Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Sign in to follow this  
a bronx tale

JOHN KERRY IS A FLAMING PUSSY

Recommended Posts

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: JOHN KERRY IS A FLAMING PUSSY

 

Originally posted by THE CORONER

the people who took over that school, since most of them were actually arabs, probably were not fighting for chechen independence. they were there to kill infidels.pure and simple.

 

 

theyre hitting military targets.

 

and they always videotape theyre attacks, so that shit can be shown like how it really is.my buddy has some of em off the net, and no theyre not hitting civilians (fellow chechens), theyre hitting russian military forces.

 

SO IF YOUR NOT AN ARAB YOUR AN INFIDEL HUH?? YOUR IGNORANCE AND HATRED IS CAUSED PROBABLY DUE TO LOW SELF ESTEME. BTW THE LAST TIME I CHECKED AN ELEMEMTARY SCHOOL WITH THOUSANDS OF CHILDREN ISNT A MILITARY TARGET OR HAD ANY MILITARY FORCES IN IT, STUPID.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This forum is supported by the 12ozProphet Shop, so go buy a shirt and help support!
This forum is brought to you by the 12ozProphet Shop.
This forum is brought to you by the 12oz Shop.
Originally posted by ihatefrunts

Look, show me an exerpt in the 9/11 report that discusses a convoluted relationship between Bush and Osama Bin Ladin, and then you can criticize my reference to the book (Your right, I have not read it, but I have read its summary).

 

any reference in the report is not a prerequisite for legitimacy, and as i said earlier, you should actually read the report, becuz i believe you'll agree details are important, details you won't get reading about it, or it's summary. and as i said before, you can't base your opinions from a report you have not read.

becuz a relationship existed at some point does not by default mean that the bush family was conniving behind the scenes for a 9/11 attack. it just means that there's some explaining to do, and lends a sociological context to this president and the relationship US politicians and businessmen have to saudi's.

 

By the way, Israel does not produce terrorists. Israel loves the US - we ensure their survival over there. Look up the Bin Ladin Family and their present affiliation with Osama, and you'll see that he is not embraced by them.

 

no, israel engages state terrorist operations. i'm not going to get into this particular

topic due to time, but the recent bruhaha at the pentagon which seems to have extended well beyond it's five rings, coupled with america's undying and disturbing support of israel and various other things that have come to light in the last few years could make an interesting argument for what i said.

secondly, so if the bin laden family says they aren't down with osama, then okay, that's it? you know, maybe you're right, maybe the direct and peripheral information i've combed through on this is disinformation. entirely possible, but..i'm fairly sure there is a solid and corroborated link between members of his family, certain saudi royals, and power players in the monarchy that have funded bin laden, at least up to 9/11, perhaps beyond. if i can remember where the sources of this information are, i will post it.

 

I can see Bush's perspective as rational, where most people who oppose him won't give him that. If Bush walked on water, you would say he can't swim.

 

how is his perspective rational in any way? please explain.

his administrations persuasiveness rests on completely discredited claims, fear and garbage. everthing from here on out should be doubted and he and his executives should be held accountable.

most intelligent people do not give him this becuz his record clearly speaks volumes against his own rhetoric, which highlights what and idiot and a terrible president he is. interesting second sentence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by POIESIS

any reference in the report is not a prerequisite for legitimacy, and as i said earlier, you should actually read the report, becuz i believe you'll agree details are important, details you won't get reading about it, or it's summary. and as i said before, you can't base your opinions from a report you have not read.

becuz a relationship existed at some point does not by default mean that the bush family was conniving behind the scenes for a 9/11 attack. it just means that there's some explaining to do, and lends a sociological context to this president and the relationship US politicians and businessmen have to saudi's.

