governmental organsiations -- including the environmentalist group Greenpeace, the anti-globalization ATTAC and Vietnam Veterans Against the War -- as well as a number of prominent intellectuals such as US linguist Noam Chomsky and Egyptian sociologist Samir Amin are involved in the WTI. - AFP /ls ok i will find the number of kills soon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites busaunit 0 #37 September 5, 2005 Doing just fine? Well apparently thousands of murders, rape "parties" and unprecedented government corruption is "fine" to you. rapes murders happen every day unprecedented corruption in government in american or iraqi governments you talking about just in case you can not read get someone else to read the next post i send you Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites busaunit 0 #38 September 5, 2005 Global Eye Blood and Gravy By Chris Floyd Published: August 5, 2005 It's easy to forget sometimes -- amid all the lofty talk of geopolitics, of apocalyptic clashes between good and evil, of terror, liberty, security and God -- that the war on Iraq is "largely a matter of loot," as Kasper Gutman so aptly described the Crusades in that seminal treatise on human nature, "The Maltese Falcon." And nowhere is this more evident than in the festering, oozing imposthume of corruption centered around the Gutman-like figure of Vice President Dick Cheney. Yes, it's once more unto the breach with Halliburton, the gargantuan government contractor that still pays Cheney, its former CEO, enormous annual sums in "deferred compensation" and stock options -- even while he presides over a White House war council that has steered more than $10 billion in no-bid Iraqi war contracts back to his corporate paymaster. This is rainmaking of monsoon proportions. Indeed, the company's military servicing wing announced a second-quarter profit spike of 284 percent last week -- a feast of blood and gravy that will send Cheney's stock options soaring into the stratosphere. But although Halliburton has already entered the American lexicon as a byword for rampant cronyism, the true extent of its dense and deadly web of graft is only now emerging, most recently in a remarkable public hearing that revealed some of the corporation's standard business practices in Iraq: fraud, extortion, brutality, pilferage, theft -- even serving rotten food to U.S. soldiers in the battle zone. By piecing together bits from the fiercely suppressed reports of a few honest Pentagon auditors and investigators, a joint House-Senate minority committee (the Bushist majority refused to take part) has unearthed at least $1.4 billion in fraudulent overcharges and unsourced billing by Cheney's company in Iraq. Testimony from Pentagon whistleblowers, former Halliburton officials and fellow contractors revealed the grim picture of a rogue operation, power-drunk and arrogant, beyond the reach of law, secure in the protection of its White House sugar daddy. One tale is particularly instructive: Halliburton's strenuous efforts to prevent a company hired by the Iraqis, Lloyd-Owen International, from delivering gasoline into the conquered land from Kuwait for 18 cents a gallon. Why? Because LOI's cost-efficient operation undercuts Halliburton's highway-robbery price of $1.30 a gallon for the exact same service. But how is Halliburton able to interfere with the sacred process of free enterprise? Well, it seems that Cheney's firm, a private company, has control over the U.S. military checkpoint on the volatile Iraq-Kuwait border, and it also has the authority to grant -- or withhold -- the Pentagon ID cards that are indispensable for contractors operating in Iraq. (Even contractors who, like LOI, are working for the supposedly sovereign Iraqi government.) Halliburton used these powers to block LOI's access to the military crossing -- which provides quick, safe delivery of the fuel -- for months. Then the game got rougher. In June, Cheney's boys blackmailed LOI into delivering some construction materials to a Halliburton project in the friendly confines of Fallujah: no delivery, no "golden ticket" Pentagon card, said Halliburton. They neglected to tell LOI that convoys on the route had been repeatedly hit by insurgents in recent days. And sure enough, LOI's delivery trucks were ripped to shreds just outside a Halliburton-operated military base. Three men were killed and seven wounded. But that's not all. An e-mail obtained by investigators revealed that Halliburton brass had expressly prohibited company employees from offering any assistance to the shattered convoy. Halliburton extended this milk of human kindness to its food services as well. The firm had to bring in Turkish and Filipino guest workers to feed U.S. soldiers, because the happily liberated Iraqis couldn't be trusted not to blow up their benefactors. The Cheneymen treated these coolies as befitted their lowly station: They packed them into tents with sand floors and no beds, and literally fed them scraps from the garbage. When the peons complained, Halliburton sacked the subcontractor, who had been buying bargain produce and meat from the locals, and hired an American crony to ship in food all the way from Philadelphia. To Our Readers Has something you've read here startled you? Are you angry, excited, puzzled or pleased? Do you have ideas to improve our coverage? Then please write to us. All we ask is that you include your full name, the name of the city from which you are writing and a contact telephone number in case we need to get in touch. We look forward to hearing from you. Email the Opinion Page Editor U.S. soldiers weren't treated much better. Employees testified that Halliburton brass had ordered them to serve spoiled and rotten food to soldiers, day in and day out. Meanwhile, Halliburton brass were reserving choice cuts for the big beer-soaked barbecues they threw for themselves two or three times a week. They also billed the taxpayer for 10,000 "ghost meals" per day at a single base: The food was phantom, but the rake-off was real. Meanwhile, any employee who made noises about exposing the fraud to auditors was threatened with transfer to a red-hot fire zone, like Fallujah or Saddam's hometown, Tikrit. All of this criminal katzenjammer -- and much, much more -- was authorized at the highest levels, as top procurement brass and Pentagon officials confirmed. Cheney's office kept tabs on Halliburton's bids while Pentagon warlord Don Rumsfeld "violated federal law," the committee noted, by directly intervening in the procurement process to eliminate all possible rivals and to make sure Cheney's employer got the guaranteed-profit gig. Rumsfeld's office also removed oversight procedures for the dirty deals and ignored repeated warnings from Pentagon auditors about Halliburton's blatant, persistent, pervasive fraud. And the money keeps rolling in. Just last month, Don and Dick ladled another $1.75 billion dollop of pork gravy into Halliburton's bowl. For this they have made a holocaust in the desert sands, sacrificing tens of thousands of innocent lives: for cheap, greasy graft; for grubby pilfering; for the personal profit of Richard B. Cheney and the whole pack of Bushist jackals gorging themselves on blood money. Annotations Halliburton's Questioned and Unsupported Costs in Iraq Exceed $1.4 Billion House-Senate Minority Staff Repot, June 27, 2005 Halliburton Overcharges in Iraq: Transcript of Hearing Federal News Service, June 27, 2005 Halliburton announces 284 percent increase in war profits Halliburton Watch, July 25, 2005 http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/news/earnings072205.html Contract Abuse Alleged in Iraq Los Angeles Times, June 28, 2005 Cheney's Boundless War Profiteering The Age (Australia), July 30, 2005 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites busaunit 0 #39 September 5, 2005 http://www.iraqbodycount.net/ i was wrong about the iraqi body count my thoughts do go out to the familys that have lost a loved ones. 1 is to high that many i have no answer too Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites RhondaLea 4 #40 September 5, 2005 Quotei did not call any one a baby killer at first you put those words out there for more affect to make you post sound like it means something other then it does Yes.you.did. First post in the thread: Quotethank god my tax dollars are going into killing women and childern in iraq 100 of billions of dollars of it and not going into the $20.000 rescure of some guy who jumps off cliffs that does not hurt anyone but himself.???? rlIf you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TVPB 0 #41 September 5, 2005 I was going to stay out and common sense says I still should but . . . . . Think about the following comments made by ViperPilot: QuoteHe's just another guy who has no clue about what really goes on. He goes by what his Bush-hatin friends say and the "all-knowing" media. He's just another guy who will never understand what we do, how we do it, and why we do it. Many people just can't get it, he never will, so don't waste your time trying. My dear friend. Do YOU, do I, does George Bush himself really know everything that is going on? I bet not. I think that giving freedom to the people of Iraq is a bi-product of other objectives for the allies. IT IS NOT THE SOLE REASON FOR THE WAR. DO NOT KID YOURSELF. The USA, Britain, Australia, and others are there for many reasons. E.g. - They are there to maintain their own freedom. The USA in particular, is taking a proactive role in influencing world politics in order to minimise the risk to its own financial and social systems and structures. Make the world peaceful, and there is less chance that you'll have trouble back home. Problems have less impact outside a jurisdiction than inside. Australia is doing this in the Pacific and SE