A Little War Perspective

[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
You are more stupid then a rock and stubborn then a mule. You completely and totally miss the point. You come back with logic or I should say a lack of logic that in your developmentally disabled mind makes sense, but to no one else. [/quote]

Again? Crap. elk - are you going for the trifecta? You wasted three paragraphs trying to make yourself appear to be smart. Newsflash, sparky - you need WAY MORE than 3 paragraphs of your idiotic verbage to make you look better.

I haven’t heard or seen anyone back you up on your positions except for the occasional vroom rescue, or a ProfX chime in. You are running you mouth louder and longer than anyone down here, and you fail to see that you are alone in your hate-filled diatribes.

You really like calling people retarded, don’t you? Does that make you feel smart? Make you feel important? I hope so - because it’s not doing anything for any position you may have.

“Oh yeah? Well you’re a retarded asshole”. Give me a break. That is just a stupid comeback. I whip my kids for such chicken-shittery. You mama should have taught you better as well.

Once again with the “go fight or shut up” defense. Sorry, elk. That excuse hasn’t worked since before you got all upset and quit posting down here after the elelctions.

Would you like to take a stab at refuting what I say instead of just pinning your ears shut and chanting your standard old BS? That would be asking a lot, I know, especially given the fact that you have wasted two posts on replying to me and have yet to say anything even remotely related to refuting anything I have said. Well - unless you consider “retarded asshole” as being on topic.

Please continue responding to me. I absolutely love it.

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
My point is that many of the people who are against the Iraqui war or against how the war and reconstruction is being conducted (the two are after all not the same thing) are not complaining about casulties. Of course some are. But many have other issues. And the comparisons to Vietnam relate far more to these issues than to the casualty rate. The death toll is not all that’s talked about. I watch the news. I hear a huge number of ‘complaints’ about Haliburton’s no-bid contract, the lack of WMDs, the lack of an international coalition and involvement in reconstrucation, and the improper arming of troops. Whether or not you agree with these people or fault the adminstration to any degree, you can’t say that this isn’t true.
[/quote]

I read. listen to, and watch the news as well. WMD’s are not talked about that often, neither is Haliburton.

I agree that we have some problems over there. I don’t think you will find very many folks on my side that think this war is being prosecuted perfectly. But that is a far cry from “being another Viet Nam”. We’ve been there what? 2 years? If we are in Iraq in another 6 years in the same capacity that we are right now - then you or whoever is making the connection to Viet Nam may have a point.

But just because Joan Baez is singing again doesn’t mean we are back in the 60’s.

WMD’s are a dead issue - hardly equitable to anything in Viet Nam.

I disagree with BB, Hedo, Thunder, and others and I still have a high regard for their intellect. You, I see absolutely no redeeming qualities in your character or intellect. The nicest thing, I could say about you is that you act like a spoiled loudmouthed kid on an elementary schoolyard.

I don’t honestly believe you have the comprehension skills to understand the big picture. Your thinking to me is very reminiscent of a bigoted Archie Bunker who makes no attempt to see any other angle or view then your own distorted one.

It is disappointing to me that people who think like you walk the earth, but extremist islam is a reminder that people like you do.

You sicken me.

[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
I disagree with BB, Hedo, Thunder, and others and I still have a high regard for their intellect. You, I see absolutely no redeeming qualities in your character or intellect. The nicest thing, I could say about you is that you act like a spoiled loudmouthed kid on an elementary schoolyard.

I don’t honestly believe you have the comprehension skills to understand the big picture. Your thinking to me is very reminiscent of a bigoted Archie Bunker who makes no attempt to see any other angle or view then your own distorted one.

It is disappointing to me that people who think like you walk the earth, but extremist islam is a reminder that people like you do.

You sicken me. [/quote]

Ding, ding ding!!! And now it is indeed the trifecta. Congratulations!!!

Three consecutive posts that aren’t even remotely related to the subject at hand. The only thing you have done is told everyone how badly you dislike me, and how stupid I am.