 

 

 

no, israel engages state terrorist operations. i'm not going to get into this particular

topic due to time, but the recent bruhaha at the pentagon which seems to have extended well beyond it's five rings, coupled with america's undying and disturbing support of israel and various other things that have come to light in the last few years could make an interesting argument for what i said.

secondly, so if the bin laden family says they aren't down with osama, then okay, that's it? you know, maybe you're right, maybe the direct and peripheral information i've combed through on this is disinformation. entirely possible, but..i'm fairly sure there is a solid and corroborated link between members of his family, certain saudi royals, and power players in the monarchy that have funded bin laden, at least up to 9/11, perhaps beyond. if i can remember where the sources of this information are, i will post it.

 

 

 

how is his perspective rational in any way? please explain.

his administrations persuasiveness rests on completely discredited claims, fear and garbage. everthing from here on out should be doubted and he and his executives should be held accountable.

most intelligent people do not give him this becuz his record clearly speaks volumes against his own rhetoric, which highlights what and idiot and a terrible president he is. interesting second sentence.

 

 

Bush's perspective for going into Iraq was entirely rational. Not agreeing with someone does not mean that their counter argument is not rational. For one, the most effective tool in combatting terrorism is to bring the war on the offensive, which is exactly what he has done. At the time, everyone, and I mean everyone, thought he had WMD's. What is conveniently left out in typical liberal jargon is the fact that Saddam has used WMD"s on his own people and US forces during Desert Storm, plans of his to purchase WMD's have since been unveiled, occupying forces have found the means and capability to make WMD"s, etc., etc. - His intentions are what is most important! In addition, why Iraq and not Saudi Arabia? Fair question...one answer obviously rests in the oil interests and established business relationships as you mentioned, but also in the remedial location of Iraq. With Iraq as our ally, we will be able to see certain "going ons" in the Arab world that we have been unable to see until this point. Saddam is not only despised by his own people and the Western world, but also by the neighboring Middle Eastern nations, including Saudi Arabia. Lastly, but certainly not least, by our doing this, we are liberating over a million oppressed people living under Saddam's vicious regime. Collaboratively, these are quite a few reasons suggesting that this was a good decision. At this point, a lesson John Kerry apparently had not learned from his serving in Vietnam, is the fact that the only way we can lose this war is by losing political support at home. After World War II, it took the US 7 years to democratize Japan when it anticipated taking only two. In my opinion, this situation is similar to the Japan Occupation as then, too, we received little help from the rest of the world (Russia, China, Germany, Italy then preoccupied with communism and fascism), and there existed a similar degree of resistence to the Occupation. Since, however, Japan has evolved to have a flourishing economy and a functioning democracy. Suppose we did not go into Iraq, what could we have done but wait...and wait for what, another attack? War is nothing pleasurable so the concept is difficult to sell, but war is an inevitable, necessary occurance. Patience is key. I guess I get most upset with political ambitions that attempt to tear down the commander-in-chief of our military during a time of war, as opposed to simply not voting for him but supporting his decisions in the meantime. That is pussy shit! Where is the patriotism? Putting partisan loyalties aside for one moment, do you really think that Bush is an evil individual who does not have the best intentions in helping the US and the world? Bringing America into a war that would not be beneficial in any aspect would be political suicide. Just like all politicians, his number one incentive is to get reelected, although he has remained visibly unshaken by staggers in public opinion polls. And as far as the 9/11 report, my having read a summary instead of the book was sufficient for the statement I made, which was as general as it gets. An example that illustrates my point is the Fahrenheight 9/11 film. I had read several articles about the film from both perspectives, but in discussions with opposition was said to not know what I was talking about because I had not seen it...so, I went and saw the film and to my discovery I learned nothing I didn't already know. And about intelligent people disliking Bush, and untelligent people liking him is really silly. Reagan used to be a Democrat, but during his campaign to the White House said that he was wrong about a lot of things in his youth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

State of the Universe Address

 

GOD IS PUNISHING FLORIDA FOR ELECTION SCANDAL!

I'm about to stock up on automatic weapons.