Asia, Euro's are playing in Africa, etc. - The removal of the old Iraqi Gov't was probably due more to the lack of influence that the Western World had on it (ability to negotiate and reason) and the growing independance of its dictatorial leader than freeing its people. It was also about harbouring a political enemy (Bin Ladin), and maintianing control of a significant portion of the worlds oil supplies. If it was only about freedom then they would be saving people in Zimbabwe (Mgabe) and other places. But they are not. - Concern over financial issues impacting their economy. The USA is not there to steal oil directly. But they are trying to influence its supply and demand. There are great financial pressures on the USA economy at the moment. Oil prices are being driven up by growing demand in China and now India which will impact the cost of production and living in the USA. Demand is getting closer to maximum capacity and if Iraq decides to stop producing, it would have a significant impact on Western Economies. (I am making good $$$$ trading these facts). There are also greater numbers of cheaper goods being imported from those economies. This affects trade balances, etc. I also believe the US is assisting India with its development as it believes it may need an "ally of sorts" in that region of the world (the other options are China, Pakistan, Russia, Nth Korea - no chance and the US is concerned about potential alliance there. You will see India develop its nuclear capacity with some indirect support from the US). There is also the issue of Asia holding a significant amount of US Govt bonds. The US Govt is affectively borrowing money from places like China and Japan as it struggles with its growing expenditure problems. The fact that the likes of Buffet and Gates are now betting against the US dollar (even if they stuff up) should be a great concern. - etc, etc Individual soldiers have different reasons and perceptions of why they are involved in any conflict. It would be true to say that most believe that defending the freedom of their citizens and the rights of other human beings is THE reason. In that case, I think their involvement is very noble and takes a great level of sacrifice that should be appreciated and applauded by all people. That is one the reasons why "Victory Marches and Independance Celebrations" occur. But you could also say that about Police (cf the situation in Houston and other parts in the Southern USA at the moment), all other emergency services personnel. What about councillors for people with great psychological problems? How about mothers in broken families bringing up children, teachers serving low income/poor areas? All these people are makign GREAT contributions to our society. At any time, they may be exposed the threats of death, violence, psychological trauma, etc. These are all professions that involve risk, the rewards are derived from achieving the objectives and FINANCIAL. Whilst I strongly respect the courage that comes with volunteering for the armed services, I also believe that accpeting the role includes certain responsibilities to both the employer and other human beings. Blind patriotic faith is kind of like falling head over heels in love. There are risks involved. One of them is that your partner may be using you or will leave you in the lurch for someone else. Patriotism is OK. Blind patritism????? E.g. Hitler - one of the most hated. At the early stages of his political career, he had a great deal of support and people following his cause. There were many opposed too. But he could not get into power alone if he did not have some support initially. But then people lost their freedom when he became a dictator. This could happen anywhere. Dictatorship is usually political in nature. But it can also be financial, social, cultural, psychological, etc. I think each person has to be wary. QuoteDoing just fine? Well apparently thousands of murders, rape "parties" and unprecedented government corruption is "fine" to you. I have seen the people abuse in real life. From soldiers, barbarians and citizens. Any person who indulges in this behaviour is an animal. I don't care what his/her role in life is or who (s)he is defending. Corruption????? Cheney / Halliburton????? (p.s. another good money spinner for investors if you were greedy - I didn't because I thought this was morally incomprehensible!!!!!!). Iraq was being supplied with most of its wheat from Australian pre-war, now its being supplied from the USA????? Free trade???? Don't worry, Australia is doing this with oil in the Timor Sea. Many western countries are guility of similar things. My point. FREEDOM IS NOT IS NOT IS NOT IS NOT IS NOT IS NOT IS NOT, the main reason for the war in Iraq - most of it is dishonest /corruption and very little to do with freedom. p.s. there is so much murder, rape, etc in our own countries. A lot of it is to do with the growing separation of the upper and lower classes. This model of capitalism is greed driven and this greed is one of the main factors for all of this violence. There are many other reasons of course but $$$ is a mojor contributor. Norway was recently awarded "best country to live in". It has significant social policy that attempts to ensure that all people are treated well. I have been there a number of times and I think they are much more socially responsible than US, Australia, UK, etc. There are issues, but nothing like capitalist money driven economies. QuoteOk, and what are you refering to? Some magical war that I'm not aware of? Where has the US military killed over 400000 people? I think I'm looking forward to this answer. I can't comment directly as I do not know numbers. But death comes from both direct action and inaction. The fact is that Saddam could have been removed from power over a decade ago and was not. Possibly millions have died in the meantime due to this inaction. In other conflicts - millions have died in Africa over the years due to war and famine. Most wars and dictatorships have been allowed to fester without any outside support (barring a bunch of middle aged rock stars and their fund raisers). Why? Because there is minimal to no benefit. The countries are too poor to develop into a strong military entity (and hence become a worthy opponent), and they do not have significant resources that could be utilised after taking control of those entities. Hence, don't bother. Iraq is different, Israel is different, Nth Korea is different, etc. There are underlying reasons. QuoteActually once the war was relatively underway, many people hated Hitler, in fact, Yep - and there is a possibility that many people hate US, Australia, Britain because they are proactive in taking control of a foreign entity whilst shooting at their people, etc ... I am not saying that this is right or wrong, just that it is probably the way people may be thinking. QuoteThe Iraq war crimes thing...why loose sleep over some idiot in the Army taking pictures of naked prisoners (those people are minimal) Or really???? Do you mean like - why lose sleep over some scum sucking pig slipping his tongue down my daughters throat when the enemy is raping another women. If that was YOUR partner being treated like that, how would you respond???? Those people are minimal??????? Did you ever pause to think that there is a careless prick in the opposition thinking the same thing?????? You were actually making some valid points prior to showing that you had no respect for human life. If you honestly think like that then you are no better than the people you are criticising. Hang on, you are worse because you are taking a moral stance about how bad they are when you are no better. Please tell me you just made an error of judgement so that I can take this statement back??? I would be happy to. QuoteI don't need saving; I need to do my job. I am damn important; so just because I'm in the military and do things that you don't understand why I do them does not mean I think I'm not important. I'm doing something for the human race. I'm helping Iraqi people. You can disagree w/ some of the ways Bush has gone about stuff in Iraq, but overall, we are doing nothing but trying to create a stable government for a free country. People are just ignorant of what that country was like under Saddam. It was terrible, so therefore I am helping the human race by helping free those people...now the hard part is creating a strong, stable governemnt to continue to provide freedom. EVERY human being is important to themselves and probably someone else. If you honestly beleive that you are helping Iraqi people and you are not actually treating anyone with disrespect, then I salute you, respect your endeavours, and wish you all the best. I hope that you achieve the goal of stable Gov't and that the Iraqi people are greatful for your support. May your God and country be with you. COMMENTS FROM NtheSeaOrSky: Quote Should they pay, um yeah. If I incur expenses I suspect I am accountable for those. Now in the instance that said BASE jumper has no insurance, the same rules apply just as they would to the homeless, poor, drug addicted, people from other countries, BASE rescues. I would ONLY agree to user pays if it is ALL USERS pay. If they single out BASE jumpers based on personal perceptions then it is discrimmination. That does not wash with me. QuoteIf we become a dictatorship, or other type government and someone was coming in to help restore order I would help them with whatever they needed. Again, I was not quite sure what you were asking. Congratulations, I respect your opinion because this comment clearly shows that you are capable of logical, reasoned, just, and open minded thought. QuoteWe are not taking the country from the Iraquis as you keep saying. If you do your homework you would see we are in fact giving it to them. Giving is unconditional. If you want something in return, then it is not considered a gift any more. QuoteNot sure about the voting comment, because Bush became president because we voted him there. I think Busanut was referring the questionable first term result for Bush and the problems that occurred in Florida. The second term seems to have been more legitimate in the eyes of distant observers. But I still stand by the fact that a significant proportion of the population did not vote for him the second time around. If it was 75% I would accept that a clear majority of the population did vote for him and he had a mandate. But that did not happen. And with all due respect, lets consider the spread of voting results, the education level and belief systems of people within those various areas, and the fact that security fears and lack of strong opposition all contributed to the final result. These factors affect the reality of whether or not a leader has a mandate. Numbers are not black and white. There were similar results in Britain and Australia. - "Better the devil you know". Stay Safe - Have Fun - Good Luck The above could be crap, thought provoking, useful, or . . But not personal. You decide. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NtheSeaOrSky 0 #42 September 5, 2005 Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Should they pay, um yeah. If I incur expenses I suspect I am accountable for those. Now in the instance that said BASE jumper has no insurance, the same rules apply just as they would to the homeless, poor, drug addicted, people from other countries, -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BASE rescues. I would ONLY agree to user pays if it is ALL USERS pay. If they single out BASE jumpers based on personal perceptions then it is discrimmination. That does not wash with me. I did say 'the same rules apply' to the BASE jumpers in the instance they could not pay..hence they are treated no differently than anyother type of person that can't pay. I hope you are not saying they should not pay because not everyone else can pay. That would be like me telling the hospital, well I am not paying my bill because not all your customers can pay their bills. Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- We are not taking the country from the Iraquis as you keep saying. If you do your homework you would see we are in fact giving it to them. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Giving is unconditional. If you want something in return, then it is not considered a gift any more. For arguement's sake, it is still giving when you lose something arguably more important while giving? Does that make the gift less than a gift? I do not profess to know the exact intricacies of all the reasons incurring the war. Last I checked no one on this forum had that level of security clearance...and if they did what are they gonna say...nothing. For every opinion there is an equal and opposite one (heh, yes I know I just made this up, but it has a lot of truth in it), which always makes for a debate. I just ask that you (not anyone in particular) be open to the possibility that there are people making decisions somewhere who know more than you do and thus may make decisions you might view as wrong.Life is not fair and there are no guarantees... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wwarped 0 #43 September 5, 2005 Quote I think that giving freedom to the people of Iraq is a bi-product of other objectives for the allies. IT IS NOT THE SOLE REASON FOR THE WAR. DO NOT KID YOURSELF. The USA, Britain, Australia, and others are there for many reasons. hey, President G. W. Bush clearly explained that the war was because the threat of Weapons of Mass Destruction. didn't he? I thought he did... he also says he'll hold people accountable. as there have been no public rebukes, or sackings, everything must be just spiffy. (oh, and I loved the leadership he provided when he saw a catagory 5 hurricane approaching the US and got on television to encourage people to evacute New Orleans and prepare for the worst. he did do that, right? I mean, he is a great leader who gets out front...) DON'T PANIC The lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. sloppy habits -> sloppy jumps -> injury or worse Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TVPB 0 #44 September 5, 2005 Rescue's - treat people the same. As long as the decision is not based on what they did. I have done volunteer rescue and I never questioned why the person got into the predicament. I just did my job. No matter how dumb their actions were. My point was that there is a sentiment amongst the media that because a person has an accident on a BASE jump, they automatically should pay. I say yes, as long as the bushwalker who falls off the trail pays as well. And the drunk driver, and . . . . . . All I am after is fair. No preferential treatment. QuoteI just ask that you (not anyone in particular) be open to the possibility that there are people making decisions somewhere who know more than you do and thus may make decisions you might view as wrong. He he. If you ever get to know me personally, you will find out that I am an opinionated prick on many subjects. BUT, I am VERY aware that my knowledge of all that is going on in the world is merely a drop in the ocean or a single page out of a 50 volume encyclopaedia. Hence, what you ask above, you definitely get from me. I know that I know very little about all the things going on in the war. But I also know that I cannot put blind faith in my leaders and expect them to make all the right decisions for me. This is one of the things that I teach my BASE jumping students. When they are new to the scene they obviously know little. I tell them that I may be their instructor and they shoud listen to all I have to say. But more importantly, I tell them that they are ultimately the ones who have to make the decisions that will affect their lives. Hence, they should arm themselves with as much information as possible, and with a system that allows them to decipher the information and make decisions that minimise the risks involved in their jumping. They are ultimately responsible and I am just a guide who knows ????? something!!!! QuoteFor arguement's sake, it is still giving when you lose something arguably more important while giving? Does that make the gift less than a gift? Oops - 1am now -let me switch my brain on and think. HHHhhmmm? I guess if your intentions are honourable and if you want to benefit both parties, and both parties understand and agree, then its OK. Its kind of like mutually consenting adults. . . Ouch. Stay Safe - Have Fun - Good Luck The above could be crap, thought provoking, useful, or . . But not personal. You decide. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TVPB 0 #45 September 5, 2005 To his credit - has has moved mountains. He has made extraordinary changes to this world. We'll just have to wait and see how history records his endeavours. Hope for his sake he wins the war. Otherwise the other side will write the story. Stay Safe - Have Fun - Good Luck The above could be crap, thought provoking, useful, or . . But not personal. You decide. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wwarped 0 #46 September 5, 2005 QuoteTo his credit - has has moved mountains. He has made extraordinary changes to this world. We'll just have to wait and see how history records his endeavours. Hope for his sake he wins the war. Otherwise the other side will write the story. agreed. and not just for the current officeholder. all recent US presidents have wielded tremendous power, and have all had severe critics. returning to previous comments about other's knowing more... military people ASSUME and TRUST that the leadership is operating based on superior knowledge. many political leaders (especially in non-functional democracies) want their people to believe that as well... it helps win "elections." but democracy in the US & UK (and probably others) means no inherent trust. leadership needs to demonstrate they are right. but they'll never make everyone happy. consequently SOMEBODY will think any given politician is a liar. DON'T PANIC The lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. sloppy habits -> sloppy jumps -> injury or worse Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites RhondaLea 4 #47 September 5, 2005 QuoteTo his credit - has has moved mountains. He has made extraordinary changes to this world. That could be said about a lot of people. I'll avoid invoking Godwin's Law except by implication. QuoteWe'll just have to wait and see how history records his endeavours. Hope for his sake he wins the war. Otherwise the other side will write the story. Even when "he wins the war," he's going to have to pull a hat out of a rabbit to get a generally positive historical review. But this discussion is drifting, y'know. Not only is it no longer about the topic of the thread, but it's not even about the topic that caused the thread to end up in SC. rlIf you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ViperPilot 0 #48 September 5, 2005 QuoteIT IS NOT THE SOLE REASON FOR THE WAR. DO NOT KID YOURSELF. The USA, Britain, Australia, and others are there for many reasons Are you kidding me? If people can't see that, they're a total moron. Of course we're there to provide benefits to ourselves and allies. I was saying we are doing something just by helping the Iraqi people while in addition helping ourselves and our allies. QuoteMake the world peaceful, and there is less chance that you'll have trouble back home. Ding ding ding, we have a winner. QuoteBut you could also say that about Police (cf the situation in Houston and other parts in the Southern USA at the moment), all other emergency services