Bravo. Do you feel like a big boy now? Do you think I’m going to slink off somewhere and pout because elkie says I make him sick? Sorry to disappoint. I am back, and I don’t think your little hate-filled temper tantrums scarevery many people - least of all me.

You see - you are a coward. And not a very bright one at that. You can’t argue the topic at hand so you resort to posts like your last three.

I encourage you to keep it up. Please. Go for a 4th consectutive meaningless post. The noise you make is not even worhty of a response, but it is so much fun to wind you up and watch you walk into walls.

I’m glad I sicken you. I hope to do so as often as possible.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
My point is that many of the people who are against the Iraqui war or against how the war and reconstruction is being conducted (the two are after all not the same thing) are not complaining about casulties. Of course some are. But many have other issues. And the comparisons to Vietnam relate far more to these issues than to the casualty rate. The death toll is not all that’s talked about. I watch the news. I hear a huge number of ‘complaints’ about Haliburton’s no-bid contract, the lack of WMDs, the lack of an international coalition and involvement in reconstrucation, and the improper arming of troops. Whether or not you agree with these people or fault the adminstration to any degree, you can’t say that this isn’t true.

I read. listen to, and watch the news as well. WMD’s are not talked about that often, neither is Haliburton.

I agree that we have some problems over there. I don’t think you will find very many folks on my side that think this war is being prosecuted perfectly. But that is a far cry from “being another Viet Nam”. We’ve been there what? 2 years? If we are in Iraq in another 6 years in the same capacity that we are right now - then you or whoever is making the connection to Viet Nam may have a point.

But just because Joan Baez is singing again doesn’t mean we are back in the 60’s.

WMD’s are a dead issue - hardly equitable to anything in Viet Nam. [/quote]

I personally don’t think this war is another Vietnam. It is much less of a mess and much more legitimate. I do, however, have some problems with how the war and reconstruction was and is being conducted. And I do find fault with the adminstration for some of this. Halliburton and the WMDs are largely ignored now. For me, it’s not a dead issue, and I’ll explain why shortly. The issue of arming troops is not dead. Even on the news, I still here about it. I think the adminstration is justly faulted for this. It’s a travesty that so many of those tanks had to make do with with makeshift armor. I don’t think this war has been funded as well as it should have been. Whether or not we should be there doesn’t matter since we are there. I would be more than willing to have a greater cost passed onto myself and other citizens to run this war the way it should be run. Rumsfeld, “You go to war with the army you have, not the army you wish you wish you had.” That’s bullshit. It’s the army he gave them. On to Halliburton and the WMDs. I’m undecided on the WMDs-I don’t think it was checked out the way it should have been because Bush had an agenda and wanted to go in anyhow. It’s not all his fault. I see it as a failing on the intelligence agencies as well. But I really resent his rhetoric and amplifying the threat of terrorism and WMDs in Iraq. Iran was and is the bigger threat to the U.S. and the world at large. But they happen to not have oil. On to Halliburton; it’s impossible for me to divorce their no-bid contract with our involvement with Iraq and the current status. The U.S. is NOT a nation-builder. We suck at it. History has proven this time and time again. I firmly believe that the invasion of Iraq and the unseating of Saddam should have been accomplished as an international coalition and the reconstruction and rebuilding as well, with the benefits also distributed. I did not see an earnest and well-executed effort to achieve this from the administration. And it would’ve been simple to do. What it would have required was bids and the opportunity for other countries to reap the fruits of reconstruction. Not compatible with a Halliburton no-bid contract. We shouldn’t have gone into Iraq unilaterally. We should’ve gone in their with full support of other countries. And we should’ve shared in both the work involved in rebuilding and the fruits of the labor. And I think it was possible. Things would be a lot better there now. (Bush SR. did a good job back in 92) We can’t know what’s going on in Bush’s head. But the appearance of impropriety is immense to me. And generally, I often get the feeling that he has an agenda and will say whatever he thinks will sell that agenda. Too much is pretense. (I don’t feel that way about MOST republicans)

*I don’t consider myself liberal. On many policies I lean towards the conservative end of the spectrum. As a whole, I’m moderate. I know many moderates (many who aren’t Democrats at all) who have similar issues that I do. I know many who identify as liberal who fault involvement and conduct and Iraq for reasons that have nothing to do with casualties of war. They accept these as necessary aspects of war.