And it is obvious to me that there are still some people on the board who have not read any of the political threads on here. Maybe it should be a requirement to lurk before ever posting. I, myself lurked for about a year before ever posting. Anyways enough of that ballyhoo.

 

It would seem that americans are suffering from a sort of Jonestown collective amnesia. Perhaps a media induced ADHD if you will.

 

For the sake of clarification and furthering the conversation, I would like to inform people about Bush's follow up justification of the Iraq War.

Bush says: He was a bad man, he killed thousands of people.

History says: He was encouraged to do that and supported and supplied by the U.S. in the Iran Contra affair. The mass graves were part of a U.S. proxy war made possible by the likes of Ollie North who somehow got let off on the charges and now is a republican talking head.

Bush says: He invaded Kuwait, he set the oil fields on fire.

History says: Kuwait was in favor of the U.S. and taking iraqi oil business. Factor #1 Kuwait was slant drilling into Iraqi soil. Factor #2 Saddam claimed that Kuwait was actually a part of Iraq. They were only divided into separate states when Britain colonized the region. Therefore, are we supporting colonization? Factor #3

There are, of course, other factors.

Bush says: They are making weapons of mass destruction. Oh wait he doesn't say that anymore.

History says: UNSCOM dismantled the last of the Iraqi WMD programs in 1998. If there were anything left, it would be no good now since the chemical and biological weapons generally only have a shelf life of about 5 years.

Bush says: They have connections to al queda. They are terrorists.

History says: There are no proven connections. There is a slight connection with Iran and a much stronger one with Saudi Arabia, but nothing on Iraq. Saddam actually staunched islamic fundamentalism. Saddam was secular. Now that he is no longer in power we are seeing a rash of extremism by wahabiists and other groups. It is quite obvious that Iraq is more unstable than ever now. I mean we have the al sadr army imposing shariah on entire towns now. And we have the nerve to say we are improving things. Hardly. It's all about oil for the umpteenth time people. Get it through your heads before the damn election.

 

Anything else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: State of the Universe Address

 

Originally posted by villain

GOD IS PUNISHING FLORIDA FOR ELECTION SCANDAL!

I'm about to stock up on automatic weapons.

And it is obvious to me that there are still some people on the board who have not read any of the political threads on here. Maybe it should be a requirement to lurk before ever posting. I, myself lurked for about a year before ever posting. Anyways enough of that ballyhoo.

 

It would seem that americans are suffering from a sort of Jonestown collective amnesia. Perhaps a media induced ADHD if you will.

 

For the sake of clarification and furthering the conversation, I would like to inform people about Bush's follow up justification of the Iraq War.

Bush says: He was a bad man, he killed thousands of people.

History says: He was encouraged to do that and supported and supplied by the U.S. in the Iran Contra affair. The mass graves were part of a U.S. proxy war made possible by the likes of Ollie North who somehow got let off on the charges and now is a republican talking head.

Bush says: He invaded Kuwait, he set the oil fields on fire.

History says: Kuwait was in favor of the U.S. and taking iraqi oil business. Factor #1 Kuwait was slant drilling into Iraqi soil. Factor #2 Saddam claimed that Kuwait was actually a part of Iraq. They were only divided into separate states when Britain colonized the region. Therefore, are we supporting colonization? Factor #3

There are, of course, other factors.

Bush says: They are making weapons of mass destruction. Oh wait he doesn't say that anymore.

History says: UNSCOM dismantled the last of the Iraqi WMD programs in 1998. If there were anything left, it would be no good now since the chemical and biological weapons generally only have a shelf life of about 5 years.

Bush says: They have connections to al queda. They are terrorists.

History says: There are no proven connections. There is a slight connection with Iran and a much stronger one with Saudi Arabia, but nothing on Iraq. Saddam actually staunched islamic fundamentalism. Saddam was secular. Now that he is no longer in power we are seeing a rash of extremism by wahabiists and other groups. It is quite obvious that Iraq is more unstable than ever now. I mean we have the al sadr army imposing shariah on entire towns now. And we have the nerve to say we are improving things. Hardly. It's all about oil for the umpteenth time people. Get it through your heads before the damn election.

