After they overcharged the US 61 million for gasoline on a no bid contract, not me. Wonder if Cheney can continue to protect them and softball them work?Originally posted by N8
Cripes!
Who is down for getting some Halliburton stock..???
Rebuilding Iraq: bidding on the jobs
- Thread starter MMike
- Start date
At last count America has had military involvement in something like 48 countries since the WW2. As for Tibet American and Britain were both for years suppling arms to fight the Chinese. Tibet was a bad example, but there are so many so many others.
What after supporting the tailban for how many years, just to fight communism. The Vietnam is a similar example, support them during the WW2, dont help them when they want independence from the French and fight them when their is a communist threat and kill millions in the process and destroy a country in the process.
To me ever since the WW2 America has chosen it enemy wrongly, I could give you many examples. The same goes Iraqi, what WMD and Israeli has made them for the past how many years is it any wonder every Arab nation wants wmds. To remove a dictator that you help to put in place and help arm, because he a more stable than the Iran regime. So much for supporting democracy, free trade and free speech. To solve many problems in the middle east you should start by looking at Israeli.
On a contract worth billions a contractor allegedly overcharging the government only $61M is not that bad (that's less than 1%).
Military aircraft manufactures rip off the government waaaaay-waaaay-way more than that.
Halliburton is only under a microscope because the demo's hate Pres Bush but the seem to hate Vice Pres Cheney even more...
QUOTE]Blame for this latest round of "cultural Imperialism" is IMO, placed at the feet of Osama and his band of losers. Had they not upped the ante as they did on 911, I doubt very seriously there would be troops in Iraq. And maybe the real blame should be placed on the shoulders of all the moslem nations who allowed the cancer to grow and blossom. I hold all Moslems accountable for what is going on now. Keep your own house clean before critisizing someone else's.[/QUOTE]
That comment is so broad and getting close to being racist. laying the blame on Muslims is a load of crap, there are how many Muslims in the world and how many moslims nations. Some of the terrist that have been involved with 911 were from the Philippines which is the worlds largest roman chathlic country. What about Malaysia and Indonesia which are the worlds two biggest Muslims countries, how many terrorist are from those countries, as a percentage of population it is very low. There have also been terrorist that have been arrested and from Singapore which is not a Muslims nation and is one of the safest citys/countries in the world. Hell you have even had terrorist attacks in America that have been done by Americans, yet it is easier to blame another race and religion.
Have you ever thought that may be America involvement in the middle east and support for Israeli might have something to do with there being Muslims terrorists. Also the vast majority of terrorist come from very poor back ground, highlighting the difference between the rich and the poor. Maybe the west has brought this on itself.
That comment is so broad and getting close to being racist. laying the blame on Muslims is a load of crap, there are how many Muslims in the world and how many moslims nations. Some of the terrist that have been involved with 911 were from the Philippines which is the worlds largest roman chathlic country. What about Malaysia and Indonesia which are the worlds two biggest Muslims countries, how many terrorist are from those countries, as a percentage of population it is very low. There have also been terrorist that have been arrested and from Singapore which is not a Muslims nation and is one of the safest citys/countries in the world. Hell you have even had terrorist attacks in America that have been done by Americans, yet it is easier to blame another race and religion.
Have you ever thought that may be America involvement in the middle east and support for Israeli might have something to do with there being Muslims terrorists. Also the vast majority of terrorist come from very poor back ground, highlighting the difference between the rich and the poor. Maybe the west has brought this on itself.
C'mon guys make up your minds, either you care when your hard earned taxpayers money goes or you don't.
If you don't, I'll settle for $600,000 (that's less than 1% of Haliburton's less than 1% for the same amount of work, and I'll even send a thank you note).
Just send your bank account details and I'll do the rest..
That comment is so broad and getting close to being racist. laying the blame on Muslims is a load of crap, there are how many Muslims in the world and how many moslims nations. Some of the terrist that have been involved with 911 were from the Philippines which is the worlds largest roman chathlic country. What about Malaysia and Indonesia which are the worlds two biggest Muslims countries, how many terrorist are from those countries, as a percentage of population it is very low. There have also been terrorist that have been arrested and from Singapore which is not a Muslims nation and is one of the safest citys/countries in the world. Hell you have even had terrorist attacks in America that have been done by Americans, yet it is easier to blame another race and religion.