***In regards to the news, I find it a lousy reflection of what people actually care about. The news will broadcast what sells and what brings them the most ratings. Just look at Cindy Sheehan. I know very few at any point on the political spectrum who sympathize with her and her views. But that’s all that was shown. An angry mother camped outside Bush’s ranch painted a stark picture and the spectable ensured some viewership. Talk of the death toll does the same thing.

Jsbrook -

Nice post. I disagree with some of what you said, but I appreciate your honesty in actually presenting something that can be debated.

There are a lot more folks calling this the New Viet Nam than you want to admit. Maybe you don’t feel that way, but that is exactly what the MSM, and the far left, and the radical anti-war want you to think.

We didn’t act unilaterally - we have many many countries in the coalition, and you should know this. Just because Germany, France, and Russia decided to be on the wrong side of history does not make our effort unilateral.

There will always be a line drawn in the sand over the validity of the WMD charge. I tend to believe the President. And that has caussed more than its fair share of left-wing criticism.

But I do agree that this war could be fought much more decisively. But no matter how the war is prosecuted, you will never get everyone to agree about the war.

[quote]snipeout wrote:
You can not compare vietnam to iraq. At least in vietnam we were fighting a uniformed army. In iraq we are fighting terrorists. As for pittbulls comment about drafted soldiers I think you meant to say this war is fought by volunteers, because all wars have been fought by enlisted men. Officers merely issue the marching orders and expect NCO’s to carry them out by any means necessary. Not to mention vietnam was a politically damned war to begin with, you can’t have our lawmakers telling our soldiers and marines when and where they are allowed to shoot and not expect massive casualties.[/quote]

Actually lieutenants and captains lead their enlisted troops on patrols and other missions. They don’t have the luxury of hanging out behind the lines or even here stateside, like some hawkish types.

I’ve noticed no one has mentioned the 14,500 wounded and maimed soldiers, like they aren’t casualties of war. In logistical terms (and as far as the enemy is concerned) one wounded soldier incapacitates three: the injured person and two others to evacuate and care for the wounded.

That blurb quoted at the beginning is merely a re-statement of the pro-war chickenhawkish notion that this “war” isn’t particularly costly in terms of human life. Of course none of them has died or had any body parts blown off, so what do they care.

I really liked how he kept the tone high, you know without resorting to name-calling or reducing opponents of the war to nameless, faceless “pussies”. It really shows how he put some thought into it.

WMD

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Jsbrook -

Nice post. I disagree with some of what you said, but I appreciate your honesty in actually presenting something that can be debated.

There are a lot more folks calling this the New Viet Nam than you want to admit. Maybe you don’t feel that way, but that is exactly what the MSM, and the far left, and the radical anti-war want you to think.

We didn’t act unilaterally - we have many many countries in the coalition, and you should know this. Just because Germany, France, and Russia decided to be on the wrong side of history does not make our effort unilateral.

There will always be a line drawn in the sand over the validity of the WMD charge. I tend to believe the President. And that has caussed more than its fair share of left-wing criticism.

But I do agree that this war could be fought much more decisively. But no matter how the war is prosecuted, you will never get everyone to agree about the war.

[/quote]

Thanks. Yes, you’re right-there are people who are calling this the New Vietnam. I don’t think it is. For all of the reasons people mentioned, it’s not comparable. But I do think it has the potential to escalate and be as big a mess. But no matter what, the human casualties will never be as high. War just operates differently today. And I really don’t see a draft ever being reinstituted. I realize we didn’t act unilaterally. I was exagerrating. But I still think we could have formed a much stronger more involved international coalition. And there’s a great chance we would have if Halliburton hadn’t received a no-bid contract. I think the criticism regarding WMDs is reasonably justified, though not all of the blame can be placed on the president. But, if indeed Bush still had no knowledge as to their lack, I still hope that as a country we learned something and will be more thourough in the future. Your last statement is true-there are some people who will never agree with this war or any.

