|
Iraq Rebuilding Contracts Awarded (to Haliburton - Cheney's former employer) (pg. 12)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Dodge. You've done a terrific job with ad hominem attacks. Before throwing another personal insult at your debator, try answering his questions. If you do not have enough time at the moment, please try to extend the courtesy and tell him you'll attend his inquiries when you do have time.
Otherwise, you're continuing to look like an . |
At least I'm not a sellout. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancer-X
If your argument is that we are in the Middle East for the right reasons then I honestly don't see how you could validate that with any measure of sincerity. If you think that we bombed Afghanistan because that would help put an end to the terrorism, then again I am at a loss for words because all we did was further ignite the hotbed of anti-US sentiments.
|
Not to jump in the middle of your debate to divert the conversation, but when you say this, you make me wonder what the alternative is. Should the U.S. then just sit back and take it in the chin and not stand up for herself? That's just plain .
Maybe it hasn't put an end to terrorism yet, but then again you sound like you expect instantaneous solutions for longer-term, more complicated problems. I'd say that the U.S. at least made a lot of terrorists think twice before pulling off another stunt. Sure it pissed a lot of them off--they suddenly have to work a lot harder and be more clandestine about their activities. Who's to say that if the U.S. had done nothing that there wouldn't have been 5 more 9/11 type attacks once terrorists realized that there would be no defenses? The hotbed of anti-US sentiment existed before 9/11, and of course it existed after 9/11. Who's to say that 9/11 didn't incite more hatred as it allowed the anti-US voice to grow louder once the fruits of some terrorists crazy plotting paid off?
The U.S. has chosen to deal with the problems of global terrorism instead of continuing to ignore them as we have basically done for the last 30+ years. Of course there are consequences either way. Think longer term. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancer-X
What is your argument? I'm still trying to figure that one out.
I've provided numerous references debunking so much of the propaganda that you so desperately seem to be clinging to. I've provided the real legwork here.
If your argument is that we are in the Middle East for the right reasons then I honestly don't see how you could validate that with any measure of sincerity. If you think that we bombed Afghanistan because that would help put an end to the terrorism, then again I am at a loss for words because all we did was further ignite the hotbed of anti-US sentiments.
I know that my forefathers, who all fought hard for our various freedoms when they were in either the Marines, RAF, Army Air Corps, CIA (yeah that's right), etc., would be damn perturbed by such reckless and vexatious foreign policy.
I'm sure that yours would be too. |
What propoganda are you referring to? What source have I posted has been factually incorrect?
My argument is that the US did not invade Afghanistan to set up this pipeline, but rather for geo-political motivations following the events September 11. Did I SAY that I agreed with the strategy and the outcome of the actions that Bush has accomplished? Not at all. Am I pissed with Bush's devotion towards achieving his agenda of regime change rather than actually focusing on combatting terrorism? YES.
If Bush had actually went into Afghanistan and followed through with the intent of ridding the region of Osama Bin Laden's terrorist base of operations and capturing Bin Laden then I MIGHT approve of his actions. However, in the broader context of his neo-con influenced foreign agenda he has essentially put Afghanistan on the back burner to carry out his political motivations of removing Saddam Hussein from power. Therefore I strongy disagree with his foreign policy up to date. The fact that I dislike the guy and disagree with him is not going to change my perceptions and understandings of why a foreign policy decision is carried out based upon teh facts that are presented. |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
now this hippy liberal's got your number |
Yeah, a hippie liberal wearing a suit and tie. Just because I'm not an ass-kisser you think you have a clue as to what I am.
I talk to people in the State Department, but no I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh.
I see you're already bent over and ready to take it like they want you to. |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
I'd say that the U.S. at least made a lot of terrorists think twice before pulling off another stunt.[quote]
That's why they're now recruiting faster than ever. The people you are speaking of have nothing else to give but their lives.