personnel. What about councillors for people with great psychological problems? How about mothers in broken families bringing up children, teachers serving low income/poor areas? All these people are makign GREAT contributions to our society. At any time, they may be exposed the threats of death, violence, psychological trauma, etc. These are all professions that involve risk, the rewards are derived from achieving the objectives and FINANCIAL. Whilst I strongly respect the courage that comes with volunteering for the armed services, I also believe that accpeting the role includes certain responsibilities to both the employer and other human beings. Those people are all heroes to me. I look up to them everyday, even the cop who pulls me over...because he's just trying to make his neighborhood a little safer ,just like I am. QuoteThe fact is that Saddam could have been removed from power over a decade ago and was not. Possibly millions have died in the meantime due to this inaction. I've been saying that from day one. Becuase of the idiocy of letting the UN run its 14 resolution course...well we saw where that went. Who was in charge from 1992-2000? Well, you be the judge of what he should have done w/ Iraq. So, point being, we (US Military) did not kill those people, Saddam did. Should we have intervened years earlier than we did? YEP!! Quotewhy lose sleep over some scum sucking pig slipping his tongue down my daughters throat when the enemy is raping another women. Of course not. I'm just saying that people need to stop freaking out about some idiot w/ a camera while choosing to not give a shit about the insurgent who saws off a girl's head. Both people are idiots and bad, but there are different degrees. Quote Those people are minimal??????? Yes they are. The majority of the US military are professional operators. There are bad apples in every group, but they don't make up a large portion of our military. THat's the point I was making. TVPB, I think we are pretty much on the same page, just you misunderstood some of my comments. Maybe I just wasn't clear enough. Thanks for your support, I really do appreciate it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wwarped 0 #49 September 5, 2005 Quote QuoteThe fact is that Saddam could have been removed from power over a decade ago and was not. Possibly millions have died in the meantime due to this inaction. I've been saying that from day one. Becuase of the idiocy of letting the UN run its 14 resolution course...well we saw where that went. Who was in charge from 1992-2000? Well, you be the judge of what he should have done w/ Iraq. the best opportunity to remove Saddam from power came during the first Gulf War. the president at the time chose NOT to, but encouraged the Iraqi people to rise up. this led to massacres of Kurds in the north & Shia in the south. personally, I was shocked when he ordered the troops to halt. he had the troops just stand by while Saddam exacted his deadly revenge. the president who chose this path left office in 1992. if you wish to be FAIR, you would have acknowledged this. he dropped the ball and left the mess for his successors. DON'T PANIC The lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. sloppy habits -> sloppy jumps -> injury or worse Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites busaunit 0 #50 September 6, 2005 rhondalea,bryguy and others I dont wont to offened you but still no where in my first post did i mention babys or troops. And this was not my intention. If i did intendend it ,my post would have read (thank god my money is being spent on troops going to iraq to kill babys.)I DID NOT MEAN THIS!!!!!!!!! For some reason it went for the truth which is women and childern are dying from my tax dollars being used to fund a war, to me calling someone a baby killer. I think facts are key here again ,not what you belive too be the truth.!!!!!! ALL ARMY troops!!! All i think is that money being spent on any rescue should never be a factor ,it never has and never should. Before the money used in saving lifes is taken away. Maybe we should look at the money spent destroying lifes. when 100 of billions of dollars get wasted in my opinion , killing other humans,american , iraq,australian, etc I THINK WE ARE ALL HUMAN. rondalea get off the fence, what do you support? Just in case you have forgotten or have not seen look at this web site. www.awitness.org/journal/real_iraq_war.html I DONT AGREE WITH ANY WAR, NEVER WILL ,FOR WHAT EVER REASON YOU DRIBBLE IN MY EAR, THERE IS ALWAYS A BETTER WAY. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 2 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
NtheSeaOrSky 0 #28 September 5, 2005 Quotekatrine troops good thing dont know y they need guns but. This I think is confusing because you are not familiar with the situation. THey have the guns to ensure the safety of the aid workers and protect the citizens from the unruly (for example people attacking aid workers for more supplies, or unruly types taking advantage of the lack of police presence) this is not isolated to the US. Search at any type disaster and you will see the need...I hope you never personally experience it, because it is indeed a very ugly and unsafe thing. Quoteneed to own all the oil wells in the world and kill people defending there country wrong If you think this is why the USA is there, then I can understand you feelings. I do not claim to know all the intricacies, and only the head people truly know what all is going on, but I think if you do a lot of research you will see the US presence in the mideast is not to 'own all the oil'. I am not trying to be mean, but I have a hard time understanding this part, but I will respond as best I can... Quoteif someone attacked usa would you fight for it Umm, yeah, part of the reason we are after the terrorists responsible for the NYC attack. Quote if that army govenment thought you govenment had lost the plot or would you fight anyway because its you country and i be fuked to let someone ,does not matter who that is take it? Not quite sure what this means exactly, but if someone is trying to take our land away, well we have fought wars for that. If we become a dictatorship, or other type government and someone was coming in to help restore order I would help them with whatever they needed. Again, I was not quite sure what you were asking. Questions are never a bad thing, they help us all to understand things better. I certainly do not have all the answers, and I know the general public only has a small idea of the details of everything the government knows. I would not want it any other way.Life is not fair and there are no guarantees... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bryguy1224 12 #29 September 5, 2005 BUSAUNIT, One of your first points in this discussion was that you were an Aussie. Well... I work with aussie's over here quite often. Are they baby killers as well? I think this topic is getting quite old. I am over your ignorance. My intention is not to get into wether or not the war is right or wrong. That isn't my job to decide. My job is to do whatever the president tells me. It could be go to Iraq, or help in Louisiana, or anything else. I don't get to pick and choose my assignments. Regardless of what my duty assignment is, soldiers, sailers, and marines deserve the support of their country. You don't just pick and choose when to support those people to defend your country. You either back them or you don't. Obviously you don't back them. Why not move to a country that doesn't have a govt. or the freedoms you enjoy. Or come here for a while. I bet you will change your opinion of the military real fast. You still might disagree with the war and that is your god given right. Anyone can disagree with the war. I don't care, but the whole meaning here is to support those people that support you no matter what. Bryan J Ody U.S. Army Iraq Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
busaunit 0 #30 September 5, 2005 ok all i can say to you is you sould look into your government agenders more so you know what is going on ,if you think it is all about freedom and not making money, i dont know what you mean who does something for free? i sure as fuk dont and seems clear to me that numbers dyeing in your thoughts dont count so do you think its a good thing please i need to understand. i am putting myself in the iraqis shoes deffending there country.saddam i think is bad but he is going to have a trial to see if anything the usa government has said is fact. and fact is the key here if all freedom means is to be able to vote in your own govenment how did bush get in? still looking for those wepons off mass destruction sounds like a band dosent it freedom free to do what i am told Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NtheSeaOrSky 0 #31 September 5, 2005 Well we will just agree to disagree...I am not the one who needs to understand...you are (by your own admission) so you can either research it so you know what you are talking about, or continue with your rambling does not matter one bit to me. We are not taking the country from the Iraquis as you keep saying. If you do your homework you would see we are in fact giving it to them. You say fact is key, but you have shown nothing to support your claims, which leads me to believe you still have no clue what the facts are...again do your homework. Not sure about the voting comment, because Bush became president because we voted him there. No one held a gun to our heads and told us to. I am not going to get into my beliefs of the weapons of mass destruction because I do not have all the facts. And since that is what you say you are basing things on... Free to do what you are told? Not sure what that means. We agree as citizens to follow laws and rules or suffer the consequences. But, then again I think it is the same where you are. I hope you do your research before slamming anyone or their country, it will help your understanding and make your theories sound less ignorant/naive.Life is not fair and there are no guarantees... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