Super good article that goes a long way to destroy the idea that Iraq is anything at all like Vietnam. These are the kind of honest articles that the Communist News Network wish would go away.

Lerfists can disagree with the war all they want but comparing Iraq to Vietnam is a far reaching notion.

JEFF JACOBY
Iraq is no Vietnam
By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist | August 25, 2005

IRAQ WAR skeptics and critics have been invoking Vietnam almost from the day the fighting began. So Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska was hardly breaking new ground when he joined the invokers on Sunday. ''We are locked into a bogged-down problem," he said on ABC’s ''The Week," ''not . . . dissimilar to where we were in Vietnam."

Run-of-the-mill stuff on the Democratic left, but since Hagel is a Republican, his words instantly leaped to the top of the news cycle. ''GOP Senator Says Iraq Looking Like Vietnam," was the headline on AP’s widely reprinted story.

Yet in so many ways, Iraq doesn’t look like Vietnam at all. Vietnam was never the central battleground of the Cold War, while Iraq has become the focal point of the war on terrorism. Americans had no reason to feel that their own security was at risk in Vietnam, whereas 9/11 made it clear that the enemy we face today poses a lethal threat here at home as well. The jihadis in Iraq don’t have the backing of superpowers; North Vietnam and the Viet Cong were armed to the teeth by China and the Soviet Union. In South Vietnam, the United States was allied to an unpopular and incompetent regime; in Iraq, the United States toppled a brutal tyranny and is trying to nurture a democracy in its place.

But of all the ways in which the Iraq war is not like Vietnam, perhaps the most telling is the attitude of the troops.

''When I was in Vietnam," retired Army Colonel Jack Jacobs, a 1969 Medal of Honor recipient who had just returned from a fact-finding trip to the Sunni Triangle, told NBC News in May, ''if you asked anybody what he wanted more than anything else in the world, he’d say: to go home. We asked . . . hundreds of soldiers, low-ranking soldiers, in both Afghanistan and Iraq . . . the same question. And the response, to a man and a woman, was, ‘To kill bad guys.’ . . . The morale is just over the top – just really, really enthused about what they’re doing. And I think the reason is they perceive that they’re making progress. Success will do a lot to morale."

Indeed it will, as the ''Today" show’s Matt Lauer discovered when he visited Baghdad last week. He tried valiantly to coax some Vietnam-style disillusionment out of the soldiers he met, but as NBC’s transcript makes clear, the troops weren’t having any of that:

Lauer: We’ve heard so much about the insurgent attacks, so much about the uncertainty as to when you folks are going to get to go home. How would you describe morale?

Chief Warrant Officer Randy Kergiss: My unit morale’s pretty good. . . . People are ready to execute their missions, and they’re pretty excited to be here.

Lauer: How much does that uncertainty of knowing how long you’re going to be here impact morale?

Sergeant Jamie Wells: Morale’s always high. Soldiers know they have a mission, they like taking on the new objectives and taking on the new challenges. . . . They’re motivated, ready to go.

Lauer: Don’t get me wrong, I think you guys are probably telling me the truth, but there might be a lot of people at home wondering how that could be possible with the conditions you’re facing and with the insurgent attacks . . .

Captain Sherman Powell: Well, sir, I tell you – if I got my news from the newspapers also, I’d be pretty depressed as well.

Lauer: What don’t you think is being correctly portrayed?

Powell: Sir, I know it’s hard to get out and get on the ground and report the news. . . . But for of those who’ve actually had a chance to get out and go on patrols . . . we are very satisfied with the way things are going here. And we are confident that if we’re allowed to finish the job we started we’ll be very proud of it and our country will be proud of us for doing it. . . .

Lauer: How would you feel about US forces being withdrawn before – you’re shaking your head – before the insurgency is defeated?

Powell: Well, sir, I would just tell you . . . as long as we continue to have confidence that we are supported and people have our back, there is nothing we cannot accomplish.

Lauer: So you would rather stay here longer and defeat the insurgency then be pulled out earlier . . .?

Kergiss: Yes, sir.

Wells: Absolutely.