[quote]it allowed the anti-US voice to grow louder once the fruits of some terrorists crazy plotting paid off? |
Well, I'm a fervid PATRIOT. I LOVE AMERICA. Yet I am grinding my teeth when I look at the direction that our kakistocracy is leading us. The land of the free... on it's way to becoming the land of Martial Law.
| quote: | | The U.S. has chosen to deal with the problems of global terrorism instead of continuing to ignore them as we have basically done for the last 30+ years. Of course there are consequences either way. Think longer term. |
We didn't ignore it, and for a while we almost embraced it. You can thank the CIA and the Pakistani ISI for creating our monsters. The Saudi royal family is basically just another one of our creations, and I 've been told that developments will be soon coming to light on that one. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancer-X
That's why they're now recruiting faster than ever. The people you are speaking of have nothing else to give but their lives. |
Recruiting faster because now they're on the defensive and actually face a real threat of being eliminated. Read it how you want, I think it's actually a positive signal that we're making progress in this battle.
| quote: | | We didn't ignore it, and for a while we almost embraced it. You can thank the CIA and the Pakistani ISI for creating our monsters. The Saudi royal family is basically just another one of our creations, and I 've been told that developments will be soon coming to light on that one. |
We have been ignoring it. I have a great piece of writing at home that lays it out very clearly and concisely. I'd be happy to share it with you once I get home from work. A lot of our problems stem from the Carter administration--there's a guy who really deserved a Nobel Peace Prize!:rolleyes: |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancer-X
What is your argument? I'm still trying to figure that one out. |
Then you're being quite ignorant. In general, Occ's argument is we did not invade Afghanistan for a natural gas pipeline, and he backed his assertions up with good points and facts. Now in general, you also showed some descent points of your own, but those points primarily merit insinuation, not direct necessities for the pipeline theory. Occ also did a pretty descent job debunking many of your insinuations. Additionally, you still did not answer his original statement, which for the sake of brevity I'll allow you to scroll back and read, instead of me posting it here.
| quote: | | I've provided numerous references debunking so much of the propaganda that you so desperately seem to be clinging to. I've provided the real legwork here. |
I believe it is a matter of opinion as to whom is using propaganda to back their assertions here. One could easily say the same for some of your references (okay, I'll say it).
| quote: | If your argument is that we are in the Middle East for the right reasons then I honestly don't see how you could validate that with any measure of sincerity.[QUOTE]
He made no such argument, nor did he make such a conclusion, even by insuation. You're creating a straw man here. You have a propensity for this, and should be avoided in future debates.
[QUOTE]If you think that we bombed Afghanistan because that would help put an end to the terrorism, then again I am at a loss for words because all we did was further ignite the hotbed of anti-US sentiments. |
Straw man. See above. He argued with you simply to debunk the pipeline theory and our supposed U.S. interests in this pipeline. The motives for pipeline creation was never his argument.
But to beat the straw man out a little bit, invading Afghanistan for a pipeline which doesn't serve our country's interests (but conversely serves 4 other countries' interests) is a major stretch, IMO. Afghanistan was the hotbed for Al Queda operatives. Any president would have done the same (yes, I'm sure Clinton would). I believe your argument is misplaced here. If you were talking about the Iraqi invasion, then we'd be in agreeance. And actually, you'd be in agreeance with Occ as well. I also think more attention and pressure should have been put on Saudi Arabia, where 15 of the 19 hijackers presided. Not sure about invasion here, but at least some serious pressure. Saudi Arabia is still a hotbed for terrorism, as is Pakistan (which we should be pressuring as well).
| quote: | I know that my forefathers, who all fought hard for our various freedoms when they were in either the Marines, RAF, Army Air Corps, CIA (yeah that's right), etc., would be damn perturbed by such reckless and vexatious foreign policy.
I'm sure that yours would be too. |
No doubt, Bush is an idiot when it comes to foreign policy. His "my way or the highway" stance doesn't sit well with our allies, nor does it do him much good to fund a useless war (and perhaps winless), while our economy and domestic problems increase exponentially. I'm also not too crazy about his religious indoctrination upon the rest of the world, esp. 3rd world countries. And then you have his failed business dealings with every business he's touched in his past, and the fact that he's running this country just like one of these failed businesses. I'm also not too crazy about PNAC and the neocon policies he is simply passing on as his own foreign and domestic policies. So as far as I'm concerned, anyone would be a better president than Bush in '04.