busaunit 0 #32 September 5, 2005 baby killers do you or do you not kill babys or that was some other guy that pulled that trigger please if you just said we kill babys i would say fine but dont hide behind someone calling you a baby killer buy your own admission you would if you where told to. i did not call any one a baby killer at first you put those words out there for more affect to make you post sound like it means something other then it does thank you come again Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NtheSeaOrSky 0 #33 September 5, 2005 Put the crack pipe down! Spend a few minutes looking at the posts and you can see I never said anything about a baby killer. On second thought, inhale deeply many many timesLife is not fair and there are no guarantees... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
busaunit 0 #34 September 5, 2005 ignorant/naive. cantfukastan (can not understand) the new state in america an american explain this new state to me last time i was there. it pretty much is central america where people dont get out much. i have traveled to countrys where the affects of a good war are still ripe i suggest doing the same. where is iraq again without looking on the map? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ViperPilot 0 #35 September 5, 2005 Quoteso were the people who supported the troops right or wrong Are you meaning support the individual troop or just speaking in generalities, i.e. their mission? Quotebefore the us put trade sanctions on iraq i think that country was doing just fine Doing just fine? Well apparently thousands of murders, rape "parties" and unprecedented government corruption is "fine" to you. Quoteyou and troops just like you have killed kill over 400 000 people since 1992 Ok, and what are you refering to? Some magical war that I'm not aware of? Where has the US military killed over 400000 people? I think I'm looking forward to this answer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
busaunit 0 #36 September 5, 2005 STANBUL : The World Tribunal on Iraq (WTI), a grouping of NGOs, intellectuals and writers opposed to the war in Iraq, on Friday accused the United States of causing more deaths in Iraq than ousted president Saddam Hussein. "With two wars and 13 years of criminal sanctions, the United States have been responsible for more deaths in Iraq than Saddam Hussein," Larry Everest, a journalist, told hundreds of anti-war activists gathered in Istanbul. Founded in 2003, the WTI is modelled on the 1960s Russell Tribunal, created by the British philosopher Bertrand Russell to denounce the war in Vietnam. It has held about 20 sessions so far in different locations around the world. A symbolic verdict was to be handed down on Monday by the 14 "jurors of conscience" -- including the militant Indian novelist Arundhati Roy, winner of the 1997 Booker Prize for "The God of Small Things." The tribunal has for the past two years been gathering what it says is evidence that the war launched in March 2003 to oust Saddam was illegal, and it has also been gathering evidence of exactions allegedly committed by coalition troops. Its verdict on Monday after its final session is expected to condemn both the United States and Britain. Roy told the gathering here: ""The evidence collated in this tribunal should ... be used by the International Criminal Court -- whose jurisdiction the United States does not recognize -- to try as war criminals George Bush, Tony Blair, John Howard, Silvio Berlusconi, and all those government officials, army generals, and corporate CEOs who participated in this war and now benefit from it." She added that the tribunal was "an act of resistance," "a defense mounted against one of the most cowardly wars ever fought in history." Hans von Sponeck, former director of the UN's so-called oil-for-food programme for Iraq, told the Istanbul gathering that the humanitarian programme "was totally irrelevant." Von Sponeck ran the programme until 2000 when he resigned because he said it failed to meet the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people. The oil-for-food programme ran from 1996 to 2003. It allowed Baghdad to sell oil in exchange for humanitarian goods the country lacked due to international sanctions imposed in 1990 after Iraq invaded Kuwait. Critics said the sanctions led to the deaths of tens of thousands of children and a drastic decline in living standards for almost the entire Iraqi population. The Iraqi government under Saddam swindled millions of dollars from the 64-billion-dollar scheme, and the scandal has become a huge embarrassment for the United Nations. "The UN handling of Iraq will be listed as a massive failure," von Sponeck said. "We didn't speak out despite knowing what the economic sanctions had created as a human disaster." He singled out the United States and British governments for allegedly blocking projects that would, he said, have allowed more people to survive. Some 200 non-governmental organsiations -- including the environmentalist group Greenpeace, the anti-globalization ATTAC and Vietnam Veterans Against the War -- as well as a number of prominent intellectuals such as US linguist Noam Chomsky and Egyptian sociologist Samir Amin are involved in the WTI. - AFP /ls ok i will find the number of kills soon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
busaunit 0 #37 September 5, 2005 Doing just fine? Well apparently thousands of murders, rape "parties" and unprecedented government corruption is "fine" to you. rapes murders happen every day unprecedented corruption in government in american or iraqi governments you talking about just in case you can not read get someone else to read the next post i send you Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
busaunit 0 #38 September 5, 2005 Global Eye Blood and Gravy By Chris Floyd Published: August 5, 2005 It's easy to forget sometimes -- amid all the lofty talk of geopolitics, of apocalyptic clashes between good and evil, of terror, liberty, security and God -- that the war on Iraq is "largely a matter of loot," as Kasper Gutman so aptly described the Crusades in that seminal treatise on human nature, "The Maltese Falcon." And nowhere is this more evident than in the festering, oozing imposthume of corruption centered around the Gutman-like figure of Vice President Dick Cheney. Yes, it's once more unto the breach with Halliburton, the gargantuan government contractor that still pays Cheney, its former CEO, enormous annual sums in "deferred compensation" and stock options -- even while he presides over a White House war council that has steered more than $10 billion in no-bid Iraqi war contracts back to his corporate paymaster. This is rainmaking of monsoon proportions. Indeed, the company's military servicing wing announced a second-quarter profit spike of 284 percent last week -- a feast of blood and gravy that will send Cheney's stock options soaring into the stratosphere. But although Halliburton has already entered the American lexicon as a byword for rampant cronyism, the true extent of its dense and deadly web of graft is only now emerging, most recently in a remarkable public hearing that revealed some of the corporation's standard business practices in Iraq: fraud, extortion, brutality, pilferage, theft -- even serving rotten food to U.S. soldiers in the battle zone. By piecing together bits from the fiercely suppressed reports of a few honest Pentagon auditors and investigators, a joint House-Senate minority committee (the Bushist majority refused to take part) has unearthed at least $1.4 billion in fraudulent overcharges and unsourced billing by Cheney's company in Iraq. Testimony from Pentagon whistleblowers, former Halliburton officials and fellow contractors revealed the grim picture of a rogue operation, power-drunk and arrogant, beyond the reach of law, secure in the protection of its White House sugar daddy. One tale is particularly instructive: Halliburton's strenuous efforts to prevent a company hired by the Iraqis, Lloyd-Owen International, from delivering gasoline into the conquered land from Kuwait for 18 cents a gallon. Why? Because LOI's cost-efficient operation undercuts Halliburton's highway-robbery price of $1.30 a gallon for the exact same service. But how is Halliburton able to interfere with the sacred process of free enterprise? Well, it seems that Cheney's firm, a private company, has control over the U.S. military checkpoint on the volatile Iraq-Kuwait border, and it also has the authority to grant -- or withhold -- the Pentagon ID cards that are indispensable for contractors operating in Iraq. (Even contractors who, like LOI, are working for the supposedly sovereign Iraqi government.) Halliburton used these powers to block LOI's access to the military crossing -- which provides quick, safe delivery of the fuel -- for months. Then the game got rougher. In June, Cheney's boys blackmailed LOI into delivering some construction materials to a Halliburton project in the friendly confines of Fallujah: no delivery, no "golden ticket" Pentagon card, said Halliburton. They neglected to tell LOI that convoys on the route had been repeatedly hit by insurgents in recent days. And sure enough, LOI's delivery trucks were ripped to shreds just outside a Halliburton-operated military base. Three men were killed and seven wounded. But that's not all. An e-mail obtained by investigators revealed that Halliburton brass had expressly prohibited company employees from offering any assistance to the shattered