Author Topic: Is there a light at the end of the tunnel?  (Read 4727 times)

Offline mosgood

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1548
Is there a light at the end of the tunnel?
« Reply #90 on: June 10, 2004, 12:45:07 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Boroda
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.

 


I never said we had peaceful intentions.  Kinda dumb to build a bunch of nuclear bombs and then say we have no intentions of using them.  If RR scared the crap out of you with that statement, than good for him.  If he made you think that he was mad and gave your government an additional "moment of pause" that he was prepared to NOT have peaceful intentions, if needed.  Than good for him.  That joke was brilliance. (unlike my spelling)

Offline Gunslinger

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10084
Is there a light at the end of the tunnel?
« Reply #91 on: June 10, 2004, 12:55:34 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by 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


Rav I completly agree w/ you except when it is in fact the BEST rescource available.  If a senior polotician had shares in a body armor company (and you know they are poring millions of dollars into them) and our troops needed them would it be prudent to say we can not select the best manufacturer cause of a conflict of interest.

Now I have to admit ignorance here, I do not for sure know if cheny still has mass amounts of shares in haliburton but I still think the best company should be selected to do the job.  Forcing him to sell his shares is another story.

Offline Boroda

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5755
Is there a light at the end of the tunnel?
« Reply #92 on: June 10, 2004, 01:03:59 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by mosgood
I never said we had peaceful intentions.  Kinda dumb to build a bunch of nuclear bombs and then say we have no intentions of using them.  If RR scared the crap out of you with that statement, than good for him.  If he made you think that he was mad and gave your government an additional "moment of pause" that he was prepared to NOT have peaceful intentions, if needed.  Than good for him.  That joke was brilliance. (unlike my spelling)


Don't you understand that such a joke was supposed to scare the crap out of Americans?...

:rolleyes:

Looks like our logics, ethics and common sence are situated in different planes :(

What I really fail to understand is "Kinda dumb to build a bunch of nuclear bombs and then say we have no intentions of using them.". If your leaders really thought it is smart to use nuclear weapons so the money spent on building them will not be lost - they must be isolated from society. Any thought of using nuclear weapons for real is insane.

Offline capt. apathy

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4240
      • http://www.moviewavs.com/cgi-bin/moviewavs.cgi?Bandits=danger.wav
Is there a light at the end of the tunnel?
« Reply #93 on: June 10, 2004, 02:04:26 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Rav I completly agree w/ you except when it is in fact the BEST rescource available.  If a senior polotician had shares in a body armor company (and you know they are poring millions of dollars into them) and our troops needed them would it be prudent to say we can not select the best manufacturer cause of a conflict of interest.

Now I have to admit ignorance here, I do not for sure know if cheny still has mass amounts of shares in haliburton but I still think the best company should be selected to do the job.  Forcing him to sell his shares is another story.


but the point you're missing here is even if they where the best contractor to do the job.  and even if they bid completely fairly.  he owns a a substantial piece of and upto 2002 was CEO of a company that makes huge profits if our country goes to war.

the conflict of interest can manifest itself on more than one level.  first there is giving his company an edge in what should be fair compitition,  another way this conflict can manifested itself is that we find ourselves in a war that seems to only be in the best interest of companies who make money off of war.

Offline mosgood

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1548
Is there a light at the end of the tunnel?
« Reply #94 on: June 10, 2004, 02:52:05 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Boroda
Don't you understand that such a joke was supposed to scare the crap out of Americans?...  


No... i don't understand that.  I understand that it was a joke.  And if it was intended to scare anyone... it would have been the USSR.  RR was NOT serious about that.... of course.  Hell, a lot of americans found it funny... and a lot of Russians didn't.  Sounds well played because it DID scare the crap out of you.  Just like our nuclear weapons were made to do.  Get it?????


Quote
Originally posted by Boroda
What I really fail to understand is "Kinda dumb to build a bunch of nuclear bombs and then say we have no intentions of using them.". If your leaders really thought it is smart to use nuclear weapons so the money spent on building them will not be lost - they must be isolated from society. Any thought of using nuclear weapons for real is insane.