Now don't get me wrong, Occ has some centrist beliefs that borderline conservatism, esp. when it comes to economics (why he defends Reaganomics still bugs the crap out of me), but based on our conversations in the past (as well as what he blatantly told you in this thread), he's very much against most of Bush's foreign policies. Do not commit the error of labeling Occ as a conservative, because he is not. I know it's may be easy to do so: we liberals tend to label anyone who disagrees with our views as old conservatives (hence my sarcasm at him earlier). But it simply is not true.
But that's not what you were arguing here with Occ, was it?
| quote: | | At least I'm not a sellout. |
A sellout to what? Occ's views? Well, not all of them. To Conservatism? Riiiiiight! Occ simply presented a good argument, and you unfortunately reverted to name calling and character assassination. You need to stick around a little more here in order to correctly judge someone's views, because you're pretty far off so far. |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
I think it's actually a positive signal that we're making progress in this battle. |
A battle that could escalate into the next world war.
We're further draining our economy, which was already faltering BEFORE it was beginnning to be spread so thin. We have enough problems on the home-front, we don't need to be meddling with the rest of the world. Oh yeah, I forgot that we're going to need some more fossil-fuels soon.
Intervening in foreign affairs has always worked such wonders for us, hasn't it? |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancer-X
Yeah, a hippie liberal wearing a suit and tie. Just because I'm not an ass-kisser you think you have a clue as to what I am.
I talk to people in the State Department, but no I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh.
I see you're already bent over and ready to take it like they want you to. |
Ouch! Talk about a lack of sense of humor! My little diatribe was pure sarcasm to Occ. A little thicker skin would suit you. Besides, I'm already bent over enough with my current life situation. Care to be kind enough to give me a reach around? I promise not to tell my wife......... |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Now don't get me wrong, Occ has some centrist beliefs that borderline conservatism, esp. when it comes to economics (why he defends Reaganomics still bugs the crap out of me), but based on our conversations in the past (as well as what he blatantly told you in this thread), he's very much against most of Bush's foreign policies. Do not commit the error of labeling Occ as a conservative, because he is not. I know it's may be easy to do so: we liberals tend to label anyone who disagrees with our views as old conservatives (hence my sarcasm at him earlier). But it simply is not true.
But that's not what you were arguing here with Occ, was it?
|
You forget, I'm dick cheney ... I am UBER-CONSERVATIVE :p . But no, I've stated from the get go that I tend to slant towards republicanism/libertarian when it comes to economics, but I'm pretty damned liberal when it comes to social issues (except for teen nudie camps ... you'll never swing my vote with that one Eugene ;)).
Oh and by the by, except for Bush's tax cuts, his economic policies have NOT been following the path of true republican economics. He is cutting taxes AND increasing spending outside of a recessionary economy. A big no no in my opinion and something that should be done ONLY in extreme circumstances. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancer-X
A battle that could escalate into the next world war. |
Could lead to? My friend, this IS the next world war. We are already fighting it. It's World War IV. The Cold War was WWIII.
| quote: | | We're further draining our economy, which was already faltering BEFORE it was beginnning to be spread so thin. We have enough problems on the home-front, we don't need to be meddling with the rest of the world. Oh yeah, I forgot that we're going to need some more fossil-fuels soon. |
The economy is certainly doing better now than it was a year ago. Our faltering economy is not a result of the war on terrorism, it's mostly fallout from the bubble years of prosperity that created so much overcapacity and extreme valuation. If anything, the war on terror has brought out more spending on defense which is stimulative to the economy (though, yes it does crowd out some private investment in the long-run).
| quote: | | Intervening in foreign affairs has always worked such wonders for us, hasn't it? |
This is a blanket statement that cannot possibly be justified in the case of all foreign policy--there are plenty of instances in history when intervening in foreign affairs has proven effective and beneficial--not only for the U.S. but for the global community as well. Every single World War for that matter, has ended more positively due to U.S. involvement. I hope that the current war of the world has similar results. |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
invading Afghanistan for a pipeline which doesn't serve our country's interests (but conversely serves 4 other countries' interests) is a major stretch, IMO. |
It's a major stretch to think that we haven't been trying to make our way into Afghanistan for the last 5 years. Read the House Docs from 1998.
| quote: | Mr. BEREUTER. [presiding] The Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific will come to order. Before we begin today's hearing, the Chair would ask our witnesses' indulgence to take care of a small matter of Subcommittee business, H. Res. 350.