convoy. Halliburton extended this milk of human kindness to its food services as well. The firm had to bring in Turkish and Filipino guest workers to feed U.S. soldiers, because the happily liberated Iraqis couldn't be trusted not to blow up their benefactors. The Cheneymen treated these coolies as befitted their lowly station: They packed them into tents with sand floors and no beds, and literally fed them scraps from the garbage. When the peons complained, Halliburton sacked the subcontractor, who had been buying bargain produce and meat from the locals, and hired an American crony to ship in food all the way from Philadelphia. To Our Readers Has something you've read here startled you? Are you angry, excited, puzzled or pleased? Do you have ideas to improve our coverage? Then please write to us. All we ask is that you include your full name, the name of the city from which you are writing and a contact telephone number in case we need to get in touch. We look forward to hearing from you. Email the Opinion Page Editor U.S. soldiers weren't treated much better. Employees testified that Halliburton brass had ordered them to serve spoiled and rotten food to soldiers, day in and day out. Meanwhile, Halliburton brass were reserving choice cuts for the big beer-soaked barbecues they threw for themselves two or three times a week. They also billed the taxpayer for 10,000 "ghost meals" per day at a single base: The food was phantom, but the rake-off was real. Meanwhile, any employee who made noises about exposing the fraud to auditors was threatened with transfer to a red-hot fire zone, like Fallujah or Saddam's hometown, Tikrit. All of this criminal katzenjammer -- and much, much more -- was authorized at the highest levels, as top procurement brass and Pentagon officials confirmed. Cheney's office kept tabs on Halliburton's bids while Pentagon warlord Don Rumsfeld "violated federal law," the committee noted, by directly intervening in the procurement process to eliminate all possible rivals and to make sure Cheney's employer got the guaranteed-profit gig. Rumsfeld's office also removed oversight procedures for the dirty deals and ignored repeated warnings from Pentagon auditors about Halliburton's blatant, persistent, pervasive fraud. And the money keeps rolling in. Just last month, Don and Dick ladled another $1.75 billion dollop of pork gravy into Halliburton's bowl. For this they have made a holocaust in the desert sands, sacrificing tens of thousands of innocent lives: for cheap, greasy graft; for grubby pilfering; for the personal profit of Richard B. Cheney and the whole pack of Bushist jackals gorging themselves on blood money. Annotations Halliburton's Questioned and Unsupported Costs in Iraq Exceed $1.4 Billion House-Senate Minority Staff Repot, June 27, 2005 Halliburton Overcharges in Iraq: Transcript of Hearing Federal News Service, June 27, 2005 Halliburton announces 284 percent increase in war profits Halliburton Watch, July 25, 2005 http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/news/earnings072205.html Contract Abuse Alleged in Iraq Los Angeles Times, June 28, 2005 Cheney's Boundless War Profiteering The Age (Australia), July 30, 2005 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
busaunit 0 #39 September 5, 2005 http://www.iraqbodycount.net/ i was wrong about the iraqi body count my thoughts do go out to the familys that have lost a loved ones. 1 is to high that many i have no answer too Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RhondaLea 4 #40 September 5, 2005 Quotei did not call any one a baby killer at first you put those words out there for more affect to make you post sound like it means something other then it does Yes.you.did. First post in the thread: Quotethank god my tax dollars are going into killing women and childern in iraq 100 of billions of dollars of it and not going into the $20.000 rescure of some guy who jumps off cliffs that does not hurt anyone but himself.???? rlIf you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TVPB 0 #41 September 5, 2005 I was going to stay out and common sense says I still should but . . . . . Think about the following comments made by ViperPilot: QuoteHe's just another guy who has no clue about what really goes on. He goes by what his Bush-hatin friends say and the "all-knowing" media. He's just another guy who will never understand what we do, how we do it, and why we do it. Many people just can't get it, he never will, so don't waste your time trying. My dear friend. Do YOU, do I, does George Bush himself really know everything that is going on? I bet not. I think that giving freedom to the people of Iraq is a bi-product of other objectives for the allies. IT IS NOT THE SOLE REASON FOR THE WAR. DO NOT KID YOURSELF. The USA, Britain, Australia, and others are there for many reasons. E.g. - They are there to maintain their own freedom. The USA in particular, is taking a proactive role in influencing world politics in order to minimise the risk to its own financial and social systems and structures. Make the world peaceful, and there is less chance that you'll have trouble back home. Problems have less impact outside a jurisdiction than inside. Australia is doing this in the Pacific and SE Asia, Euro's are playing in Africa, etc. - The removal of the old Iraqi Gov't was probably due more to the lack of influence that the Western World had on it (ability to negotiate and reason) and the growing independance of its dictatorial leader than freeing its people. It was also about harbouring a political enemy (Bin Ladin), and maintianing control of a significant portion of the worlds oil supplies. If it was only about freedom then they would be saving people in Zimbabwe (Mgabe) and other places. But they are not. - Concern over financial issues impacting their economy. The USA is not there to steal oil directly. But they are trying to influence its supply and demand. There are great financial pressures on the USA economy at the moment. Oil prices are being driven up by growing demand in China and now India which will impact the cost of production and living in the USA. Demand is getting closer to maximum capacity and if Iraq decides to stop producing, it would have a significant impact on Western Economies. (I am making good $$$$ trading these facts). There are also greater numbers of cheaper goods being imported from those economies. This affects trade balances, etc. I also believe the US is assisting India with its development as it believes it may need an "ally of sorts" in that region of the world (the other options are China, Pakistan, Russia, Nth Korea - no chance and the US is concerned about potential alliance there. You will see India develop its nuclear capacity with some indirect support from the US). There is also the issue of Asia holding a significant amount of US Govt bonds. The US Govt is affectively borrowing money from places like China and Japan as it struggles with its growing expenditure problems. The fact that the likes of Buffet and Gates are now betting against the US dollar (even if they stuff up) should be a great concern. - etc, etc Individual soldiers have different reasons and perceptions of why they are involved in any conflict. It would be true to say that most believe that defending the freedom of their citizens and the rights of other human beings is THE reason. In that case, I think their involvement is very noble and takes a great level of sacrifice that should be appreciated and applauded by all people. That is one the reasons why "Victory Marches and Independance Celebrations" occur. But you could also say that about Police (cf the situation in Houston and other parts in the Southern USA at the moment), all other emergency services personnel. What about councillors for people with great psychological problems? How about mothers in broken families bringing up children, teachers serving low income/poor areas? All these people are makign GREAT contributions to our society. At any time, they may be exposed the threats of death, violence, psychological trauma, etc. These are all professions that involve risk, the rewards are derived from achieving the objectives and FINANCIAL. Whilst I strongly respect the courage that comes with volunteering for the armed services, I also believe that accpeting the role includes certain responsibilities to both the employer and other human beings. Blind patriotic faith is kind of like falling head over heels in love. There are risks involved. One of them is that your partner may be using you or will leave you in the lurch for someone else. Patriotism is OK. Blind patritism????? E.g. Hitler - one of the most hated. At the early stages of his political career, he had a great deal of support and people following his cause. There were many opposed too. But he could not get into power alone if he did not have some support initially. But then people lost their freedom when he became a dictator. This could happen anywhere. Dictatorship is usually political in nature. But it can also be financial, social, cultural, psychological, etc. I think each person has to be wary. QuoteDoing just fine? Well apparently thousands of murders, rape "parties" and unprecedented government corruption is "fine" to you. I have seen the people abuse in real life. From soldiers, barbarians and citizens. Any person who indulges in this behaviour is an animal. I don't care what his/her role in life is or who (s)he is defending. Corruption????? Cheney / Halliburton????? (p.s. another good money spinner for investors if you were greedy - I didn't because I thought this was morally incomprehensible!!!!!!). Iraq was being supplied with most of its wheat from Australian pre-war, now its being supplied from the USA????? Free trade???? Don't worry, Australia is doing this with oil in the Timor