 

Anything else?

 

Anthing else...yes. Saddam's regime killed hundreds of thousands of people outside of that affair: he gassed his own people; cut off their tongues; his sons raped and tortured women and then fed them to lions. Are you saying that his regime was fair and just, and simply a victim of US imperialism?

 

Good perspective/p.o.v. about British colonization in regards to the Kuwait scenario. However, Saddam lighting the oil fields on fire is the epitimy of spite, immaturity, selfishness, and recklessness. I do not think such an action could ever be justified.

 

Shelf life or no shelf life...biological weapons are intimidating, but nonetheless, an interesting factor you introduced that I have not heard before as I am not an expert in the area of chemicals.

 

Iraq is really not as unstable as popular opinion suggests. Al Sadr and his clan make up 2,000 out of the total Iraqi population of over 25 million, and he is paying them for their services. Of course, the media will flock to concentrate on only the negative aspects of the war. One illustration of the media's obvious objective is my living in Florida and having experienced hurricanes. They will show footage of the one corner store that is in shambles for days at a time, but neglect to show the rest of the state, or areas down the street from the ruined corner store for that matter, that have minimal damage. I am not saying that Iraq is a tourist attraction by any means, about 1,000 Americans have died, but I am saying that failing to take into account media ambitions is a slippery slope. To say it all about oil, and only about oil, is asonine and painfully limiting in greater scope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Re: State of the Universe Address

 

Originally posted by ihatefrunts

Anthing else...yes. Saddam's regime killed hundreds of thousands of people outside of that affair: he gassed his own people; cut off their tongues; his sons raped and tortured women and then fed them to lions. Are you saying that his regime was fair and just, and simply a victim of US imperialism?

 

Saddam was no saint, granted. I was merely providing an alternate perspective so the one you elucidated would not become the dominant view. But Saddam is also the very same madman that our CIA put in power, and G. H. W. Bush kept in power after the gulf war by supplying him with gunships to put down the very same rebellion that we incited. Following this train of logic why aren't members of the CIA and W's father incarcerated? This renders your argument moot.

 

Good perspective/p.o.v. about British colonization in regards to the Kuwait scenario. However, Saddam lighting the oil fields on fire is the epitimy of spite, immaturity, selfishness, and recklessness. I do not think such an action could ever be justified.

 

Surely igniting the oil wells was a tremendous environmental disaster. Was invading and devastating much of Iraq twice for oil also not spiteful, immature, selfish, and reckless? You cannot do one thing and say another.

 

Shelf life or no shelf life...biological weapons are intimidating, but nonetheless, an interesting factor you introduced that I have not heard before as I am not an expert in the area of chemicals.

 

Agreed. Also FYI, even after sanctions were imposed (which by the way killed a million innocent iraqis mostly children, which has been stated before.) Iraq still recieved chemicals from U.S. companies in the form of agricultural products. But we still dismantled their means to refine and weaponize these chemicals. Weaponized chemicals are easily distributed in a dusty texture when on a warhead. Some can even penetrate our best particulate masks.

 

Iraq is really not as unstable as popular opinion suggests. Al Sadr and his clan make up 2,000 out of the total Iraqi population of over 25 million, and he is paying them for their services. Of course, the media will flock to concentrate on only the negative aspects of the war. One illustration of the media's obvious objective is my living in Florida and having experienced hurricanes. They will show footage of the one corner store that is in shambles for days at a time, but neglect to show the rest of the state, or areas down the street from the ruined corner store for that matter, that have minimal damage. I am not saying that Iraq is a tourist attraction by any means, about 1,000 Americans have died, but I am saying that failing to take into account media ambitions is a slippery slope. To say it all about oil, and only about oil, is asonine and painfully limiting in greater scope.