The weapons were built for deterance.  Same as for your side.  That deterance would have evaporated IF the USSR was positive the U.S. would never, under any circumstances, use them.  Personaly, I think that both sides are capable of using them. (us of course... we did) But it's all about creating "fear" in the other guy that the other side was capable of blowing them away.  The USSR government WAS feared and thought of as MAD in the U.S.  and most people DID believe that they were evil.  This played in the USSR's favor as well for deterance.


Saber rattling

Offline MJHerman

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 261
Is there a light at the end of the tunnel?
« Reply #95 on: June 10, 2004, 03:41:56 PM »
Quote
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?


If it wasn't for those 27 million Russian lives (whether communist or not) we'd all be speaking German right about now.

Offline Toad

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18415
Is there a light at the end of the tunnel?
« Reply #96 on: June 10, 2004, 03:44:16 PM »
Maybe. Maybe not.

Given the fact they couldn't get across the Channel when only a greatly weakened Britain opposed them, I'm thinking "not".
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!

Offline mosgood

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1548
Is there a light at the end of the tunnel?
« Reply #97 on: June 10, 2004, 03:47:08 PM »
That's a good point!  And what I said might be construed as disrespectful to them.  That was NOT indended.  I was refering to the USSR's poor choice of freinds that caught them off guard.

Offline MJHerman

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 261
Is there a light at the end of the tunnel?
« Reply #98 on: June 10, 2004, 03:48:36 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by mosgood
That's a good point!  And what I said might be construed as disrespectful to them.  That was NOT indended.  I was refering to the USSR's poor choice of freinds that caught them off guard.


Understood

:aok

Offline Gunslinger

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10084
Is there a light at the end of the tunnel?
« Reply #99 on: June 10, 2004, 06:02:08 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by capt. apathy
but the point you're missing here is even if they where the best contractor to do the job.  and even if they bid completely fairly.  he owns a a substantial piece of and upto 2002 was CEO of a company that makes huge profits if our country goes to war.

the conflict of interest can manifest itself on more than one level.  first there is giving his company an edge in what should be fair compitition,  another way this conflict can manifested itself is that we find ourselves in a war that seems to only be in the best interest of companies who make money off of war.


So does the VP still own a good share of haliburton?

If so you'd rather our troops have substandard service/equipment wich may endanger them than have a "potential" conflict of interest?

Offline ravells

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1982
Is there a light at the end of the tunnel?
« Reply #100 on: June 10, 2004, 07:22:24 PM »
No, Gunslinger.

If there IS a conflict then the person who has shares and is on the board ought to resign. It still means that the troops get good kit and it means that person who was on the board gets some credibility.

Ravs

Offline Gunslinger

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10084
Is there a light at the end of the tunnel?
« Reply #101 on: June 10, 2004, 07:54:35 PM »
OMG SCANDLE SCANDLE SCANDLE!


First the competition issue. Last year, as administration officials made plans for war in Iraq, they were greatly concerned that Saddam Hussein would set fire to his country's oil fields, just as retreating Iraqi troops had done in Kuwait at the end of the first Gulf War. That, military planners knew, would result in a huge economic and environmental disaster. "The model we were looking at was what the Iraqis had done in Kuwait at the end of the Gulf War," says Lt. Col. Eugene Pawlik, a spokesman for the Army Corps of Engineers. "We had to consider the possibility that the Iraqis would set that many or more wells on fire in Iraq and what it would take for us to throw a maximum response at a maximum destruction scenario."

Last November, the Corps assigned Kellogg Brown & Root (KBR), which has been a wholly owned subsidiary of Halliburton since the 1960s, to do a classified study of potential damage and repairs in the Iraqi oil fields. Contrary to Waxman's assertion, the work was done under a competitively awarded contract system known as the U.S. Army Logistics Civil Augmentation Program, or LOGCAP. The LOGCAP system came about because of the military's need to perform complex jobs — peacekeeping in Bosnia, intervention in Haiti — on sometimes very short notice. In such situations, American troops require lots of logistical support; camps have to be built, utilities have to be supplied, food has to be cooked. By the early 1990s, as the size of the active-duty force shrank, the Pentagon began to "outsource" much of that work, that is, pay civilian contractors to do it rather than tie up soldiers with non-essential tasks. Instead of going through a months-long competitive-bidding process for each job, the military came up with LOGCAP.