Things have gone wrong in Iraq as they go wrong in every war. Bush’s strategy of defeating Islamist terrorism by draining the swamps of dictatorship and fanaticism in which it breeds carries a high price tag. Nearly 1,900 US soldiers have been killed and more than 14,000 wounded in Iraq so far. There are more casualties to come.

But another Vietnam? No – not when such strong support for the war comes from the very soldiers who are in harm’s way. Their high morale, their faith in their mission, their conviction that we are doing good – those are the signals to heed, not the counsels of despair on the TV talk shows. It will be time to give up on Iraq when the troops give up on Iraq. So far, there’s no sign they will.

Watch out folks, a positive upbeat article from the NEW YORK TIMES!

I like the reference to the constitution reflecting the unique position that the Iraqi people are in. Just as the article says, Iraq was not created by God. It was created by Winston Churchill.

Divided They Stand
By DAVID BROOKS
Published: August 25, 2005

President Bush doesn’t lack for critics when it comes to his Iraq policies, but the smartest and most devastating of these is Peter W. Galbraith, a former United States ambassador to Croatia.

Yesterday, after reading gloomy press accounts about the proposed Iraqi constitution, I thought it might be interesting to hear what Galbraith himself had to say. I finally tracked him down in Baghdad (at God knows what hour there) and found that far from lambasting Bush, Galbraith was more complimentary about what the administration has just achieved than anybody else I spoke to all day.

“The Bush administration finally did something right in brokering this constitution,” Galbraith exclaimed, then added: “This is the only possible deal that can bring stability. … I do believe it might save the country.”

Galbraith’s argument is that the constitution reflects the reality of the nation it is meant to serve. There is, he says, no meaningful Iraqi identity. In the north, you’ve got a pro-Western Kurdish population. In the south, you’ve got a Shiite majority that wants a “pale version of an Iranian state.” And in the center you’ve got a Sunni population that is nervous about being trapped in a system in which it would be overrun.

In the last election each group expressed its authentic identity, the Kurds by voting for autonomy-minded leaders, the Shiites for clerical parties and the Sunnis by not voting.

This constitution gives each group what it wants. It will create a very loose federation in which only things like fiscal and foreign policy are controlled in the center (even tax policy is decentralized). Oil revenues are supposed to be distributed on a per capita basis, and no group will feel inordinately oppressed by the others.

The Kurds and Shiites understand what a good deal this is. The Sunni leaders selected to attend the convention are howling because they are former Baathists who dream of a return to centralized power. But ordinary Sunnis, Galbraith says, will come to realize this deal protects them, too.

Galbraith says he is frustrated with all the American critics who argue that the constitution divides the country. The country is already divided, he says, and drawing up a constitution that would artificially bind three divergent societies together would create only friction, violence and civil war. “It’s not a problem if a country breaks up, only if it breaks up violently,” Galbraith says. “Iraq wasn’t created by God. It was created by Winston Churchill.”

One of my other calls yesterday went to another smart Iraq analyst, Reuel Marc Gerecht, formerly of the C.I.A. and now at the American Enterprise Institute. Gerecht’s conclusions are often miles apart from Galbraith’s, but they have one trait in common. Both of them begin their analysis by taking a hard look at the reality of Iraqi society. Neither tries to imagine what sort of constitution might be pretty to our eyes or might be good in some abstract sense. They try to envision which system comports with reality.

Gerecht is also upbeat about this constitution. It’s crazy, he says, to think that you could have an Iraqi constitution in which clerical authorities are not assigned a significant role. Voters supported clerical parties because they are, right now, the natural leaders of society and serve important social functions.

But this doesn’t mean we have to start screaming about a 13th-century theocratic state. Understanding the clerics, Gerecht has argued, means understanding two things. First, the Shiite clerical establishment has made a substantial intellectual leap. It now firmly believes in one person one vote, and rejects the Iranian model. On the other hand, these folks don’t think like us.

What’s important, Gerecht has emphasized, is the democratic process: setting up a system in which the different groups, secular and clerical, will have to bargain with one another, campaign and deal with the real-world consequences of their ideas. This is what’s going to moderate them and lead to progress. This constitution does that. Shutting them out would lead to war.