 

I know the media is fucked up. That was one of my first statements in the original reply.

You are attempting to undermine a resistance of increasing vitriol. Not everyone are warfighters. But more and more of the average iraqi citizen are being mobilized due to deplorable conditions they are enduring. And often times these warfighters are acting on the opinions of a larger iraqi population.

Muqtada Al Sadr represents the Shiia religion in iraq. His ancestors were the founders of the Shiia religion in Iraq. His opinion is not to be taken lightly as some rabblerouser.

 

It is not asinine to say that this is about oil, crude as it may sound (pun intended). There is a time when I posted about when I was incarcerated in an Army jail, and part of our duties were to recycle papers. Look for it if you want. We destroyed boxes upon boxes of haliburton reciepts right around the time the enron scandal was in full swing in the media. These reciepts easily documented billions in transactions. I stuck a few in my pocket and posted them in that thread if you are interested. Bush also severed his ties with the company altough I'm sure he has plenty of stock in it. Why is haliburton granted the contract with no other bids? Why are they being audited for a misappropriation of funds?

Many of our troops are on pipeline patrols. Why did chaos break out after the invasion with all the looting? Because we were preoccupied.

There are countless statements from the past saying our major interests in Iraq are oil. Don't make me bust out the facts.

Saudi Arabia hit peak oil. Iraq is the second largest known deposit of oil in the world. Coincidence? I think not.

And why o why are we having such problems in Venezuela as of late? Because it is the third largest producer of oil? Nah couldn't be.

 

If I am limiting myself you are not showing me how. Rather it is you who are limiting yourself by denying the possibility that this could be about oil. Sure it is atrocious. Sure it is unthinkable. But it is true. And the truth is not always so pretty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: JOHN KERRY IS A FLAMING PUSSY

 

Originally posted by crotch rot

SO IF YOUR NOT AN ARAB YOUR AN INFIDEL HUH?? YOUR IGNORANCE AND HATRED IS CAUSED PROBABLY DUE TO LOW SELF ESTEME. BTW THE LAST TIME I CHECKED AN ELEMEMTARY SCHOOL WITH THOUSANDS OF CHILDREN ISNT A MILITARY TARGET OR HAD ANY MILITARY FORCES IN IT, STUPID.

 

wow dude your ignorance to totally missing my point is so brutally obvious that it made me laugh at work. maybe you should get an adult to read it for you and then maybe you will understand it. i was sticking up for the chechen freedom fighters, NOT the men who took over the school.

 

get over yourself and stop trying to be big old CAPLOCKS WILL PROVE THAT I AM RIGHT kinda guy

 

because your a fuckin chump completely dude, learn something about the Chechen Liberation struggle bro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by ihatefrunts

