Is there a light at the end of the tunnel?

[Boroda]

Originally posted by Curval
Umm..Boroda,

The Russians did the same thing when they overran Eastern Germany.  Stalin ordered that certain industrial areas should not be destroyed because they were "gold" to the Soviets.

It makes sense not to destroy something you will need after the war is won...no?

Everything usefull in Soviet occupation zone was bombed by "allied" air force. They still say they burned Dresden "by Soviet request"...

USSR didn't have strong strategic aviation.

[Boroda]

Originally posted by mosgood
Dude, you are such a drama queen.  Bringing up WW2 ......  Again another oppurtunity for the Russians to screw up and lose 27 million lives.  

And about bombing strategic industrial targets......

If you want to compare apples to apples, maybe you should instead talk about 27 million communist lives fighting nazism to Afghani's fighting the (screwed up)communist invasion.... yet AGAIN another oppurtunity for Russia to screw up....

Boroda, for a guy that lives in a country that can't take a piss without screwing it up, you sure like to complain about America a lot.  Is it really as simple as jealousy?

Communist lives? Yeah, all Russians are communists, everyone knows that. Even one of my Grand-Uncles, who was a Cossak officer in WWI and volunteered as a private in 1941 must have been a commie... Oh, sorry, he survived...

Communist invasion?... Compared to your recent heroic deeds in Yugoslavia and Iraq it was nothing more then a completely justified assistance to legaly elected government. BTW, things went in a peacefull way in Afghanistan until you started to support "freedom fighters" (terrorists in current terms). I have to repeat: starting an Afghani adventure was stupidity, but withdrawing troops was a crime. All we got was the same war inside Soviet borders. And now your regime does it's best to make it continue. Read another thread about drug connection...

So far US is a champion in screwing things up. We lack American grand scale, we can't afford military adventures like you. BTW, Iraq is smaller then Afghanistan, and you  have 3 times more troops there then USSR had in Afghan. Still you can't get any comparable results.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by capt. apathy
did you read the link?  it doesn't say they where the only company to bid.  it says it was a no-bid contract.

No-bid means that no bids where taken.  nobody else could compete because nobody else new there was anything to compete for.

no matter how fast you spin it, that means the Bush administration gave the contract to Halliburton without soliciting bids from any other contractors.  anybody who can't/won't see a conflict in using this type of system for awarding contracts to a company for whom the VP was CEO until the election is just hiding their head in the sand.

in fact the deal was made before the war started and wasn't announced publicly until later.

how could anybody else bid on a job that was hidden from them until Halliburton had the deal inked?

as a matter of fact Halliburton is a major player in the war for profit industry.  and while I don't think they would have it as sweet as they do now, they would still make a lot of profit off this war, even if they competed fairly (there are many jobs that they just have a lot more experience at).  I find it a conflict of interest for any top gov't official to own interests in companies who make a significant portion of their profits from war.  

how much crying would their be if Kerry gets elected and awards  a no-bid contract to his wifes company to provide ketchup for our school lunches at $2 a serving?  (and at least in this scenario no Americans would have to die for them to steal from our treasury)

so if haliburton or any other company buys all the katchup for the troops from heinz that would be wrong because kerry is a senetor.

How bout this concept.  Providing the best possible services for our troops in combat??????????

When I worked for the federal govt "no bid contracts" usually ment there was no one else available to do the job properly.  I hoestly dont know if cheny still owns stock in the company but your whole "war for profit" statement is a little off the mark.  Haliburton and it's subsidiaries have been providing services for the military overseas LONG befor cheny ever got elected.

Fact is things are getting better in Iraq.....I am thrilled of that fact because it means our troops can come home soon......not because it iritates librals like yourself.  I see more librals that get happy when things go bad cause it gives them more ammo to back up their pure hatred of Pres. Bush.

[ravells]

Gunslinger... do you think that if a Senior Politician has a substantial financial interest in a company which will benefit from a war in which that politician is going to play a key role, he is in a conflict of interest and should either sell his shares or resign his position in the government?

I think so (although the precise wording of the regulation would be a devil to draft).

Although the Policitian would not necessarily let his personal financial interests influece his decision making on behalf of the country, for his own credibility he must not be put in the position where the question can be asked of him.

I don't know the answer to this, but are there regulations relating to this in the US? I think in the UK the interest has to be declared but that is all.

Ravs

[lazs2]

capt... all government agencies all the way down to city level have a bid process that is written out.   there is a "sole supplier" clause that allows for timely filling of the contract when there is no company but one that is capable of doing the job in an emergency or even a timely manner.

The way it works is that either bids are taken or not.. companies are allowed to submit proposals and explanations on how they would do the job and a group of "experts" review the propossals and rate them.  If one is rated head and shoulders above the others or... the others do not meet the conditions, say, they can't really do the work in the time frame laid out.... then there is no "bid" process.

no real evil deal going on here... a commitee of people whos job would be affected went with the company they knew could get the job done and cause them the least amount of headaches.

lazs

[Curval]

Originally posted by Boroda
Everything usefull in Soviet occupation zone was bombed by "allied" air force. They still say they burned Dresden "by Soviet request"...

USSR didn't have strong strategic aviation.

To say "everything useful was bombed by allied air force" is nonesense.  That is a sweeping generalisation that you have absorbed by those who have told you that this was the case. It is simply quite wrong.

I don't know enough about the bombing of Dresden to comment on that issue, but it is a completely different issue than what we are talking about, please stick to the point.