Have you ever thought that may be America involvement in the middle east and support for Israeli might have something to do with there being Muslims terrorists. Also the vast majority of terrorist come from very poor back ground, highlighting the difference between the rich and the poor. Maybe the west has brought this on itself. [/QUOTE]
You blame the Jews, he blames the Muslims. Both of you are part of the problem. Definately not part of the solution.
And as a result the world got World War II with MILLIONS and MILLIONS of dead. Most of them innocent civillians. A policy of isolation does NOT work.
So if it was Clinton's former company it would be okay as well to you?
Don't bother responding, we all know what the answer is.
That comment is so broad and getting close to being racist. laying the blame on Muslims is a load of crap, there are how many Muslims in the world and how many moslims nations. Some of the terrist that have been involved with 911 were from the Philippines which is the worlds largest roman chathlic country. What about Malaysia and Indonesia which are the worlds two biggest Muslims countries, how many terrorist are from those countries, as a percentage of population it is very low. There have also been terrorist that have been arrested and from Singapore which is not a Muslims nation and is one of the safest citys/countries in the world. Hell you have even had terrorist attacks in America that have been done by Americans, yet it is easier to blame another race and religion.
Have you ever thought that may be America involvement in the middle east and support for Israeli might have something to do with there being Muslims terrorists. Also the vast majority of terrorist come from very poor back ground, highlighting the difference between the rich and the poor. Maybe the west has brought this on itself. [/QUOTE]
Yeah, it might be racist and I don't care. Any religion that tolerates any violence against another is evil IMO. Doesn't matter what religion. And throughout the ages, different religions have fostered violence in the name of their god. Christianity has no reason to hold it's head high either. But at this point in time, it is the Muslim faith that is generating the worst cases of violence against the rest of the World. And I hold them accountable. And to all the Muslims in the World, I say clean out the bozos in your ranks. Until you do, then I have nothing positive to say about your religion. But then, I don't have much to say in a positive way about most organized religions.
We can get into the cause and effect maddness if you want. Rich/poor, Black/White, men/Women - it doesn't matter to me. Any group that wraps itself in some kind of holy rapture and preaches the gospel, and then allows factions within it's ranks to do harm should be held up to scrutiny. And they should be put down hard if they are proven to have a hand in the violence.
As far as Israel goes, I think we should drop them like a bad habit. And that isn't anti Jew rethoric either. It's their stupid and hardheaded attitude towards the Palestinians. But then the Palestinians seem to ask for it. A no win situation IMO.
As to bringing it upon ourselves. Of course we did. That's what we do. But in the case of terroism, I have no problem with the USA challenging any country proven to be a conduit of terror money, supplies and personel. This is a war I feel we have to win. The problem I have now is IMO, we are not aiming true. We are in the wrong country. But we are there now, so we have to finish what we should have finished in Gulf War one.
I don't blame the Jews, they have every right to have their holy land, but who I blame is America and its very one eyed support for Israeli. One country can get away with state back terrorism that is quite often ignored by America so much for human rights. One side has had nuclear weapons for years with the knogedge of the USA, there are some major inequalities in the middle east and to sponsor one side verses the other is stupid which is what I have been getting at and big difference to blaming all Muslims for terrorist attacks.
Could you have imagined 50 years ago many European nations agreeing to a single curency. Alot has changed in Europe in 50 years and i dont think that there could be another Hitler in Europe agian and the same goes for japan. Europe has moved on both poloitcaly and socialy, but has America.
Hey, I'm with you on that one. Doesn't make sense does it? But it might have something to do with the fact that we have our economic pinkies stuck in every corner of the globe. By necessity, we cannot be isolationist. And I think we feel the need to police the World because no one else will step up and do it. I just wish we were smarter about it.
I'd say it was definitely a bigotted remark and the follow up doesn't really improve on it.
Check your figures and you'll see that Muslims have killed far fewer people than (nominally) Christian people. A few militant 'Islamic extremists' (they might perhaps see themselves as Arabic freedom fighters btw) are kill a few thousand 'Christians' and the 'Christian' state kills several more thousand in effective response. Of course, we have 'God on our side' eh? No side of this culture is occupying any moral high ground IMO.
As for terrorists, can you clearly define a terrorist?
And people probably couldn't imagine another Napolean 80 years ago.