Bush's perspective for going into Iraq was entirely rational. Not agreeing with someone does not mean that their counter argument is not rational. For one, the most effective tool in combatting terrorism is to bring the war on the offensive, which is exactly what he has done. At the time, everyone, and I mean everyone, thought he had WMD's. What is conveniently left out in typical liberal jargon is the fact that Saddam has used WMD"s on his own people and US forces during Desert Storm, plans of his to purchase WMD's have since been unveiled, occupying forces have found the means and capability to make WMD"s, etc., etc. - His intentions are what is most important! In addition, why Iraq and not Saudi Arabia? Fair question...one answer obviously rests in the oil interests and established business relationships as you mentioned, but also in the remedial location of Iraq. With Iraq as our ally, we will be able to see certain "going ons" in the Arab world that we have been unable to see until this point. Saddam is not only despised by his own people and the Western world, but also by the neighboring Middle Eastern nations, including Saudi Arabia. Lastly, but certainly not least, by our doing this, we are liberating over a million oppressed people living under Saddam's vicious regime. Collaboratively, these are quite a few reasons suggesting that this was a good decision. At this point, a lesson John Kerry apparently had not learned from his serving in Vietnam, is the fact that the only way we can lose this war is by losing political support at home. After World War II, it took the US 7 years to democratize Japan when it anticipated taking only two. In my opinion, this situation is similar to the Japan Occupation as then, too, we received little help from the rest of the world (Russia, China, Germany, Italy then preoccupied with communism and fascism), and there existed a similar degree of resistence to the Occupation. Since, however, Japan has evolved to have a flourishing economy and a functioning democracy. Suppose we did not go into Iraq, what could we have done but wait...and wait for what, another attack? War is nothing pleasurable so the concept is difficult to sell, but war is an inevitable, necessary occurance. Patience is key. I guess I get most upset with political ambitions that attempt to tear down the commander-in-chief of our military during a time of war, as opposed to simply not voting for him but supporting his decisions in the meantime. That is pussy shit! Where is the patriotism? Putting partisan loyalties aside for one moment, do you really think that Bush is an evil individual who does not have the best intentions in helping the US and the world? Bringing America into a war that would not be beneficial in any aspect would be political suicide. Just like all politicians, his number one incentive is to get reelected, although he has remained visibly unshaken by staggers in public opinion polls. And as far as the 9/11 report, my having read a summary instead of the book was sufficient for the statement I made, which was as general as it gets. An example that illustrates my point is the Fahrenheight 9/11 film. I had read several articles about the film from both perspectives, but in discussions with opposition was said to not know what I was talking about because I had not seen it...so, I went and saw the film and to my discovery I learned nothing I didn't already know. And about intelligent people disliking Bush, and untelligent people liking him is really silly. Reagan used to be a Democrat, but during his campaign to the White House said that he was wrong about a lot of things in his youth.

 

 

 

 

dude im not gonnna comment on everything you said but i will ask you one question which i guarantee you WILL NOT be able to answer. you seem to have all the facts about why we went into iraq (altho it just seems like all you are doing is towing the republican party line of bush being somekinda american saviour and demi-god buit nevertheless).

 

 

But why Iraq? why not any other country where genocide and torture are even worse and have been going on for longer?

you seem to have all the answers about why we went into iraq (altho the seem weak and frail: well we THOUGHT there were WMD...fuck that was the major reason you guys went in, yet nothing. sure saddam used him himself in the past, but so has the states on other countries so give up the ghost)

 

but back to the mattter at hand...

 

why no Sudan? North Korea (who we know HAVE GOT nuclear arms, who we KNOW hate the US, who want to destroy the US)?

Saudi Arabia? Syria? Sierre Leone? Chechnya? Georgia? Tajikastan?

 

why iraq then, when most of the countries above are way more of a threat to the us the iraq? i guarantee that you couldnt answer that question because i dont even think that bush could himself...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i would say not NK cause theres a good chance Kim would not hesitate to set it off.

 

 

Something else we seem to over look is bushes STRONG stance against nation building. which he repeated over and over as he was running in round one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

naw, bush like nation-destroying!

 

or, he does hate nation-building, which shows why we left afghanistan in shambles, aren't bringing the pain to the iraq insurgency, undermined the elected governemnt in haiti, approve of the illegal wall in israel, and aren't doing anything about what is officially being called genocide in sudan..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah i dont know what its like in the states, but the news stil covers afganistan every so often, but i never hear anyhting in the american media about it

does it show anything about it anymore or is it more out of sight out of mind?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by THE CORONER

yeah i dont know what its like in the states, but the news stil covers afganistan every so often, but i never hear anyhting in the american media about it

does it show anything about it anymore or is it more out of sight out of mind?