[Boroda]

Originally posted by Curval
To say "everything useful was bombed by allied air force" is nonesense.  That is a sweeping generalisation that you have absorbed by those who have told you that this was the case. It is simply quite wrong.

I don't know enough about the bombing of Dresden to comment on that issue, but it is a completely different issue than what we are talking about, please stick to the point.

Sorry, I have to exaggerate so you can understand what I say

"Allies" eagerly bombed industrial objects that were clearly inside Soviet occupation zone, and it's a fact.

In Yalta gen. Antonov, Chief of General Staff, proposed allied air forces to bomb railway stations and hubs to make German troop movement from one front to another more difficult. Now this reasonable proposal is used to blame Russians for things like demolition of Dresden.

Harry Truman expressed the US politics in WWII in 1940. Sorry, it's your country's history

[mosgood]

Originally posted by Boroda
Sorry, I have to exaggerate so you can understand what I say

"Allies" eagerly bombed industrial objects that were clearly inside Soviet occupation zone, and it's a fact.

So what?  Taking a look with hindsight, seems to me it was a good idea.  Someone saw the conflict on the horizon and wanted to get a head start.  No that you've lost, your just a sore loser.

[Boroda]

Originally posted by mosgood
So what?  Taking a look with hindsight, seems to me it was a good idea.  Someone saw the conflict on the horizon and wanted to get a head start.  No that you've lost, your just a sore loser.

I love American way of thinking that war is nothing more then business.

Everything was not "on the horizon", it was planned from the very begining. Truman said it in 1940, as I mentioned above.

Unfortunately, the US of A was the only country that actually "won" WWII, and this "victory" have brought this provincial country that didn't have any history or culture to the superpower status. "Look, that foolish Russians lost 27 million people and didn't make any profit like we did!"...

I may be a loser, but you are nothing but a moral freak. Sorry for you.

You should thank Soviet government for not taking Reagan's stupid "joke" too seriously. At least we didn't elect mentaly disabled people for presidents. And re-elect them only a few months after they show such brilliant examples of "sence of humor".

Sorry everyone, I start to get off the rocker myself. Hard to speak with people who's moral principles are non-existant from my barbaric, uncivilized Asian-bolshevik-on-his-shaggy-mount point of view.

[Curval]

Originally posted by Boroda
Sorry, it's your country's history

No...no it isn't at all.

I am not American.

[Boroda]

Originally posted by Curval
No...no it isn't at all.

I am not American.

Do you think I can apologize so I'll not offend anyone?

[AKIron]

Originally posted by Boroda
Do you think I can apologize so I'll not offend anyone?

I don't think you've offended anyone here yet Boroda. You'll have to try harder.

[mosgood]

You're so full of it Boroda.

Claiming to have the moral high ground, doesnt magicaly make it so.  Example.. claiming that the USSR was only occupying soveriegn nations in Eastern Europe take hold the imperialist monsters at bay.

Let me ask you this.....

IF the USSR would have "WON" the cold war, do you think that it would have become some benign superpower and NOT have begun consuming every country it could, to feed it's socialist system?  Live and let live would have been the policies of the day eh?  (is this an admitance that the U.S. is doing the same?  I think that there's a good argument to say yes)

You keep talking about how you hate your own government, and then blame the U.S. for standing up to it OR even have policies for defeating it?  Laz makes a good point..... how many walls do you see keeping americans inside our country?  How many people given a choice, in your country would move to the U.S. in a heart beat?  The system of government that our country spent a lot of money and resources keeping at bay, had to build walls to keep a population from deserting.  Athletes, scholars, scientist, pilots.... your government had to hold it's own human resource base hostage.  But the U.S. was the aggressor?  I say good, thank GOD your government lost the cold war.

[Curval]

Originally posted by Boroda
Do you think I can apologize so I'll not offend anyone?

lol...tough to answer that one.  

[Boroda]

Originally posted by mosgood
You're so full of it Boroda.

Claiming to have the moral high ground, doesnt magicaly make it so.  Example.. claiming that the USSR was only occupying soveriegn nations in Eastern Europe take hold the imperialist monsters at bay.

If you still believe in your government's peacefull intentions after discussing that "we begin bombing in five minutes" quote - I pity you. Your government was planning a nuclear attack on USSR since 1946. It's a fact.

Originally posted by mosgood

Let me ask you this.....

IF the USSR would have "WON" the cold war, do you think that it would have become some benign superpower and NOT have begun consuming every country it could, to feed it's socialist system?  Live and let live would have been the policies of the day eh?  (is this an admitance that the U.S. is doing the same?  I think that there's a good argument to say yes)

I already said that IMHO if USSR have "won" the cold war (that was impossible anyway), it couldn't be better then the current situation when US is the only superpower. It's a matter of balance. Power corrupts.

Originally posted by mosgood

You keep talking about how you hate your own government, and then blame the U.S. for standing up to it OR even have policies for defeating it?  Laz makes a good point..... how many walls do you see keeping americans inside our country?  How many people given a choice, in your country would move to the U.S. in a heart beat?  The system of government that our country spent a lot of money and resources keeping at bay, had to build walls to keep a population from deserting.  Athletes, scholars, scientist, pilots.... your government had to hold it's own human resource base hostage.  But the U.S. was the aggressor?  I say good, thank GOD your government lost the cold war.

The "walls" you talk about were useless. Don't you think that people who didn't want to live here could be forced to stay? Iw they were - then they didn't want to leave. Don't you know that in 70s-80s expulsion was a common punishment for dissidents?...

You obviously can't see the difference between Soviet government and the gang of crooks that are Russian government and Big Business now.

And no, I don't want to go back to Soviet times.