LOGCAP is, in effect, a multi-year supercontract. In it, the Army makes a deal with a single contractor, in this case Halliburton, to perform a wide range of unspecified services during emergency situations in the future. The last competition for LOGCAP came in 2001, when Halliburton won the contract over several other bidders. Thus, when the oil-field study was needed, Corps officials say, Halliburton was the natural place to turn. "To invite other contractors to compete to perform a highly classified requirement that Kellogg Brown & Root was already under a competitively awarded contract to perform would have been a wasteful duplication of effort," Corps commander Lt. Gen. Robert Flowers wrote to Waxman in April.

In February 2003, with the study done, the Corps of Engineers decided to issue a contract to actually execute the plan that KBR had drawn up for dealing with problems in the Iraqi oil fields. At the end of that month, Army headquarters authorized the Corps to issue a sole-source contract to KBR. (The assignment seemed logical for another reason: Halliburton/KBR put out 350 oil-well fires in Kuwait after the first Gulf War.) "Only KBR, the contractor that developed the complex, classified contingency plans, could commence implementing them on extremely short notice," Flowers wrote Waxman. "The timing was driven by Central Command's operational requirement to have support available in advance of possibly imminent hostilities." Flowers added that the contract was always intended as a temporary "bridge" to a more permanent contract that would be offered for competitive bidding.

In 1997, when LOGCAP was again put up for bid, Halliburton/Brown & Root lost the competition to another contractor, Dyncorp. But the Clinton Defense Department, rather than switch from Halliburton to Dyncorp, elected to award a separate, sole-source contract to Halliburton/Brown & Root to continue its work in the Balkans. According to a later GAO study, the Army made the choice because 1) Brown & Root had already acquired extensive knowledge of how to work in the area; 2) the company "had demonstrated the ability to support the operation"; and 3) changing contractors would have been costly. The Army's sole-source Bosnia contract with Brown & Root lasted until 1999. At that time, the Clinton Defense Department conducted full-scale competitive bidding for a new contract. The winner was . . . Halliburton/Brown & Root. The company continued its work in Bosnia uninterrupted.

That work received favorable notices throughout the Clinton administration. For example, Vice President Al Gore's National Performance Review mentioned Halliburton's performance in its Report on Reinventing the Department of Defense, issued in September 1996. In a section titled "Outsourcing of Logistics Allows Combat Troops to Stick to Basics," Gore's reinventing-government team favorably mentioned LOGCAP, the cost-plus-award system, and Brown & Root, which the report said provided "basic life support services — food, water, sanitation, shelter, and laundry; and the full realm of logistics services — transportation, electrical, hazardous materials collection and disposal, fuel delivery, airfield and seaport operations, and road maintenance."

In 2001, after the Bush administration came into office, the giant LOGCAP contract expired again and another competition was held. Once again, Halliburton won the contract, and it was under that arrangement that the Iraqi-oilfield analysis was done. As the record shows, Halliburton won big government contracts under the Clinton administration, and it won big government contracts under the Bush administration. The only difference between the two is that Henry Waxman is making allegations of favoritism in the Bush administration, while he appeared untroubled by the issue during the Clinton years.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2004, 07:58:09 PM by Gunslinger »

Offline Nash

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11705
      • http://sbm.boomzoom.org/
Is there a light at the end of the tunnel?
« Reply #102 on: June 10, 2004, 08:08:06 PM »
Wow - you wrote that yourself Gunslinger? You've got a real gift!

Offline Gunslinger

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10084
Is there a light at the end of the tunnel?
« Reply #103 on: June 10, 2004, 08:08:50 PM »
nope its a compliation of research from alot of different sources Nash ;)

Offline Nash

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11705
      • http://sbm.boomzoom.org/
Is there a light at the end of the tunnel?
« Reply #104 on: June 10, 2004, 08:17:43 PM »
Actually it's just a rearanged version of a single National Review article.

But I guess that makes you the author somehow.