 

We are so desensitized that we need lots of death and explosions and celebrity drama and whatnot in order to draw more viewers. The thing... the Totality.... It feeds off negative energy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JOHN KERRY PLANS TO RAISE TAXES ON OUR TROOPS IN ORDER TO SUBSIDIZE FREE, GAY HEALTH CARE FOR TRIAL LAWYERS AND TERRORISTS.... THEN ABRUPTLY SWITCH TO THE OPPOSITE COURSE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by villain

We are so desensitized that we need lots of death and explosions and celebrity drama and whatnot in order to draw more viewers. The thing... the Totality.... It feeds off negative energy!

 

 

yeah no doubt its a sad state of affairs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Poop Man Bob

JOHN KERRY PLANS TO RAISE TAXES ON OUR TROOPS IN ORDER TO SUBSIDIZE FREE, GAY HEALTH CARE FOR TRIAL LAWYERS AND TERRORISTS.... THEN ABRUPTLY SWITCH TO THE OPPOSITE COURSE.

 

 

haha right.........

 

i dont like either candidate, but lately kerry's been saying shit like he doesnt want canadian beef in the country, fuckin faggot (no offence to gay people) but seriouisly, not ONE perosn in this country has gotten mad cow, and the guy who started mad cow was an american, coincidence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Re: Re: State of the Universe Address

 

Originally posted by villain

Why is haliburton granted the contract with no other bids?

 

villainy,

brown and root wrote a report for the military to see if one contractor could handle

all the logistics of a military intervention(which remains classified to this day). the report convinced cheney that it could be done(91/92ish, when he was SoD). from that brown and root authored the mother of all service contracts: LOGCAP(Logistics Civil Augmentation Program). basically they wrote the bid(which gave them an unfair advantage) and of course won it.

additionally, they (b&r) have been in bed with politicians(starting with lbj, whom they owned) and the military for decades. they also have a hefty rep for getting things done quickly and being an essential logistical service that it appears the US military cannot do without them. so now, basically they are so entrenched that they are for all intents and purposes an arm of the US military. the contract they authored is a

'cost plus' contract, which in laymen terms means they get a blank check from the government. it's a major contract and has been used in every american deployment since it was awarded. they'be made something like $2billy off it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Re: Re: Re: State of the Universe Address

 

Originally posted by POIESIS

villainy,

brown and root wrote a report for the military to see if one contractor could handle

all the logistics of a military intervention(which remains classified to this day). the report convinced cheney that it could be done(91/92ish, when he was SoD). from that brown and root authored the mother of all service contracts: LOGCAP(Logistics Civil Augmentation Program). basically they wrote the bid(which gave them an unfair advantage) and of course won it.

additionally, they (b&r) have been in bed with politicians(starting with lbj, whom they owned) and the military for decades. they also have a hefty rep for getting things done quickly and being an essential logistical service that it appears the US military cannot do without them. so now, basically they are so entrenched that they are for all intents and purposes an arm of the US military. the contract they authored is a

'cost plus' contract, which in laymen terms means they get a blank check from the government. it's a major contract and has been used in every american deployment since it was awarded. they'be made something like $2billy off it.

 

Eeks yikes! Nice work!

I can see how this ties into what I've learned of Haliburton also recieving funds from FEMA.

And I thought things were bad when politicians had connections to private industry special interest groups. Now we have private industry grotesquely attached to government!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted by ihatefrunts

For one, the most effective tool in combatting terrorism is to bring the war on the offensive, which is exactly what he has done.

 

well dude, that has yet to be seen. i won't purport to have a real measured alternative, but it seems clear that the american occupation has imputed not only extremists with more anger, but also nationalists, which makes itself apparent every night on the news.

bush talks about resolve..well unfortunately, americans don't have the balls that

mujahadeen have, so we'll be fighting them(and radicalizing many more) for an awfully long time, while thousands of soldiers and innocents die in the process.

is this the only viable option?

i personally refuse to believe it is. i have no faith or indication(s) that the bush administration is pursuing every possible alternative with the same fervor they

have exhibited invading iraq. and why would they? they are CEO's of the iron triangle, accountable only to their shareholders.

blah. shit's foul.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...