The constitution also exposes the canard that America is some imperial power trying to impose its values on the world. There are many parts of this constitution any American would love. There are other parts that are strange to us.

But when you get Galbraith and Gerecht in the same mood, you know something important has happened. The U.S. has orchestrated a document that is organically Iraqi.

It’s their country, after all.

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
And there’s a great chance we would have if Halliburton hadn’t received a no-bid contract. [/quote]

That’s just another red herring. The no-bid contract was entirely on the up & up. http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=201

  1. How could they have a public bid process, without divulging their war plans.

  2. Halliburton was virtually the only company in the world that could mobilize the resources needed in that short of time frame.

  3. Most of the work Halliburton does for the armed forces (Mess halls, laundry, commisaries, etc.) falls under the LOGCAP contract which was won on a competetive basis when Clinton was president.

  4. If Halliburton wasn’t over there, out troops would be sleeping in the sand & eating MREs 3 times a day.

  5. After lengthy & in-depth investigations, Halliburton has been cleared of any impropriety. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/1/6/125303.shtml

You need to find a new whipping boy.

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Without taking sides, I will try to explain something to you bigflamer. When people are comparing Iraq to Vietnam, they are not refering to casualty rates. They are referring to the fact that they believe we shouldn’t be there and shouldn’t have gone in just like in Vietnam. Or the fact that they feel the reconstruction and rebuilding process is just as bungled and ineffectual as in Vietnam.[/quote]

After WWII it took Germany 3 years to get an indepedent central bank, in Iraq it took 2 months. In Germany it took 3 years to get a German currency, in Iraq it took 2 1/2 months. In Germany it took 14 months to get a cabinet, in Iraq it took 4 months. In Germay it took 14 months to establish a police force, in Iraq it took 2 months. It doesn’t sound like it’s being bungled, just our perception is off.

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
And there’s a great chance we would have if Halliburton hadn’t received a no-bid contract.

That’s just another red herring. The no-bid contract was entirely on the up & up. http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=201

  1. How could they have a public bid process, without divulging their war plans.

  2. Halliburton was virtually the only company in the world that could mobilize the resources needed in that short of time frame.

  3. Most of the work Halliburton does for the armed forces (Mess halls, laundry, commisaries, etc.) falls under the LOGCAP contract which was won on a competetive basis when Clinton was president.

  4. If Halliburton wasn’t over there, out troops would be sleeping in the sand & eating MREs 3 times a day.

  5. After lengthy & in-depth investigations, Halliburton has been cleared of any impropriety. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/1/6/125303.shtml

You need to find a new whipping boy.
[/quote]

Don’t know if other countries would agree with you. Why must it have been one single compnay that mobilized the resources in any case? It didn’t. It could have been a conglomeration.

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Without taking sides, I will try to explain something to you bigflamer. When people are comparing Iraq to Vietnam, they are not refering to casualty rates. They are referring to the fact that they believe we shouldn’t be there and shouldn’t have gone in just like in Vietnam. Or the fact that they feel the reconstruction and rebuilding process is just as bungled and ineffectual as in Vietnam.

After WWII it took Germany 3 years to get an indepedent central bank, in Iraq it took 2 months. In Germany it took 3 years to get a German currency, in Iraq it took 2 1/2 months. In Germany it took 14 months to get a cabinet, in Iraq it took 4 months. In Germay it took 14 months to establish a police force, in Iraq it took 2 months. It doesn’t sound like it’s being bungled, just our perception is off.[/quote]

We’ll see what happens. We’re doing the best we can. Things are looking up. I do think a more active role on the part of other countries would make the current situation much better. And I think it’s something this administration could have fostered much better than it did.

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
And there’s a great chance we would have if Halliburton hadn’t received a no-bid contract.

That’s just another red herring. The no-bid contract was entirely on the up & up. http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=201

  1. How could they have a public bid process, without divulging their war plans.

  2. Halliburton was virtually the only company in the world that could mobilize the resources needed in that short of time frame.