Europe will be a battlefield again, historically it has always been a case of war/peace/war/peace etc. We are in a stable period but it wouldn't take much to change that. In fact the admission of Eastern European states to the EU is going to provide a challenge to a stable Europe. Plenty of Western Europeans currently moan about asylum seekers, how are they going to react when thousands of Poles, Lithuanians, Estonians, Latvians etc come to Western Europe to work for half the wages of the locals?
The single currency is not that popular even in the states that have adopted it and some may yet drop out...
And as to God being on our side. I don't think so. From what I have seen go on in this world, God's hand seems to be arbitrary at best. I think he/she/it set all this up and is now comfy in the ole heavenly barco-lounger viewing all our stupidity and silliness and laughing his/her/it's butt off.
Naive sentiment at best.
The US (at great effort) kept the Allied nations from pulling the same nonsense they did after World War I in punishing the Axis nations to the point that they recreate the same problems again. Europeans have a habit of carrying grudges much much longer than the US does.
Fluff makes good points in his post. While great strides have been made in cooperation, there is a great amount of discord that runs just below the surface and it is getting worse. I'm not sure I would go so far as to say it will be a military battlefield again but certainly an economic and political battleground. Those battles, especially the economic ones, can have impacts that are as devistating as military ones.
Why could there not be another Hitler? Because nations are not willing to hide their heads in the sand and allow it to happen. They would not hide behind their borders and say that is someone else's problem. If isolationism is such a good thing, I don't remember your complaints of NATO intervention in Kosovo and Bosnia. Or the UN's involvement in East Timor.
I think that Europe could well became a battle field in the future, but not like in the past the will be small scale in comparison. The reason I say this is the world is allot small than it was 50 years ago. Look 50 years ago and see how many countries in non eastern Europe have stable democratic governments. Compared to now Italy would be the main exemption to this now and many European countries now have left governments Germany, Britain and Sweden. A hundred years could you have imaged a tunnel between England and France, yet for both countries to fight along side in two world wars. Despite the British royal family being related to the Czar in WW1.
Looking back a history after WW1 there are many thing that pinot the Germans and Italians being involved in some conflict again. Think about it now who would invade who or shoot who to start a major conflict in Europe.
As for immigrants looking for work in Europe for high paying jobs that could well be a bigger problem than it is now. In the past countries like Italy have had very large number of illegal immigrants, but now that problem is spread of the rest of Europe. Saying that some European countries have had far less problems with illegal immigrants, Sweden has had a different approach to dealing with them compared many most other European countries and seem to have far less problems. Problems with illegal immigrants seems to have allot to do with what government do with them.
As for many countries not supporting the Euro, Sweden, Switzerland, Britain are the biggest non supporters. With the price of the Euro rising against the price of the US dollar, I think more countries will wont to have the Euro. Saying that I am not living in Europe, but from freinds and family who have been living in Europe I have not heard of single complaint outside of the UK. I think I that is the case that the Euro will compete well with the US dollar and may some day be worth more, many economist believe this will happen n and so do I.
I don't think their will be another Hitler in Europe unless there are some major changes with the EU. As for Kosovo and Bosnia the EU wanted to take action, but could not decide what to do and the Americans wanted to take action and would not commit troops. All this went on while thousands of people died under a fairly useless air war. How many tank were and planes of the enemy were destryed. I think that there could be a next Hitler, but not from Europe, maybe south America or East Asia.
As for the UN involvement in East Timor was mainly bought about by Australia who for years has silently supported its independence from Indonesia. The vast majority of military involvement was Australian, New Zealand, Singapore, Malaysia and several other Asian countries. The American involvement was something like the use of 2 transport planes. All of this was brought about through the UN. The other reason Australia wanted to free east timor was timor straight which has an oil field, and the contract was resigned by Timor and Australia. As for the UN they are about to with draw from Timor, but Australia will ,more than likely have a military presence there for allot longer, just not under the heading of the UN.
American involvement in world affairs is important, but should be far less reactionary and have more thought put in to it. I think things have got far worse in this manner under Bush. Bush before being elected did not even no the name of the president of Pakistan leader of one of the most populous countries in the world that has been in tit for tat war with India for close to 50 years. How is the world meant to feel safe with a leader like that, not knowing about any other country apart from his own. He has also had somthing like only 12 press confrences since being elected, which is far lower than any president before him, who is he accountable for.