[Whereupon, at 2:13 p.m., the Subcommittee proceeded to other business.]
[Whereupon, at 2:26 p.m., the Subcommittee resumed this hearing.]
Mr. BEREUTER. I would like to proceed to the subject of the hearing for today, U.S. interests in the Central Asian Republics. I do have a statement. One hundred years ago, Central Asia was the arena for a great game played by Czarist Russia, Colonial Britain, Napoleon's France, and the Persian and the Ottoman Empires. Allegiances meant little during this struggle for empire building, where no single empire could gain the upper hand. One hundred years later, the collapse of the Soviet Union has unleashed a new great game, where the interests of the East India Trading Company have been replaced by those of Unocal and Total, and many other organizations and firms.
Today the Subcommittee examines the interests of a new contestant in this new great game, the United States. The five countries which make up Central Asia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan, attained their independence in 1991, and have once again captured worldwide attention due to the phenomenal reserves of oil and natural gas located in the region. In their desire for political stability as well as economic independence and prosperity, these nations are anxious to establish relations with the United States. In response, last November, Secretary of Energy Frederico Pena led a Presidential mission to the Caspian-Central Asian region for discussions. The area's energy resources were also discussed during November visits to Washington of Kazakhstani President Nazarbayev and Uzbek Prime Minister Sultanov.
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan possess large reserves of oil and natural gas, both on-shore and off-shore in the Caspian Sea, which they urgently seek to exploit. Uzbekistan has oil and gas reserves that may permit it to be self-sufficient in energy and gain revenue through exports. Estimates of Central Asian oil reserves vary widely, but are usually said to rival those of the North Sea or Alaska. More accurate estimates of oil and gas resources await wider exploration and the drilling of test wells.
Stated U.S. policy goals regarding energy resources in this region include fostering the independence of the States and their ties to the West; breaking Russia's monopoly over oil and gas transport routes; promoting Western energy security through diversified suppliers; encouraging the construction of east-west pipelines that do not transit Iran; and denying Iran dangerous leverage over the Central Asian economies.
In addition, as has been noted by Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott, the United States seeks to discourage any one country from gaining control over the region, but rather urges all responsible States to cooperate in the exploitation of regional oil and other resources.
Central Asia would seem to offer significant new investment opportunities for a broad range of American companies which, in turn, will serve as a valuable stimulus to the economic development of the region. Japan, Turkey, Iran, Western Europe, and China are all pursuing economic development opportunities and challenging Russian dominance in the region. It is essential that U.S. policymakers understand the stakes involved in Central Asia as we seek to craft a policy that serves the interests of the United States and U.S. business. |
Sorry for the poor cut and paste but I'm in a hurry.
| quote: | | ]Originally posted by MisterOpus1 So as far as I'm concerned, anyone would be a better president than Bush in '04. |
My grandmother would make a better president than Bush as far as I'm concerned.
| quote: | | Now don't get me wrong, Occ has some centrist beliefs that borderline conservatism, esp. when it comes to economics (why he defends Reaganomics still bugs the crap out of me), but based on our conversations in the past (as well as what he blatantly told you in this thread), he's very much against most of Bush's foreign policies. Do not commit the error of labeling Occ as a conservative, because he is not. I know it's may be easy to do so: we liberals tend to label anyone who disagrees with our views as old conservatives (hence my sarcasm at him earlier). But it simply is not true. |
That's all you had to say, "Reaganomics!" ROFLMFAO!!!!
| quote: | | But that's not what you were arguing here with Occ, was it? |
No, but I am definitely beginning to understand why he's so ignorant about the whole thing.
| quote: | | A sellout to what? Occ's views? Well, not all of them. To Conservatism? Riiiiiight! Occ simply presented a good argument, and you unfortunately reverted to name calling and character assassination. You need to stick around a little more here in order to correctly judge someone's views, because you're pretty far off so far. |
To the establishment. To the beliefs of every other corporate, mass media-educated person in this country. It's the reason why we are in this position in the first place. I endured this same dispraise when I was telling everyone about how crooked and shady Bush was when he initially ran for President. Noone seemed to listen then because they said that it just couldn't be true. |
|
|
|
|