  3. Most of the work Halliburton does for the armed forces (Mess halls, laundry, commisaries, etc.) falls under the LOGCAP contract which was won on a competetive basis when Clinton was president.

  4. If Halliburton wasn’t over there, out troops would be sleeping in the sand & eating MREs 3 times a day.

  5. After lengthy & in-depth investigations, Halliburton has been cleared of any impropriety. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/1/6/125303.shtml

You need to find a new whipping boy.

Don’t know if other countries would agree with you. Why must it have been one single compnay that mobilized the resources in any case? It didn’t. It could have been a conglomeration.[/quote]

  1. Halliburton was virtually the only company in the world that could mobilize the resources needed in that short of time frame.

[quote]jsbrook wrote:

We’ll see what happens. We’re doing the best we can. Things are looking up. I do think a more active role on the part of other countries would make the current situation much better. And I think it’s something this administration could have fostered much better than it did.[/quote]

I agree with you for the most part. There have been plenty of mistakes made. Do keep in mind that France, Germany, And Russia didn’t join us simply because they were on Saddam’s payroll via the Oil-for-Food debacle.

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
jsbrook wrote:

We’ll see what happens. We’re doing the best we can. Things are looking up. I do think a more active role on the part of other countries would make the current situation much better. And I think it’s something this administration could have fostered much better than it did.

I agree with you for the most part. There have been plenty of mistakes made. Do keep in mind that France, Germany, And Russia didn’t join us simply because they were on Saddam’s payroll via the Oil-for-Food debacle.[/quote]

Good-I’m glad you can admit that mistakes have been made. (France, lol-don’t get me started on them) See, this was a reasonable thread with a give and take. Too many of these political threads degenerate to the most liberal and conservative members bitching and screaming at each other.

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:

  1. Halliburton was virtually the only company in the world that could mobilize the resources needed in that short of time frame.
    [/quote]

The other major companies of its type are foriegn. Imagine giving this contract to a foriegn company?

The only other US company that might have had a chance to handle it is Bechtel and they are doing a lot of the subcontracting.

The Halliburton talking point used by the left is complete BS.

We do have to be vigilant that Halliburton is not cheating us. They have already been caught overcharging in a couple areas.

It looks like the system is actually working.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:

  1. Halliburton was virtually the only company in the world that could mobilize the resources needed in that short of time frame.

The other major companies of its type are foriegn. Imagine giving this contract to a foriegn company?

The only other US company that might have had a chance to handle it is Bechtel and they are doing a lot of the subcontracting.

The Halliburton talking point used by the left is complete BS.

We do have to be vigilant that Halliburton is not cheating us. They have already been caught overcharging in a couple areas.

It looks like the system is actually working.[/quote]

All I was saying. Yes, Hallitburton is really the only AMERICAN company that could have stepped in. It’s a big world.

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
And there’s a great chance we would have if Halliburton hadn’t received a no-bid contract.

That’s just another red herring. The no-bid contract was entirely on the up & up. http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=201

  1. How could they have a public bid process, without divulging their war plans.

  2. Halliburton was virtually the only company in the world that could mobilize the resources needed in that short of time frame.

  3. Most of the work Halliburton does for the armed forces (Mess halls, laundry, commisaries, etc.) falls under the LOGCAP contract which was won on a competetive basis when Clinton was president.

  4. If Halliburton wasn’t over there, out troops would be sleeping in the sand & eating MREs 3 times a day.

  5. After lengthy & in-depth investigations, Halliburton has been cleared of any impropriety. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/1/6/125303.shtml

You need to find a new whipping boy.

Don’t know if other countries would agree with you. Why must it have been one single compnay that mobilized the resources in any case? It didn’t. It could have been a conglomeration.

  1. Halliburton was virtually the only company in the world that could mobilize the resources needed in that short of time frame.
    [/quote]

I agree that Halliburton is probably the only Co. that could handle a Job of that scale, but I believe they could have fragmented the jobs to specifics such as food, shelter, mail etcetera. Then they could have broken it down farther by location, like Baghdad or Fallujha. Then it would have been easier to fill the roles