An afterword - This recent upsurge in Muslim fanaticism seems to be following a very predictable timeline within the history of their faith. It seems that around 1000 to 1200 years after a religion has been around, a wave of fanaticism hits. Zealots within the religion sense a softening of adherence and begin to take on more hardline approaches in their doctrine and interpretations. In the Christian religion, it was the Crusades at approximately 1100 years. Not a very bright chapter in the Christian faith. Apparently seeds for what is now a true hatred of Christianity were sown then. Fanatical teachings within the Muslim faith started to rear their ugly little heads sometime in the mid to late 19th century and have been gaining ground for over a hundred years. Hopefully, they have peaked and will now begin a historical dampening.
I agree, but what about the Spanish inquisition there were still around only around several hundred years ago. As for fanatic you could also look at Christian missionaries in the same way converting pagans. Blind faith and fanatics are bad what ever way you look at it.
As for Fanatics in Asian is a different story, they come several different countries. The Philippians where there are Muslim groups that want independence from the Philippians. Jerma Islamia (sp) the main terrorist group in Asian and their aim is have an Muslim state in Asia. Allot of the suspected terrorists have been from the Philippines and there are more than one terrorists group based there all after an independent state. There is allot of government corruption, that is helping arm these supposed terrorist groups. I would not call all of them terrorist groups there main aim is freedom from the Philippines and it has been a gorilla war more than anything else.
As for Russian and the Chechens, they have been fighting each other for hundreds of years, and what the Chechnya are doing now is very similar to what Imam Shamil in the 1800s, taking hostages and fighting the Russians.
What do use live presidents for?
You must ask yourself how American would be if it had preferential voting system and the Westminster system of government similar to England, Australia and I think New Zealand. I think that I would be allot harder for someone like bush to be president/PM.
Regarding the presidential election, what we have is hardly democratic. By use of the Electoral College, we are but playing lip service to the idea of democracy with each vote we cast.Originally posted by looseunit
What do use live presidents for?
Well, some folks want to use Ronnie for the new head on the dime.
You must ask yourself how American would be if it had preferential voting system and the Westminster system of government similar to England, Australia and I think New Zealand. I think that I would be allot harder for someone like bush to be president/PM. [/B]
It would be a lot harder for someone like Bush to be instated if we didn't have such an apathetic population. We deserve what we got.
That is true, but most people definition of democracy comes from the Greeks, which was not a true democracy either you had to be male and a land owner. So there has always been flawed thinking of what democracy is.
My opinion if you were to use Westminster system of government having two house of parliament and preferential voting system all of your votes count not just one. The last American election result would have been a hung parliament with no majority of either party there would have been less chance of going to Iraqi. Many other bills of government would not be pasted in to reality, because it has to go pasted more than one house of parliament two lots of voting. So in that respect I think apathetic population george bush would find it alot harder to do what he has done. In my opinion any way.
So how the heck does anything get done??? Especially items that are nessessary but not politically popular?
Sounds like a mess to me.
Your prediction is absolutely rediculous as a different form of government would have radically changed the circumstances surrounding an election and an outcome would be impossible to determine. The first and most important of which is that it is doubtful that either house of Congress would have an even number of members which allowed the tie that existed at the time of the election.
Just because something is political unpopular does not means it gets done. Depending on the government majority, a bill might not get passed until it gets changed what usual happens. It may be passed by one house of parliament but not the other. With this system everybody who is in parliament votes and represents the concerns of there voters. If a bill is repeatedly not passed a government can call an election. Funding of political parties is also done as a percentage of the vote, so in this way sponsorship does not effect the outcome of an election as much.
I think historical record show the US version of a democratic republic works best for our country. Sure there are a lot of flaws but over all it has allowed us to become the world's only superpower we are today in a tad over 200 years. No other country that can claim that. And it has a lot to do with the economic freedoms we have like the quote says, "the business of America is Business."
This is not exceptionally different from what the US has today. Legislation has to be passed by the two houses of Congress. The Congress is made up of folks that are directly elected by the people. If it can't, it is modified until it does or it dies. The difference is that the President then has to sign the legislation into law.
Elections happen every two years for the House of Representatives so there is no real need to "call" for an election as it is about to happen most of the time.
The only problem you have with the form of US government is who is in charge. If we had a better president, in your mind, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
And what we have is a smooth, well oiled machine? Our esteemed legislators have a million and one ways to avoid the "items that are necessary but not politically popular". Our system is as screwed up as anyone else's. Hell, they spend over half their time and well over half the salary I participate in paying to get re-elected.