Sea. Many western countries are guility of similar things. My point. FREEDOM IS NOT IS NOT IS NOT IS NOT IS NOT IS NOT IS NOT, the main reason for the war in Iraq - most of it is dishonest /corruption and very little to do with freedom. p.s. there is so much murder, rape, etc in our own countries. A lot of it is to do with the growing separation of the upper and lower classes. This model of capitalism is greed driven and this greed is one of the main factors for all of this violence. There are many other reasons of course but $$$ is a mojor contributor. Norway was recently awarded "best country to live in". It has significant social policy that attempts to ensure that all people are treated well. I have been there a number of times and I think they are much more socially responsible than US, Australia, UK, etc. There are issues, but nothing like capitalist money driven economies. QuoteOk, and what are you refering to? Some magical war that I'm not aware of? Where has the US military killed over 400000 people? I think I'm looking forward to this answer. I can't comment directly as I do not know numbers. But death comes from both direct action and inaction. The fact is that Saddam could have been removed from power over a decade ago and was not. Possibly millions have died in the meantime due to this inaction. In other conflicts - millions have died in Africa over the years due to war and famine. Most wars and dictatorships have been allowed to fester without any outside support (barring a bunch of middle aged rock stars and their fund raisers). Why? Because there is minimal to no benefit. The countries are too poor to develop into a strong military entity (and hence become a worthy opponent), and they do not have significant resources that could be utilised after taking control of those entities. Hence, don't bother. Iraq is different, Israel is different, Nth Korea is different, etc. There are underlying reasons. QuoteActually once the war was relatively underway, many people hated Hitler, in fact, Yep - and there is a possibility that many people hate US, Australia, Britain because they are proactive in taking control of a foreign entity whilst shooting at their people, etc ... I am not saying that this is right or wrong, just that it is probably the way people may be thinking. QuoteThe Iraq war crimes thing...why loose sleep over some idiot in the Army taking pictures of naked prisoners (those people are minimal) Or really???? Do you mean like - why lose sleep over some scum sucking pig slipping his tongue down my daughters throat when the enemy is raping another women. If that was YOUR partner being treated like that, how would you respond???? Those people are minimal??????? Did you ever pause to think that there is a careless prick in the opposition thinking the same thing?????? You were actually making some valid points prior to showing that you had no respect for human life. If you honestly think like that then you are no better than the people you are criticising. Hang on, you are worse because you are taking a moral stance about how bad they are when you are no better. Please tell me you just made an error of judgement so that I can take this statement back??? I would be happy to. QuoteI don't need saving; I need to do my job. I am damn important; so just because I'm in the military and do things that you don't understand why I do them does not mean I think I'm not important. I'm doing something for the human race. I'm helping Iraqi people. You can disagree w/ some of the ways Bush has gone about stuff in Iraq, but overall, we are doing nothing but trying to create a stable government for a free country. People are just ignorant of what that country was like under Saddam. It was terrible, so therefore I am helping the human race by helping free those people...now the hard part is creating a strong, stable governemnt to continue to provide freedom. EVERY human being is important to themselves and probably someone else. If you honestly beleive that you are helping Iraqi people and you are not actually treating anyone with disrespect, then I salute you, respect your endeavours, and wish you all the best. I hope that you achieve the goal of stable Gov't and that the Iraqi people are greatful for your support. May your God and country be with you. COMMENTS FROM NtheSeaOrSky: Quote Should they pay, um yeah. If I incur expenses I suspect I am accountable for those. Now in the instance that said BASE jumper has no insurance, the same rules apply just as they would to the homeless, poor, drug addicted, people from other countries, BASE rescues. I would ONLY agree to user pays if it is ALL USERS pay. If they single out BASE jumpers based on personal perceptions then it is discrimmination. That does not wash with me. QuoteIf we become a dictatorship, or other type government and someone was coming in to help restore order I would help them with whatever they needed. Again, I was not quite sure what you were asking. Congratulations, I respect your opinion because this comment clearly shows that you are capable of logical, reasoned, just, and open minded thought. QuoteWe are not taking the country from the Iraquis as you keep saying. If you do your homework you would see we are in fact giving it to them. Giving is unconditional. If you want something in return, then it is not considered a gift any more. QuoteNot sure about the voting comment, because Bush became president because we voted him there. I think Busanut was referring the questionable first term result for Bush and the problems that occurred in Florida. The second term seems to have been more legitimate in the eyes of distant observers. But I still stand by the fact that a significant proportion of the population did not vote for him the second time around. If it was 75% I would accept that a clear majority of the population did vote for him and he had a mandate. But that did not happen. And with all due respect, lets consider the spread of voting results, the education level and belief systems of people within those various areas, and the fact that security fears and lack of strong opposition all contributed to the final result. These factors affect the reality of whether or not a leader has a mandate. Numbers are not black and white. There were similar results in Britain and Australia. - "Better the devil you know". Stay Safe - Have Fun - Good Luck The above could be crap, thought provoking, useful, or . . But not personal. You decide. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NtheSeaOrSky 0 #42 September 5, 2005 Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Should they pay, um yeah. If I incur expenses I suspect I am accountable for those. Now in the instance that said BASE jumper has no insurance, the same rules apply just as they would to the homeless, poor, drug addicted, people from other countries, -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BASE rescues. I would ONLY agree to user pays if it is ALL USERS pay. If they single out BASE jumpers based on personal perceptions then it is discrimmination. That does not wash with me. I did say 'the same rules apply' to the BASE jumpers in the instance they could not pay..hence they are treated no differently than anyother type of person that can't pay. I hope you are not saying they should not pay because not everyone else can pay. That would be like me telling the hospital, well I am not paying my bill because not all your customers can pay their bills. Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- We are not taking the country from the Iraquis as you keep saying. If you do your homework you would see we are in fact giving it to them. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Giving is unconditional. If you want something in return, then it is not considered a gift any more. For arguement's sake, it is still giving when you lose something arguably more important while giving? Does that make the gift less than a gift? I do not profess to know the exact intricacies of all the reasons incurring the war. Last I checked no one on this forum had that level of security clearance...and if they did what are they gonna say...nothing. For every opinion there is an equal and opposite one (heh, yes I know I just made this up, but it has a lot of truth in it), which always makes for a debate. I just ask that you (not anyone in particular) be open to the possibility that there are people making decisions somewhere who know more than you do and thus may make decisions you might view as wrong.Life is not fair and there are no guarantees... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wwarped 0 #43 September 5, 2005 Quote I think that giving freedom to the people of Iraq is a bi-product of other objectives for the allies. IT IS NOT THE SOLE REASON FOR THE WAR. DO NOT KID YOURSELF. The USA, Britain, Australia, and others are there for many reasons. hey, President G. W. Bush clearly explained that the war was because the threat of Weapons of Mass Destruction. didn't he? I thought he did... he also says he'll hold people accountable. as there have been no public rebukes, or sackings, everything must be just spiffy. (oh, and I loved the leadership he provided when he saw a catagory 5 hurricane approaching the US and got on television to encourage people to evacute New Orleans and prepare for the worst. he did do that, right? I mean, he is a great leader who gets out front...) DON'T PANIC The lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. sloppy habits -> sloppy jumps -> injury or worse Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TVPB 0 #44 September 5, 2005 Rescue's - treat people the same. As long as the decision is not based on what they did. I have done volunteer rescue and I never questioned why the person got into the predicament. I just did my job. No matter how dumb their actions were. My point was that there is a sentiment amongst the media that because a person has an accident on a BASE jump, they automatically should pay. I say yes, as long as the bushwalker who falls off the trail pays as well. And the drunk driver, and . . . . . . All I am after is fair. No preferential treatment. QuoteI just ask that you (not anyone in particular) be open to the possibility that there are people making decisions somewhere who know more than you do and thus may make decisions you might view as wrong. He he. If you ever get to know me personally, you will find out that I am an opinionated prick on many subjects. BUT, I am VERY aware that my knowledge of all that is going on in the world is merely a drop in the ocean or a single page out of a 50 volume encyclopaedia. Hence, what you ask above, you definitely get from me. I know that I know very little about all the things going on in the war. But I also know that I cannot put blind faith in my leaders and expect them to make all the right decisions for me. This is one of the things that I teach my BASE jumping students. When they are new to the scene they obviously know little. I tell them that I may be their instructor and they shoud listen to all I have to say. But more importantly, I tell them that they are ultimately the ones who have to make the decisions that will affect their lives. Hence, they should arm themselves with as much information as possible, and with a system that allows them to decipher the information and make decisions that minimise the risks involved in their jumping. They are ultimately responsible and I am just a guide who knows ????? something!!!! QuoteFor arguement's sake, it is still giving when you lose something arguably more important while giving? Does that make the gift less than a gift? Oops - 1am now -let me switch my brain on and think. HHHhhmmm? I guess if your intentions are honourable and if you want to benefit both parties, and both parties understand and agree, then its OK. Its kind of like mutually consenting adults. . . Ouch. Stay Safe - Have Fun - Good Luck The above could be crap, thought provoking, useful, or . . But not personal. You decide. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TVPB 0 #45 September 5, 2005 To his credit - has has moved mountains. He has made extraordinary changes to this world. We'll just have to wait and see how history records his endeavours. Hope for his sake he wins the war. Otherwise the other side will write the story. Stay Safe - Have Fun - Good Luck The above could be crap, thought provoking, useful, or . . But not personal. You decide. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wwarped 0 #46 September 5, 2005 QuoteTo his credit - has has moved mountains. He has made extraordinary changes to this world. We'll just have to wait and see how history records his endeavours. Hope for his sake he wins the war. Otherwise the other side will write the story. agreed. and not just for the current officeholder. all recent US presidents have wielded tremendous power, and have all had severe critics. returning to previous comments about other's knowing more... military people ASSUME and TRUST that the leadership is operating based on superior knowledge. many political leaders (especially in non-functional democracies) want their people to believe that as well... it helps win "elections." but democracy in the US & UK (and probably others) means no inherent trust. leadership needs to demonstrate they are right. but they'll never make everyone happy. consequently SOMEBODY will think any given politician is a liar. DON'T PANIC The lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. sloppy habits -> sloppy jumps -> injury or worse Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RhondaLea 4 #47 September 5, 2005 QuoteTo his credit - has has moved mountains. He has made extraordinary changes to this world. That could be said about a lot of people. I'll avoid invoking Godwin's Law except by implication. QuoteWe'll just have to wait and see how history records his endeavours. Hope for his sake he wins the war. Otherwise the other side will write the story. Even when "he wins the war," he's going to have to pull a hat out of a rabbit to get a generally positive historical review. But this discussion is drifting, y'know. Not only is it no longer about the topic of the thread, but it's not even about the topic that caused the thread to end up in SC. rlIf you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ViperPilot 0 #48 September 5, 2005 QuoteIT IS NOT THE SOLE REASON FOR THE WAR. DO NOT KID YOURSELF. The USA, Britain, Australia, and others are there for many reasons Are you kidding me? If people can't see that, they're a total moron. Of course we're there to provide benefits to ourselves and allies. I was saying we are doing something just by helping the Iraqi people while in addition helping ourselves and our allies. QuoteMake the world peaceful, and there is less chance that you'll have trouble back home. Ding ding ding, we have a winner. QuoteBut you could also say that about Police (cf the situation in Houston and other parts in the Southern USA at the moment), all other emergency services personnel. What about councillors for people with great psychological problems? How about mothers in broken families bringing up children, teachers serving low income/poor areas? All these people are makign GREAT contributions to our society. At any time, they may be exposed the threats of death, violence, psychological trauma, etc. These are all professions that involve risk, the rewards are derived from achieving the objectives and FINANCIAL. Whilst I strongly respect the courage that comes with volunteering for the armed services, I also believe that accpeting the role includes certain responsibilities to both the employer and other human beings. Those people are all heroes to me. I look up to them everyday, even the cop who pulls me over...because he's just trying to make his neighborhood a little safer ,just like I am. QuoteThe fact is that Saddam could have been removed from power over a decade ago and was not. Possibly millions have died in the meantime due to this inaction. I've been saying that from day one. Becuase of the idiocy of letting the UN run its 14 resolution course...well we saw where that went. Who was in charge from 1992-2000? Well, you be the judge of what he should have done w/ Iraq. So, point being, we (US Military) did not kill those people, Saddam did. Should we have intervened years earlier than we did? YEP!! Quotewhy lose sleep over some scum sucking pig slipping his tongue down my daughters throat when the enemy is raping another women. Of course not. I'm just saying that people need to stop freaking out about some idiot w/ a camera while choosing to not give a shit about the insurgent who saws off a girl's head. Both people are idiots and bad, but there are different degrees. Quote Those people are minimal??????? Yes they are. The majority of the US military are professional operators. There are bad apples in every group, but they don't make up a large portion of our military. THat's the point I was making. TVPB, I think we are pretty much on the same page, just you misunderstood some of my comments. Maybe I just wasn't clear enough. Thanks for your support, I really do appreciate it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wwarped 0 #49 September 5, 2005 Quote QuoteThe fact is that Saddam could have been removed from power over a decade ago and was not. Possibly millions have died in the meantime due to this inaction. I've been saying that from day one. Becuase of the idiocy of letting the UN run its 14 resolution course...well we saw where that went. Who was in charge from 1992-2000? Well, you be the judge of what he should have done w/ Iraq. the best opportunity to remove Saddam from power came during the first Gulf War. the president at the time chose NOT to, but encouraged the Iraqi people to rise up. this led to massacres of Kurds in the north & Shia in the south. personally, I was shocked when he ordered the troops to halt. he had the troops just stand by while Saddam exacted his deadly revenge. the president who chose this path left office in 1992. if you wish to be FAIR, you would have acknowledged this. he dropped the ball and left the mess for his successors. DON'T PANIC The lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. sloppy habits -> sloppy jumps -> injury or worse Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
busaunit 0 #50 September 6, 2005 rhondalea,bryguy and others I dont wont to offened you but still no where in my first post did i mention babys or troops. And this was not my intention. If i did intendend it ,my post would have read (thank god my money is being spent on troops going to iraq to kill babys.)I DID NOT MEAN THIS!!!!!!!!! For some reason it went for the truth which is women and childern are dying from my tax dollars being used to fund a war, to me calling someone a baby killer. I think facts are key here again ,not what you belive too be the truth.!!!!!! ALL ARMY troops!!! All i think is that money being spent on any rescue should never be a factor ,it never has and never should. Before the money used in saving lifes is taken away. Maybe we should look at the money spent destroying lifes. when 100 of billions of dollars get wasted in my opinion , killing other humans,american , iraq,australian, etc I THINK WE ARE ALL HUMAN. rondalea get off the fence, what do you support? Just in case you have forgotten or have not seen look at this web site. www.awitness.org/journal/real_iraq_war.html I DONT AGREE WITH ANY WAR, NEVER WILL ,FOR WHAT EVER REASON YOU DRIBBLE IN MY EAR, THERE IS ALWAYS A BETTER WAY. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
